The run-up to the recent election witnessed numerous impassioned activists advocating for a voting overhaul across the United States. Their mission was to change the traditional voting system—partisan primaries—relying on voters to favor ballots with various candidate options. Unfortunately, their ambitions were misplaced, as the proposals for state ballot initiatives aimed at election reform were met with overwhelming rejection by voters.
The states of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and South Dakota—displaying a mix of political preferences—overwhelmingly voted against implementing either ranked choice voting or open primaries, or in some cases, both. Open primary proposals intended to list all party candidates on a single ballot, promoting the highest scorers to the general election. With ranked choice voting, voters would have had the advantage of listing multiple preferred candidates in an ordered choice system.
Under this proposed system, if no one candidate secured the majority of first preference votes, the candidate with the fewest votes would get the boot. Their votes would then be reallocated to other voters’ next preferred candidates. Unsurprisingly, this convoluted approach didn’t resonate with the electorate, reiterating America’s love for straightforward election methods.
Entrenched armchair reformers, riding on high hopes, waged a massive campaign for these initiatives, raising approximately $110 million for statewide ballot measures. This campaign budget dwarfed those of their opponents, as traced using an Associated Press analysis of campaign finance figures. Yet, despite their financial dominance, they failed to secure most voters’ trust, displaying yet again that ordinary Americans aren’t easily swayed by simply throwing money at ideas and expecting them to stick.
Convinced their cause had unstoppable momentum, the advocates for these alternative election methods thought they were on track for nationwide acceptance. This belief was primarily spurred by the narrow approval of a fusion of open primaries and ranked choice voting system by Alaska voters in 2020 and the initial support for a similar measure in Nevada during the first round in 2022. However, Nevada voters soon saw through the pretense and made a U-turn.
Meanwhile, an attempted coup this year to repeal open primaries and ranked choice voting in Alaska barely failed, collecting a mere 49.9% support as per Wednesday’s results. Final voting outcomes are projected to be validated on November 30. The flawed ranked choice voting system has already found its way into Maine’s federal elections and roughly 50 counties or cities, including Washington, D.C., and Oak Park, Illinois. Furthermore, it was approved in Bloomington, Minnesota, emphasizing that left-leaning territories are more open to convoluted voting systems.
Evidence suggests that rank choice voting barely swerves traditional election outcomes, where the victor is often determined by plurality rather than the majority. It turns out that the complex ranking system was only necessary in about 30% of these cases because the winner received the bulk of initial votes.
Across the United States, only three candidates who didn’t primarily lead the first-place choice votes ended up securing victory after subsequent ranked vote calculations—one for the City Council of Portland and two for the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco. The winning duo in the latter comprised of two progressive candidates who teamed up, encouraging constituents to rank them as their top two preferences. They initially lagged behind a moderate contender who would’ve succeeded in a traditional vote.
However, after unending rounds of ranking, the voters’ ballots were redistributed, and one of them managed to clinch the victory, post his partner’s elimination. Supporters celebrated this as a triumph of the ranked choice voting system. Their cheer implies that it prevents candidates with like-mind from mutually losing due to a split vote. Despite their rosy perspective, it is evident that the system is designed to circumvent a straightforward majority win.
Unrelatedly, the state of Oregon rejected a proposal for a ranked-choice state and federal voting system on the same day Portland implemented it for the mayoral election and City Council votes. The political outsider Keith Wilson trumped a field of 19 candidates for the mayoral position, after 19 exhaustive rounds of ranked voting. But it’s worth mentioning that not all citizens elected to participate in this cumbersome voting method.
Approximately a fifth of Portland voters decided to give the council races a miss, and nearly one in seven voters left the mayoral ballot blank altogether. Critiques argue that the complexity and bafflement induced by ranked-choice voting deter some voters from participating entirely.
Academic studies have also questioned the supposed benefits of ranked choice voting. These include fewer black voters ranking candidates compared to white voters. Further doubt has been cast on whether this system reduces political polarization or the prevalence of negative campaigning.
Groups that fervently financed this year’s electoral reform protocols seem undeterred by their failure. However, they may be considering a strategy pivot. Debates are brewing on whether it would be more effective to attempt to eradicate partisan primaries and institute ranked choice voting separately—and whether it would be smarter to concentrate on more incremental changes at the state legislative level rather than aiming for high-stakes initiatives to amend state constitutions.
The premature launch of some of this year’s initiatives appears to be their downfall. Supporters pinned their hopes on advertisements to convince voters, without laying groundwork for broad grassroots support. Currently, they’re turning to voter surveys and focus group results to reevaluate their approach.