Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Survey finds most Americans favor ranked-choice voting

Rally for ranked-choice voting

People join a ranked-choice voting rally in Somerville, Mass., in November 2020.

Suzanne Kreiter/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

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.

Made with Flourish

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.

Read the full report.


Read More

Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism
Monopoly's mr. monopoly in a graffiti collage
Photo by Artur Ament on Unsplash

Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism

The signs are everywhere. For many Americans, buying power has improved only modestly despite decades of economic growth. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. We have reached a level of wealth inequality last seen almost a hundred years ago. By many measures, our capitalist economy seems to have failed to deliver broadly shared prosperity.

However, the failure isn’t with the free market as an economic approach. Instead, it’s our failure to regulate and moderate the free market, or more accurately, that we have spent 40 years undermining or removing the regulations of the New Deal that made our economy work for more Americans.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman putting savings in a white piggy bank.

America’s economy now rewards asset ownership over wages. A policy proposal: a $35,000 Birthright Account for every child, and how it could be funded.

Guido Mieth/Getty Images

The American Dream Needs a New Economic Operating System

It is, by now, not an exaggeration to state that the traditional American Dream—work hard, buy a house, raise a family, and retire securely—is failing. It was built for a labor-based economy in which steadily rising wages allowed ordinary families to accumulate wealth. But America has become an asset-based economy, and ownership of those assets is extraordinarily concentrated.

Since the 1980s, the returns from capital have far outpaced the returns from labor. Inflation-adjusted wages for ordinary workers have risen only modestly, while the real value of equities has multiplied many times over. Housing, education, healthcare and childcare costs have soared, employment has become less secure, and defined-benefit pensions have largely disappeared. Even two-income households with respectable jobs often struggle to buy a home, build savings and accumulate enough for retirement.

Keep ReadingShow less
Man wearing Trump hat watches Trump on TV

Trump’s 10-to-1 rule aims to cut red tape, but fewer regulations can mean weaker food safety, Head Start services, and checks on presidential power.

Wu Xiaoling/Xinhua via Getty Images

Trump’s 10-to-1 Rule Gives the Presidency Too Much Power

We only think about the plumbing in our homes when something goes wrong. The same is true for government bureaucracy. Rules, procedures, and bureaucrats operate largely out of sight, making sure food is safe, Social Security checks arrive, workplaces are safe, and children with disabilities receive the services promised to them by law. Yes, there is plenty of red tape in government, just as an old house can accumulate pipes that no longer serve much purpose. But ripping out pipes simply because there are too many of them is not much of a plumbing strategy. Yet the Trump administration has made the number of federal regulations it eliminates a measure of success. That raises a more important question: When does cutting bureaucracy stop making government more efficient and start making it less capable?

1. The Case for Cutting Red Tape

Keep ReadingShow less