Spoiler alert: It’s time for Ranked Choice Voting for presidential elections

The case for more states joining Alaska and Maine in using RCV to select their state's presidential winner - and what will enable it by 2028

[Editor’s note: The following piece is updated from Rob Richie’s recent commentary in the Fulcrum which appeared in more than 20 newspapers across the country.]

Imagine it’s election night 2024. As forecast by oddsmakers at ABC’s 538, a few close swing states will decide a tossup presidential election – and test the health of our democracy. In that scenario, we can be certain of two facts: Neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump will win a majority of the vote nationally, and votes for independent and third-party candidates will dwarf the final margin in the closest swing states.

Dissatisfied voters regularly peel off to insurgents like John Anderson in 1980, Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996, Ralph Nader in 2000, and Jill Stein and Gary Johnson in 2016. With Robert Kennedy regularly polling in double-digits and projected to appear on nearly every state ballot, and with independent Cornel West, Libertarian Party nominee Chase Oliver, and the eventuta Green Party nominee, there’s a whole shadow campaign emerging. Democrats are spending millions against these candidates, while Republicans are eying whether they can repeat the 2016 playbook — in which Trump flipped the decisive states of Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin even while winning an average vote share of less than 48 percent.

There’s a proven solution to the “spoiler” problem that is ready-made for American politics: ranked-choice voting. Australia has an average of more than five candidates in its RCV elections without any “spoiler” talk. Maine and Alaska already will use RCV for president this year, with a recent RCV poll in Maine suggesting Kennedy may do well and the statewide outcome could come down to which major party nominee can build a majority by appealing to his backers. If all states joined Alaska and Maine in passing RCV, there would be no worries that a third-party candidate could tip a state — and thus the White House — against popular will.

Instead of indicating a single choice, RCV voters get to rank the candidates first, second, and so on. If no one wins by securing more than half of first choices, the trailing finishers are eliminated and ballots for those candidates count for their next choice. The final “instant runoff” between the top two candidates ensures a representative outcome without the costs and burdens of a December runoff election.

Alaska voters adopted RCV for presidential elections in 2020 and Maine did so by legislative action in 2019. But why have 48 states not passed RCV — particularly the handful of swing states that will decide this November’s election? Why are the collective decisions of voters unwilling to settle on the “lesser of two evils” a bigger wildcard than Trump’s criminal trials and Biden’s age?

To be sure, change is happening. RCV has been a clue on Jeopardy and in the New York Times crossword. 50 American cities and hundreds of NGOs use RCV, with generally strong support for it in exit polls. RCV has won 27 consecutive city ballot measures, and four states (including those here and Colorado) are expected to vote directly this November on adopting RCV statewide, with other ballot measures to adopt RCV in cities like Washington, D.C. and in two states (Arizona and Montana) where wins create new reasons to enact RCV legislatively.

A few proven approaches will help scale RCV that much faster. Perfection is illusory, but we should never settle for less. Voters of all backgrounds easily rank things every day, and all jurisdictions should use well-designed ballots and tested voter education models to allow them to do that in RCV elections. RCV results should be as fast, transparent, and auditable as non-RCV ones. Election officials should stop holding onto RCV ballot data and instead release preliminary RCV results and datasets that can enable anyone to confirm the accuracy of their RCV tally. States should buy voting equipment that makes RCV as easy to use as flipping a switch.

These changes are coming. Many cities now release preliminary RCV tallies on election night and embrace best practices on transparency, audits, and timely data releases. Now that all modern voting equipment can run RCV elections (a real concern for cities looking to adopt RCV in the 1990s and 2000s), policymakers are aligning on standards to enable vendors to offer RCV as a default option. More jurisdictions are investing in good ballot design, intuitive results displays, and voter education.

Effectively ending the presidential spoiler problem by 2028 is within reach by focusing on the swing states that decide the White House. RCV is already on the ballot this November in Nevada, and active movements in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin can lead to change. The rest of the states can adopt RCV for presidential elections too, just as Oregon and Washington, DC voters can do at the ballot box this year, and RCV can be built into the National Popular Vote interstate compact if it is won by 2028.

With Americans fundamentally restless with their ballot choices, the spoiler problem can’t be wished away. It’s time to take RCV national to accommodate voter choices and reward our leaders for seeking to represent a majority of Americans.

Rob Richie @Rob_Richie

Richie is senior advisor, co-founder and former president and CEO of FairVote, a nonpartisan electoral reform organization.