Over the fortnight leading up to Election Day, activists convened online, filled with optimism, over a record-breaking number of state ballot initiatives aiming to transform America’s archaic voting procedures. They were hopeful that voters would cast aside the dust-covered, partisan primary drill and move towards ballots providing a greater diversity of candidate options. Unfortunately, this aspiration for electoral reform, invest it did across the country, faced crushing defeats on state-wide ballots.
States like Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and South Dakota—a potpourri of the American political spectrum—rejected any form of electoral change. The proposal was a simple, democratic one: All parties’ candidates would appear on one ballot, alongside an option for ranked choice voting and open primaries. It seems that even such a fundamental adjustment was too radical for the voters in these states.
Open primary initiatives intended to consolidate candidates of all parties onto a single ballot. From this united list, a select number of top contenders would proceed to the general election race. As for ranked choice voting, it enables voters to rank candidates by preference, truly reflecting their sentiments. If no candidate achieves a majority of first-place votes, the lowest vote-getters are dropped off, and their votes are redirected according to people’s subsequent preferred choices.
With an impressive war chest of about $110 million tenaciously raised by advocates for these ballot measures, it’s clear that these reformists were not in want of financial support. However, their promotional efforts and fund gatherings were futile in convincing most voters to sign onto their cause. This outcome represents a substantial loss for potential progress in democratizing elections.
Proponents of alternative election methods pinned their hopes on Alaska. In the previous year, Alaskan voters narrowly voted in favor of an amalgamation of open primaries and ranked choice voting, suggesting an onset of a momentum shift. Voters in Nevada also indicated a possible trend, granting preliminary approval to a similar initiative just this year, until sadly, they backflipped their decision in the ballot box.
In a further drop of disheartening news, it appears that there was a slight miss in efforts to repeal open primaries and ranked choice voting in Alaska this year. On a brighter note, versions of ranked choice voting had already found a place in Maine’s federal elections and around fifty counties or cities across the nation, including places like Washington, D.C., along with Oak Park, Illinois, and Bloomington, Minnesota.
The evidence, however, points to some unfortunate realities regarding ranked choice voting. Studies have shown that the ranking method only swung the voting result in about 30% of cases, with the rest being settled with candidates scoring the majority of initial votes. Evidently, ranked choice voting doesn’t consistently offer alternate results compared to traditional voting systems.
Only a trifling number of cases across the country have seen an initially trailing candidate triumph following ranked vote tabulations. Notably, a race for a Portland City Council seat and two seats for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors witnessed this rare upset. The trumped-up success of regressive candidates in San Francisco relating to ranked choice voting seems hollow on closer examination, characterized by excessive complexity and entrenched polarization.
Supporters of ranked choice voting tout a victory in San Francisco, where two progressive candidates who would have ended up splitting their votes in a traditional election campaigned jointly, asking voters to rank them first and second respectively. After six rounds of vote tabulations, one progressive candidate emerged victorious when the other was eliminated, transferring their votes to the remaining candidate. This convoluted process hardly furnished a compelling argument for the system.
Ranked choice voting was put to the test for the first time in Portland, Oregon, this November for their city mayoral and City Council elections. Despite this local initiative, Oregon voters ironically rejected a statewide application of the same concept. Regardless of a political newcomer, Keith Wilson, winning the Mayoral election following 19 rounds of frustrating vote tabulations, the true issue of voter negligence cannot be ignored.
Portland voters, much like many other American citizens, found the new voting method perplexing. Approximately a fifth of voters bypassed the city council race, while another chunk left their mayoral ballot untouched. This clear sign of voter confusion and disinterest raises red flags about the effectiveness and acceptability of ranked choice voting.
Opponents of ranked-choice voting have rightly pointed out some crucial criticism. Scientific studies have identified potential biases, revealing that Black voters are often less likely to rank candidates compared to white voters. Further, there is scant evidence that ranked-choice voting reduces political polarization, a claim often floated by its advocates, or mitigates negative campaigning.
Despite encountering severe headwinds this year, the groups pouring funds into electoral reform initiatives are resilient in their mission. They’re contemplating the possibility of breaking apart their broader goals into separate tasks: eliminating partisan primaries and advocating for ranked choice voting. They’re also addressing the feasibility of focusing on incremental changes through state legislature rather than banking on high-stakes constitutional amendment initiatives.
There are voices within the supporters’ camp suggesting that some of this year’s drives might have been rushed, relying heavily on advertisement to persuade voters but failing to generate grassroots support. Moving forward, they plan to apply the insights from voter surveys and focus groups to reassess their strategy.
Looking at the larger picture, the electoral reform movement has seen minor victories, but they are far from winning the war. The embrace of ranked choice voting is sporadic at best and encountered significant resistance around the nation. The Democratic campaign for these changes, obviously failing to spell out the benefits to the everyday voter adequately, has been futile.
While electoral reform is an important issue, its advocates must re-evaluate their strategies and better communicate their objectives to the voting public. Above all, the attempts at changing the electoral system serve as a reminder of the citizens’ commitment towards enhancing America’s democratic process, even though the results may not satisfactorily validate their efforts so far.