The problem with ranked-choice voting

THOMAS BUCKLEY | CONTRIBUTOR

Ranked choice voting is the answer to a question only a bureaucrat would even think to ask.

To simplify, RCV is a voting method used most recently in the 2022 Alaskan congressional election which Sarah Palin notoriously lost -- that in theory blurps out a winner that is actually (really really trust us on this) the most representative of the wishes of the electorate.

This magic trick is accomplished by people voting for their first choice, second, etc. and then the numbers are added up and moved about and cut and pasted and then the registrar of voters announces a winner a few weeks after Election Day (here is a more technical description of the process from a D.C.-based group that supports the idea.)

The specifics of the process are not complicated but they are intensely obtuse, leading to one of the major criticisms of RCV: trust in election systems is the foundational bedrock of a democratic republic and if that system is turned into a complicated black box, then that trust is damaged, harming the nation as a whole.

But the overly complicated specifics of the system may, in fact, be the least of its problems.

In reviewing pro-RCV articles and editorials and papers, one thing becomes very clear: political insiders, especially of the “progressive” stripe, love it.

It is popular in that milieu in part because of its complexity -- it needs more government workers to count and explain than regular voting.

It’s also popular because it favors a certain type of candidate and a certain type of campaign, to whit “moderate” and “nice.”

In an RCV election, the candidate wants to get the largest number of votes while infuriating the least number of voters; in other words, campaigns become more personality driven, more milquetoast, more sound bitey, less aggressive, less issue-oriented (taking a definitive stance on a specific issue could alienate folks who might otherwise pick you as their second vote, etc.)

In head-to-head elections, none of those concerns apply, allowing (admittedly this is currently theoretical) voters to see a far more complete picture