In the weeks leading up to the recent election, a buzz of anticipation took over political circles as activists around the nation fervently championed state ballot initiatives aimed at overhauling the electoral system. High hopes were tethered to the idea that voters might abandon the archaic partisan primaries in favor of a system with an expanded pool of candidate choices. However, the tide of popular opinion went the other way, resulting in the epic downfall of the election reform movement across various statewide ballots.
The election reform movement strove to introduce progressive voting methodologies such as ranked choice voting and open primaries. They suffered defeats in a diverse range of states; namely Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and South Dakota. This diverse array of states, symbolizing a colourful spectrum of political inclination, collectively voted against the changes.
Open primary proposals were designed to feature candidates of all political parties on a singular ballot, with the leading vote-getters making it to the general election. In contrast, ranked choice voting intended to revolutionize the way we vote by allowing voters to rank multiple candidates according to their preference.
If in the first round of voting no candidate secures an outright majority, the candidate with the least votes is excluded. Their votes are then passed on to the voters’ second choice candidates. This process continues until one candidate gathers the majority of votes.
In the battle over the ballot changes, election reform advocates amassed an impressive campaign war chest. The group garnered about $110 million, far outstripping the financial resources of their opponents, as reported by an analysis of Associated Press campaign finance data. Despite their notable fundraising feat, their efforts were insufficient to win over the majority of voters.
Supporters of these alternative voting systems had mistakenly assumed they had momentum, inspired by Alaska’s narrow approval of a hybrid system of open primaries and ranked choice voting in 2020. Alaska’s green light gave them a misleading sense of victory, particularly when Nevada also initially approved of a similar measure in 2022.
However, like a renegade card player, Nevada unexpectedly double-backed this year, contributing to the sting of losses suffered by reform advocates. In Alaska too, an attempt to withdraw the recently sanctioned open primaries and ranked choice voting teetered on the verge of success, narrowly missing the mark with 49.9% support.
Meanwhile, despite a national rejection, a few select regions have embraced the ranked choice voting system. Maine, Washington D.C., along with approximately 50 counties or cities, use variations of the system for their federal elections. A glimmer of hope for advocates came in November when voters in the Chicago suburb of Oak Park, Illinois, and the Minneapolis suburb of Bloomington, Minnesota endorsed ranked choice voting.
Data reveals that the ranked choice system seldom yields different results as compared to typical elections where victory is secured by a candidate winning the most votes, not necessarily a majority. The ranking process is only necessary in approximately 30% of cases, as the majority of elections are won by candidates getting the majority of initial votes.
However, there have been isolated instances where ranked choice voting has overturned an election. Three candidates, initially trailing in first-place votes, ended up securing victory after ranked vote tabulations. Intriguingly enough, two progressive candidates in San Francisco who jointly campaigned, asking voters to rank them as their top choices, managed to outlast a moderate candidate, who would have clinched an outright win in a traditional voting system.
Supporters of ranked choice voting considered this a triumph as it negated the risk of like-minded candidates dividing the vote and both losing out. Yet, detractors argue that a substantial number of people find the method confusing and as a result, abstain from ranked voting. Academic research also questions the efficacy of ranked choice voting, showing it has little to no effect on reducing political polarization or negative campaigning.
Noteworthy differences have also emerged in voter behavior with this system. It has been observed that fewer Black voters tend to rank candidates as compared to white voters. Moreover, substantial skepticism persists regarding the touted benefits of ranked-choice voting.
Despite the wave of rejections, groups that heavily financed this year’s election reform initiatives remain undeterred and are considering adopting a different strategy. They are pondering separating the efforts to end partisan primaries and those associated with introducing ranked choice voting. The focus might shift more towards small-scale changes at the state legislatures’ level rather than attempting high-risk strategies to amend state constitutions. Nonetheless, the backers of these reforms are analyzing voter surveys and focus group results to help craft a more effective approach based on grassroots support.