More than 60 percent of Americans favor using an alternative method of casting ballots known as ranked-choice voting for federal elections, according to polling data released Wednesday morning.
RCV, also known as an instant runoff election, has already been used statewide in Maine, for municipal elections in New York City and in more than 40 other jurisdictions. Alaska will use ranked-choice voting for the first-time this summer in a special election for a vacant seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.
While there is a partisan divide over RCV, with 73 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of independents in favor of its use, virtually half (49 percent) of Republicans also support ranked elections, according to the poll, which was conducted by the University of Maryland's Program for Public Consultation and Voice of the People.
When conducting the survey, pollsters described ranked-choice voting and then presented arguments for and against. After taking respondents’ temperature on each of the arguments, they asked a final approve/oppose question, and 61 percent said they approve of RCV for federal elections with more than two candidates.
“As people tend to know ranked-choice voting more, they seem to like it more,” said Steven Kull, director of the Program for Public Consultation. “Resistance is rooted in unfamiliarity. This is particularly shown among Republicans.”
The survey presented three arguments in favor of ranked-choice voting and three against. Republican respondents found each of the pro-RCV statements more convincing than the anti-RCV statements, but Democrats responded more positively.
“I think Republicans are more conservative and more wary of new innovations. And Democrats are more inclined to try different things. It’s not that Republicans are opposed,” said Kull. “I don't see any evidence of there being an underlying resistance in principle. More of a wait-and-see stance.”
People who are younger, wealthier or college-educated were more likely to support RCV.
In addition, men (62 percent) and women (60 percent) approve of RCV at similar rates while 55 percent of both Black and Hispanic respondents said they approve along with 62 percent of white people.
In an RCV election, voters may rank multiple candidates. If no one receives a majority of first-choice votes, the person with the fewest is eliminated and their support is redistributed to voters’ second choice. That process continues until someone has a majority of the vote.
Proponents claim a number of advantages can be derived from RCV:
- A candidate opposed by a majority of votes cannot win.
- Voters are free to support the candidate they like best, rather than voting strategically to avoid helping a disliked candidate win. (This is known as the “spoiler effect.”)
- Candidates may run more civil campaigns in an effort to secure high ballot positions from voters who may not be part of their main base of support.
- Women and minorities have often performed better in ranked elections.
Nevertheless, previous studies have found that Americans prefer plurality elections, in which the candidate with the most votes wins, even without a majority of ballots cast.
But Kull believes that education about options is leading to a change in opinion.
“Other polls that have described it very briefly have not found majority support,” Kull said. “As people get to know more, they become more comfortable with it. They hear other people use it, they become more comfortable.”
One of the pro-RCV arguments explained RCV has been used in many cities and states and voters in those places have not made more errors than people using a standard pularility ballot. That proved to be the most persuasive argument, with 73 percent of respondents saying they found it very or somewhat convincing.
An explanation that described how RCV can lead to more diverse results was nearly as powerful.
Less than half of respondents found any of the anti-RCV arguments (the system can be confusing, people who don’t know enough about all the candidates have less of a say, there’s no need to change a successful system) convincing.
“There’s a movement toward acceptance of it,” Kull said.
The survey was conducted July 13-Sept. 15, 2021 of 1,296 registered voters. It has a margin of error of 2.7 percent.
U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on August 14, 2026 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Trump is traveling to Long Island to tour law enforcement facilities in Nassau County and rally support for local Republican candidates ahead of the upcoming midterm elections
Travel Far Enough, You Meet Yourself
Is it possible that our President has simply not traveled enough?
Born and raised in Queens and attending Fordham University in the Bronx, Donald Trump has no record of traveling outside New York until he was over 20, when he transferred to a college in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. Were his formative years amiss, then, in his learning about other places and other people?
Is his view akin to the famous New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg, an illustration of the United States with New York City as the epicenter of the country and the Hudson River the border of the known world? We can now at least add Washington, D.C., and Mar-a-Lago to the map of “the realm.”
Our President has now traveled some, but what we recommend is another kind of travel. Not a state-sponsored trip or a venture to scout locations for future Trump Towers. This would be a genuine travel experience, enriching and eye-opening, showcasing other cultures and ways of living.
It will extend far beyond viewing military parades, hobnobbing with such “understanding” world leaders as Kim Jong Un, or taking tea with the King.
WHERE, then, should the President go? As Elon Musk’s Starship spacecraft is not yet ready to take passengers to Mars, perhaps he could explore our own vast country?
Maybe he could travel to “flyover country,” the farming states, where his ying-yanging tariffs and trade restrictions have played havoc with rural economies. Or possibly to California, number one in homeless U. S. citizens, and while there, regale homeless veterans (approximately 32,500 nationwide) with tales of his brave exploits invading and bombing foreign countries.
Or he might tour the Great Lakes, and rename the other four?
WHEN should he go? This will be tough, as he is very busy building his ballroom and renaming bodies of water.
How about a trip in early November, around the midterm elections? Despite the long-discredited accusation of widespread voter fraud, it would be reassuring to know he might be so caught up divvying out ladles of soup in a soup kitchen somewhere that he wouldn’t remember to deploy the military for “election security.”
HOW will he travel? He should definitely not take his Qatari-donated, newly renovated 747, especially after last time, when he had to be smuggled off clandestinely in a catering truck. It’s unlikely any traveling companions, like the Secretary of State or of the Treasury, are going to fall for the ruse a second time. Besides, we may need those people. No more decoys!
Perhaps the President could fly commercially, although this likely would expose him to undue suffering. Without gold bathroom fixtures and maple wood floors, the trip will be no “Luxury Experience.” If only he still had his “Trump Shuttle,” bought with a massive loan he later defaulted on, saying then, “I’m smart. I got out at a good time.”
Considering the potential pitfalls, maybe it’s best the President travel incognito, disguised perhaps as an elderly woman wearing a lot of bronzer.
Wherever, whenever, however: our President needs a vacation.
Moreover, we need a vacation from him.
If the President refuses our travel suggestions, here’s another idea:
Let’s get him a pet! He has never owned a pet. As we know with our children, pets teach essential life lessons: compassion and empathy; they instill a sense of responsibility. There is a well-established connection between those who can care for a pet and those who can care for people.
So, which pet should we choose? A puppy? A kitten? A boa constrictor?
Imagine, the President may even decide he likes having a pet. After all, what is more obedient than a well-trained dog, besides possibly the Cabinet? And what is more docile than a sweet kitten, other than plausibly the Supreme Court?
The President may even become more mellow with a pet afoot and less likely to slap tariffs on our allies, or attempt to annex our neighbors, or bully our Congress. (Realizing, of course, a bully requires active participation from the bullied to maintain his status.)
Maybe we should do both: get the President a pet and devise a travel plan for him. (Do you think we could possibly convince him to leave his phone at home?)
Let’s go for it! After all:
Travel far enough, you meet yourself. (David Mitchell)
And for our President, that would likely be the most profound discovery of all.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."