A ranked-choice voting system (RCV) is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. There are multiple forms of ranked-choice voting. This page focuses on the most commonly used form of RCV, sometimes called instant-runoff voting (IRV), and provides some supplemental information on other forms of this electoral system.
In instant-runoff voting, if a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. Ballots that ranked a failed candidate as their first, or highest choice, depending on the round, are then reevaluated and counted as first-preference ballots for the next-highest-ranked candidate in that round. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority of ballots. The process is repeated until a candidate wins an outright majority. Elements of this process, such as the number of candidates eliminated in each round, may vary by jurisdiction.[1][2][3]
Note: There are a number of terms related to and sometimes used synonymously with ranked-choice voting that describe specific forms of ranked voting electoral systems. See below for more information on related terms.
This section lists the general steps involved in ranked-choice voting (RCV) and provides detailed examples of its application.
This section lists the terms and phrases that are commonly associated with ranked-choice voting.
This section provides details on the current usage of ranked-choice voting systems in the United States. It also lists the states that have prohibited ranked-choice voting.
This section provides a history of the use of ranked-choice voting in the United States and lists the localities that no longer use RCV after implementing it in local elections.
This section details the arguments in favor of and opposed to ranked-choice voting.
This section lists state legislation dealing with ranked-choice voting.
This section lists statewide and local ballot measures dealing with ranked-choice voting and other electoral system changes.
How RCV works
How ranked-choice voting works
Broadly speaking, the ranked-choice voting process unfolds as follows for single-winner elections:
- Voters rank the candidates for a given office by preference on their ballots.
- If a candidate wins an outright majority of first-preference votes (i.e., 50 percent plus one), he or she will be declared the winner.
- If, on the other hand, no candidates win an outright majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated.
- All first-preference votes for the failed candidate are eliminated, and second-preference choices on these ballots are then counted as first-preference.
- A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won an outright majority of the ballots.
- The process is repeated until a candidate wins a majority of votes cast.
Example #1
Assume that there are six candidates for mayor in a hypothetical city. The table below presents the raw first-preference vote totals for each candidate (Round 1).
No candidate won an outright majority of first-preference votes. As a result, the candidate (Candidate F) with the smallest number of first-preference votes is eliminated. Any ballot that ranked Candidate F as first-preference is then re-counted, and second-preference choices on those ballots are counted as first-preference in the subsequent round of tallying.
Assume that, of the 1,399 first-preference votes for Candidate F, 393 listed Candidate A as their second preference, 489 listed Candidate B, and so on. Of these first-preference votes for Candidate F, 297 did not list a second preference. On the second tally, no candidate secured a simple majority of votes. The rounds continue until a candidate has received a majority. In Round 6, Candidate B received a simple majority of the remaining votes.
| RCV election results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Round 2 | Round 3 | Round 4 | Round 5 | Round 6 | |||||||||
| Votes | % | Votes | % | +/- | Votes | % | +/- | Votes | % | +/- | Votes | % | +/- | |
| Candidate A | 8,423 | 31.3% | 8,816 | 33.1% | ▲1.8% | 9,423 | 35.9% | ▲2.7% | 10,294 | 39.8% | ▲3.9% | 12,311 | 48.7% | ▲8.9% |
| Candidate B | 6,162 | 22.9% | 6,651 | 25.0% | ▲2.1% | 8,449 | 32.2% | ▲7.2% | 10,253 | 39.6% | ▲7.5% | 12,984 | 51.3%% | ▲11.7% |
| Candidate C | 4,655 | 17.3% | 4,705 | 17.7% | ▲0.4% | 4,802 | 18.3% | ▲0.6% | 5,321 | 20.6% | ▲2.3% | Eliminated | ||
| Candidate D | 3,418 | 12.7% | 3,525 | 13.2% | ▲0.5% | 3,593 | 13.7% | ▲0.4% | Eliminated | |||||
| Candidate E | 2,852 | 10.6% | 2,916 | 11.0% | ▲0.4% | Eliminated | ||||||||
| Candidate F | 1,399 | 5.2% | Eliminated | |||||||||||
| Inactive | 0 ballots | 297 ballots | 643 ballots | 1,042 ballots | 1,615 ballots | |||||||||
Note: The above is a simplified example used for illustrative purposes. Specific procedures vary by jurisdiction and according to the nature of the election (i.e., whether it is a single-winner or multi-winner contest).
Example #2
The following example from RCVis shows the actual results of an election using ranked-choice voting. For more details on this election, visit our page on the United States House of Representatives special election in Alaska, 2022.[4]
Example #3
The following interactive example allows you to simulate using ranked-choice voting in order to select your favorite dessert.
Related terms
This section defines the key terms and phrases commonly associated with ranked-choice voting.
- Approval voting: The term approval voting refers to a type of electoral system that is distinct from ranked-choice voting. In approval voting, a voter may choose to vote for any number of candidates in a race. The candidate receiving the most votes wins. As of June 2024, this type of voting was used in two U.S. localities: Fargo, North Dakota, and St. Louis, Missouri.
- Ballot exhaustion: The term ballot exhaustion is used to describe situations in which a ballot is no longer countable because all of the candidates marked on the ballot are no longer in the contest. This can occur in some forms of ranked-choice voting. In cases where a voter has ranked only candidates that did not make it to the final round of counting, the voter's ballot is said to have been exhausted.[5][6][7]
- Condorcet voting: The term condorcet voting or round robin voting refers to a variation of ranked-choice voting that identifies the candidate voters would prefer most in a hypothetical series of head-to-head contests. As Atkinson, Foley, and Ganz wrote in the University of Illinois Law Review,[5]
Condorcet’s method was to see if any candidate was ranked higher on more ballots than each other candidate, when considering each pair of candidates one-on-one (as in a round-robin sports tournament); because this candidate, when one exists, is preferred by a majority of voters to every other candidate on ballot, Condorcet considered that this most- majority-preferred candidate necessarily the top one.
- Instant-runoff voting: The term instant-runoff voting is generally used as a synonym for ranked-choice voting. However, as Nathan Atkinson, Edward B. Foley, and Scott Ganz wrote in the University of Illinois Law Review, the term instant-runoff voting can be used more precisely to describe only the ranked-choice voting processes used in single-winner elections:[5]
The mathematical formula used in Alaska, and most everywhere else in the United States that employs ranked-choice ballots, is a sequential elimination procedure most accurately labeled Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), because it is designed to emulate a traditional runoff election, where voters express their preference between two finalists after other candidates have been eliminated. But rather than having voters cast a second ballot, IRV conducts the runoff instantly based on the information contained on the ranked-choice ballots. IRV operates by eliminating the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes on all the ranked-ballots and then redistributes the ballots which ranked the eliminated candidate first to whichever other candidate is ranked second. IRV repeats this sequential elimination procedure until one candidate has a majority of post-redistribution ballots.
Multi-winner elections
- Proportional representation: The term proportional representation refers to a multi-member electoral system in which the number of seats that a party wins is proportional to the level of support that party receives amongst the electorate. Proportional representation elections may use ranked-choice voting. In proportional representation ranked voting, a threshold is established based upon the number of seats up for election. Once a candidate reaches that threshold in ranked voting rounds, subsequent ballots that rank that candidate first will have their second place (or next highest ranked and still eligible) choice counted. This process continues until the number of candidates that have reached the threshold equals the number of seats up for election.[8]Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; invalid names, e.g. too many
- Single-transferable voting: The term single-transferable voting is also used synonymously with proportional ranked-choice voting. Single-transferable voting is used to refer to ranked-choice voting processes used in multi-winner elections in which a vote threshold for a candidate's election is established based on the number of vacant seats up for election.[9][1][2]
Where is RCV used
| RCV trends: As of November 7, 2024, six states have banned RCV in 2024, bringing the number of states with bans to 11. |
|---|
| Six states have banned RCV so far in 2024, bringing the total number of states banning RCV up to 11. In Kentucky, the Kentucky General Assembly successfully overrode Gov. Andy Beshear's (D) veto on April 12 to adopt HB44. In Oklahoma, Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) signed HB3156 on April 29. Alabama Governor Kay Ivey (R) signed SB 1886 into law on May 10, 2024. Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves (R) signed SB 2144 into law on May 13, 2024. Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed SB 101 into law on May 28, 2024. On November 5, Missouri voters approved Amendment 7 that prohibited ranked-choice voting, among other changes to the state's election laws.
|
| Read more here. |
As of November 2024, ranked-choice voting is used in some states and localities across the United States. See the map, tables, and list below for further details. The numbers below do not include states where RCV is used by a political party for partisan primaries, or where military/UOCAVA voters use ranked ballots for runoff elections. For more information on these uses of RCV, see the table beneath the map below.
If you know of any additional U.S. localities using RCV that should be included here, please email [email protected].[10]
- RCV used statewide: Three states use RCV statewide. Alaska and Maine use RCV in federal and statewide elections. Hawaii uses RCV in certain statewide elections.
- RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities: Fourteen states contain localities that either use or are scheduled to begin using RCV in municipal elections.
- RCV prohibited: Eleven states have adopted law prohibiting the use of RCV in any elections.
- No laws addressing RCV, not in use: Twenty-two states have no laws addressing RCV, and neither the state nor any localities in the state use it.[11]
The map below shows which states use ranked-choice voting statewide or in some localities as of November 2024. It also shows the states where RCV is either prohibited or not addressed in the law. It does not show states where RCV is used by a political party for partisan primaries, or where military/UOCAVA voters use ranked ballots for runoff elections. See the table beneath the map for details on these uses of RCV.
The table below summarizes the use of ranked-choice voting in the U.S. by state as of November 2024.
| Ranked-choice voting usage in U.S. states and localities | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| State | RCV use | Details | |
| Alabama | RCV prohibited | RCV was banned by legislation in 2024 | |
| Alaska | RCV used statewide | RCV has been authorized for federal and certain statewide elections since 2020 and used since 2022. RCV was used for the 2020 Democratic presidential primary in this state. | |
| Arizona | No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections | ||
| Arkansas | No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections | Military/UOCAVA voters use ranked ballots when voting in runoff elections. | |
| California | RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities | RCV is used in the following seven localities: Albany, Berkeley, Eureka, Oakland, Palm Desert, San Francisco, and San Leandro. RCV is also authorized in the following two localities: Ojai (scheduled for use in 2024) and Redondo Beach (scheduled for use in 2025). | |
| Colorado | RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities | RCV is used in the following four localities: Basalt, Boulder, Broomfield, and Carbondale. RCV is also authorized in the following locality: Fort Collins (scheduled for use in 2025). | |
| Connecticut | No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections | ||
| Delaware | RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities | RCV is used in the following locality: Arden. | |
| Florida | RCV prohibited | RCV was banned by legislation in 2022, blocking its adoption in the following locality: Sarasota | |
| Georgia | No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections | Military/UOCAVA voters use ranked ballots when voting in runoff elections. | |
| Hawaii | RCV used statewide | RCV has been authorized statewide for certain federal and local elections since 2022 and used since 2023. RCV was used for the 2020 Democratic presidential primary in this state. | |
| Idaho | RCV prohibited | RCV was banned by legislation in 2023 | |
| Illinois | RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities | RCV is authorized in the following localities: Evanston (scheduled for use in 2025), Springfield (only used by overseas absentee voters in local elections). | |
| Indiana | No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections | ||
| Iowa | No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections | ||
| Kansas | No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections | RCV was used for the 2020 Democratic presidential primary in this state. | |
| Kentucky | RCV prohibited | RCV was banned by legislation in 2024 | |
| Louisiana | RCV prohibited | RCV was banned by legislation in 2024 | |
| Maine | RCV used statewide | RCV has been authorized for federal and statewide elections since 2016 and used since 2018. Maine has also authorized RCV for all municipal election and it is currently used for these elections in the following localities: Portland, and Westbrook. | |
| Maryland | RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities | RCV is used in the following locality: Tacoma Park. | |
| Massachusetts | RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities | RCV is used in the following two localities: Cambridge and Easthampton. Cambridge holds the record for the longest continuous use of RCV in the U.S. (1941-present). RCV is also authorized in the following locality: Amherst (schedule for use is uncertain). | |
| Michigan | No laws addressing RCV, not in use | RCV has been approved, but is not used, in the following localities: Ann Arbor, Ferndale, Kalamazoo, East Lansing, and Royal Oak. Although Michigan does not explicitly prohibit the use of RCV, state election laws prevent the implementation of RCV. RCV was used in the following locality by federal enforcement from 2019-2023: Eastpointe.[12] | |
| Minnesota | RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities | RCV is used in the following five localities: Bloomington, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, St. Louis Park, and St. Paul. RCV was also used in the following locality, but it is no longer in use: Hopkins. | |
| Mississippi | RCV prohibited | RCV was banned by legislation in 2024 | |
| Missouri | RCV prohibited | Missouri voters approved Amendment 7 on November 5, 2024. The constitutional amendment prohibited ranked-choice voting, among other changes to the state's election laws. | |
| Montana | RCV prohibited | RCV was banned by legislation in 2023 | |
| Nebraska | No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections | ||
| Nevada | No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections | RCV was used for the 2020 Democratic presidential primary in this state. | |
| New Hampshire | No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections | ||
| New Jersey | No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections | ||
| New Mexico | RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities | RCV is used in the following two localities: Las Cruces and Santa Fe. | |
| New York | RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities | RCV is used in the following locality: New York City. | |
| North Carolina | No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections | ||
| North Dakota | No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections | ||
| Ohio | No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections | ||
| Oklahoma | RCV was banned by legislation in 2024 | ||
| Oregon | RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities | RCV is used in the following locality: Benton County and Corvallis. RCV is also authorized in the following two localities: Multnomah County (scheduled for use in 2026) and Portland (scheduled for use in 2024). | |
| Pennsylvania | No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections | ||
| Rhode Island | No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections | ||
| South Carolina | No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections | Military/UOCAVA voters use ranked ballots when voting in runoff elections. | |
| South Dakota | RCV prohibited | RCV was banned by legislation in 2023. | |
| Tennessee | RCV prohibited | RCV was banned by legislation in 2022, blocking its adoption in the following locality: Memphis. | |
| Texas | No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections. | ||
| Utah | RCV is used in the following 12 localities as of 2023: Genola, Heber, Kearns, Lehi, Magna, Midvale, Millcreek, Payson, Salt Lake City, South Salt Lake, Vineyard, and Woodland Hills. The state adopted a pilot program allowing RCV in 2018. The program expires after the 2025 election. | ||
| Vermont | RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities | RCV is used in the following locality: Burlington. | |
| Virginia | RCV authorized by state law, but not in use | All localities in Virginia have been authorized to use RCV since 2021. RCV is used for a partisan primary in the following locality: Arlington. | |
| Washington | RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities | RCV is authorized in the following locality: Seattle (scheduled for use in 2027). | |
| West Virginia | No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections. | ||
| Wisconsin | No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections. | ||
| Wyoming | No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections | RCV was used for the 2020 Democratic presidential primary in this state. | |
States prohibiting RCV
As of November 2024, the following 11 states have adopted laws banning the use of ranked-choice voting statewide. For more information on anti-RCV legislation, read more in Ballotpedia News.
Alabama
Governor Kay Ivey (R) signed SB 1886 into law on May 10, 2024. The law states, "Ranked-choice voting shall not be used in determining the election or nomination of any candidate to any local, state, or federal office."[13]
Florida
S 524 was signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis (R) on April 26, 2022. The law states, "A ranked-choice voting method ... may not be used in determining the election or nomination of any candidate to any local, state, or federal elective office in this state."[14]
Idaho
H 179 was signed into law by Governor Brad Little (R) on March 24, 2023. The law says, "No county elections of- fice shall use ranked choice voting or instant runoff voting to conduct an election or nomination of any candidate in this state for any local govern- ment, statewide, or federal elective office."[15]
Kentucky
HB 44 became law after the Kentucky General Assembly successfully overrode Gov. Andy Beshear's (D) veto on April 12, 2024. The law says, "A ranked-choice voting method that allows electors to rank candidates for an office in order of preference and has ballots cast to be tabulated in multiple rounds following the elimination of a candidate until a single candidate attains a majority shall not be used in determining the election or nomination of any candidate to any local, state, or federal elective office in this state."[16]
Louisiana
Governor Jeff Landry signed SB 101 into law on May 28, 2024. The new law says, "A ranked-choice voting or instant runoff voting method shall not be used in determining the election or nomination of any candidate to any local, state, or federal elective office in this state." The legislation provides an exception for military and overseas absentee voters voting in runoff elections.[17]
Mississippi
Governor Tate Reeves (R) signed SB 2144 into law on May 13, 2024. The law states, "Ranked-choice voting, also known as instant runoff voting, is prohibited in statewide, county, local, municipal and school district elections in the State of Mississippi." The legislation also prohibited the use of any ranked voting method for primary or party nominating contests.[18]
Missouri
On November 5, 2024, Missouri voters approved Amendment 7 68.5% to 31.5%. The constitutional amendment prohibited ranked-choice voting, among other changes to the state's election laws.
Montana
HB 598 was signed into law by Governor Greg Gianforte (R) on April 27, 2023. The law states, "An election conducted under Title 13 or under Title 20 may not use a ranked-choice voting method to determine the election or nomination of a candidate to a local, state, or federal office."[19]
Oklahoma
HB 3156 was signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt (R) on April 29, 2024. The law states, "No election conducted by the State Election Board, a county election board, or any municipality authorized to conduct elections in Oklahoma shall use ranked choice voting, ranked voting, proportional ranked voting, preferential voting, or instant runoff voting."[20]
South Dakota
SB55 was signed into law by Governor Kristi Noem (R) on March 27, 2023. The law says, "The State Board of Elections may not authorize and a political subdivision may not adopt or enforce in any manner a rule, resolution, charter provision, or ordinance establishing a system of voting for any office where: (1) Voters rank candidates in order of preference..."[21]
Tennessee
HB 1868 and SB1820 were signed into law by Governor Bill Lee (R) on March 7, 2022. The laws state, "A county election commission shall not utilize instant runoff voting or ranked choice voting to conduct an election in this state for a statewide or local government office." [22]
History of RCV in the United States
Jack Santucci, an associate professor of politics at Drexel University, discussed the origins of ranked-choice voting systems in a 2016 American Politics Research article. Using this research, the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center provides the following summary of the history of ranked-choice voting in local elections in the United States: [23][24]
| “ | Ashtabula, Ohio, became the first place in the United States to use RCV in 1915, using it to elect its city council. RCV spread through the rest of Ohio (to Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, and Hamilton) and across the country to places like Boulder, Colorado; Kalamazoo, Michigan; Sacramento, California; and West Hartford, Connecticut. New York City adopted the multi-winner form for their city council and school board elections in 1936, spurring another 11 cities to adopt RCV quickly.
|
” |
It is important to note that some of the jurisdictions listed below may not have used the term ranked-choice voting to describe their electoral systems, and that the rules of those systems may have been different from what we think of as RCV today.
States and localities that stopped using RCV
As of May 2024, the following 39 localities stopped using RCV after using it in past local elections.[26][27][28][29][30][3] Some of these localities later resumed use of RCV. This is noted below where applicable.
| Historical use of ranked-choice voting in U.S. localities | ||
|---|---|---|
| State | Locality | History of RCV |
| California | Sacramento | Authorized for city council elections from 1919-1922. Last used in 1921. |
| Colorado | Aspen | Authorized for municipal elections from 2007-2010. Last used in 2009. |
| Colorado | Boulder | Authorized for city council elections from 1917-1947. Last used in 1950. Boulder subsequently voted to elect the city's mayor using ranked-choice voting through a local ballot measure at the November 2020 general election. RCV was used for mayoral elections for the first time in November 2023.[31] |
| Colorado | Telluride | Authorized by local ballot measure in 2008 for the three subsequent mayoral elections. Last used in 2019. |
| Connecticut | West Hartford | Authorized for city council elections from 1921-1923. Last used in 1922. |
| Massachusetts | Lowell | Authorized for city council elections from 1943-1957. Last used in 1957. |
| Massachusetts | Medford | Authorized for city council elections from 1947-1952. Last used in 1951. |
| Massachusetts | Quincy, Revere | Both cities authorized for city council elections from 1947-1952. Last used in 1953. |
| Massachusetts | Saugus | Authorized for city council elections from 1947-1951. Last used in 1950. |
| Massachusetts | Worcester | Authorized for city council and school board elections from 1947-1960. Last used in 1959. |
| Michigan | Kalamazoo | Authorized for city council elections from 1918-1920. Last used in 1921. |
| Minnesota | Hopkins | Authorized for city council elections from 1947-1959. Last used in 1961. |
| New York | Long Beach | Authorized for city council elections from 1943-1947. Last used in 1947. |
| New York | New York City | Authorized for municipal elections from 1936-1945. Adopted again in 2018 for local primaries and special elections. Used since 2021. |
| New York | Yonkers | Authorized for city council elections from 1940-1948. Last used in 1947. |
| Ohio | Ashtabula | Authorized for city council elections from 1915-1929. Last used in 1931. |
| Ohio | Cincinnati | Authorized for city council elections from 1924-1957. Last used in 1955. |
| Ohio | Cleveland | Authorized for city council elections from 1921-1931. Last used in 1933. |
| Ohio | Hamilton | Authorized for city council elections from 1926-1960. Last used in 1959. |
| Ohio | Toledo | Authorized for city council elections from 1935-1949. Last used in 1949. |
| Oregon | Coos Bay | Authorized for city council elections from 1944-1948. Last used in 1947. |
| Tennessee | Norris | Authorized for city council elections from 1936-1948. Last used in 1945. |
| Tennessee | Oak Ridge | Authorized for city council elections from 1948-1958. Last used in 1957. |
| Utah | Bluffdale | Statewide pilot program participant in 2021. |
| Utah | Cottonwood Heights | Statewide pilot program participant in 2021. |
| Utah | Draper | Statewide pilot program participant in 2021. |
| Utah | Elk Ridge | Statewide pilot program participant in 2021. |
| Utah | Goshen | Statewide pilot program participant in 2021. |
| Utah | Moab | Statewide pilot program participant in 2021. |
| Utah | Newton | Statewide pilot program participant in 2021. |
| Utah | Nibley | Statewide pilot program participant in 2021. |
| Utah | River Heights City | Statewide pilot program participant in 2021. |
| Utah | Rivertone | Statewide pilot program participant in 2021. |
| Utah | Sandy | Statewide pilot program participant in 2021. |
| Utah | Springville | Statewide pilot program participant in 2021. |
| Vermont | Burlington | Authorized for mayoral elections from 2006-2009. Adopted again for municipal elections in 2023. |
| Virginia | Arlington | Authorized for municipal elections in 2022 and used for county board primary elections in June 2023. In July 2023, the Arlington County Board voted to not proceed with the use of RCV for general elections. In December 2023, the board subsequently voted to use RCV for all future county board primaries.[32] In February, 2024, the board voted to use RCV for the board general election in November, but declined to permanently adopt RCV at that time.[33] |
| West Virginia | Wheeling | Authorized for city council elections from 1935-1950. Last used in 1949. |
Arguments for and against ranked-choice voting
Supporting arguments
Supporters of ranked-choice voting argue that it provides voters with an alternative to the two-party system, allows voters to more freely support minor and third-party candidates without acting as a spoiler and benefiting a less-preferred candidate, increases civility in political campaigning, and may lead to more diverse candidates. Supporters also argue that using ranked-choice voting saves the taxpayers money.
Claim: RCV provides an alternative to the two-party system and allows voters to more freely support minor and third-party candidates
In an 2021 article on its website, the Better Government Association argued that RCV promotes better governance by providing voters with an alternative to the two-party system:
The Better Government Association's website says it is "a non-partisan, nonprofit news organization and civic advocate working for transparency, equity and accountability in government in Chicago and across Illinois."[34]
| “ |
RCV is also framed as an antidote to the current two-party system because it allows more candidates to compete. In plurality elections, because the goal is simply to get more votes than anyone else, it’s possible for candidates with longer odds of winning to siphon votes from bigger party candidates (see: Ralph Nader for Al Gore, Jill Stein for Hillary Clinton). Without the stigma of supporting a “spoiler,” voters can feel free to vote based on their true intentions instead of on a calculation of who has the best likelihood of winning. In that same vein, fewer candidates would be discouraged from running for fear of splitting voters, allowing more third party, independent, and minority candidates to enter the fray. Supporters also believe that more choices that may speak to more voters could boost voter turnout and engagement.[25] |
” |
| —Better Government Association (2021)[35] | ||
Claim: RCV increases civility in political campaigning
In the Journal of Representative Democracy, political scientists Todd Donovan and Caroline Tolbert wrote about their research findings on increased civility in RCV political campaigns:[36]
| “ | For RCV to meet proponents’ expectations of facilitating mutual accommodation among rivals and civil campaigns, candidates and campaigns would be expected to moderate how they engage with their rivals – at least compared to candidates in similar contests not held under RCV rules – while appealing to their rivals’ supporters for second place and lower place rankings. ...
|
” |
| —Dr. Todd Donovan, Western Washington University, and Dr. Caroline Tolbert, University of Iowa | ||
Claim: RCV may lead to more diverse candidates
In a 2021 New America report titled "What We Know About Ranked-Choice Voting," Lee Drutman and Maresa Strano wrote about the theory that ranked-choice voting may lead to more diverse candidates:[37] New America describes itself as a nonprofit think tank conducting research and making policy recommendations in the following areas: education, economic security, global politics, political reform, civic engagement, technology, and democracy.[38]
| “ | Ranked-choice voting has a few features that should, theoretically, enable a more diverse range of candidates to run for office than our traditional single-mark plurality method. One is that RCV allows newcomers and less traditionally electable candidates to run for second and third place rankings from opponents, including co-partisans, without being dismissed as 'spoilers.' As discussed later in this section, RCV changes campaign incentives in ways that can reduce the negativity and incivility. This kind of nasty campaigning can deter many qualified and talented people, especially women and women of color, from entering politics.
|
” |
| —Lee Drutman, Senior Fellow, and Maresa Strano, Political Reform Program Deputy Director, New America | ||
A 2023 memo from RepresentWomen discussed the impact of RCV on women and minority candidates at the local level.[39] On its website, RepresentWomen says, "we imagine a healthy 21st century democracy with gender-balanced representation in elected and appointed positions, at every level of government."[40]
| “ | The impact of RCV on women’s representation is best demonstrated at the local level, which has long been the testing ground for new voting systems. Of the 30 mayors in RCV cities today, 12 (40%) are women, nine are people of color (30%), and four are women of color (13%). In city councils, 147 of 300 RCV seats (49%) are held by women, 96 by people of color (34%), and 55 (20%) by women of color. Comparatively, women held 32% of all local offices as of March 2022. [25] | ” |
| —Courtney Lamendola, Marvelous Maeze, and Steph Scaglia | ||
Claim: RCV saves money for states and local governments
FairVote, which describes itself as "a nonpartisan organization seeking better elections for all," said on its website that ranked-choice voting saves money for states and local governments by eliminating additional rounds of voting:[41]
| “ | Many local offices are elected in two rounds. In some cases, a preliminary election winnows the field to two and is followed by a general election. In other cases, a general election follows a runoff election if no candidate won a majority. In either case, the election that takes place on a day other than the general often draws weak and unrepresentative turnout. First-round elections, meanwhile, raise concerns about vote splitting and the possibility of disenfranchising military and overseas voters.
|
” |
| —FairVote | ||
Opposing arguments
Opponents of ranked-choice voting argue that it benefits voters with more time and information, leads to decreased voter confidence in elections, and disconnects voting from important issues and debates. Opponents of ranked-choice voting also argue that RCV winners do not necessarily represent the will of the voters.
Claim: RCV benefits voters with more time and information
Stop RCV, which describes itself as a coalition of organizations seeking "transparent elections that can be verified by hand recounts and audits," wrote on its website that ranked-choice voting benefits voters with more time and information and leads to voter disqualification:[42]
| “ | In an RCV election, voters may get more power if they rank more candidates. But that means, rather than identifying one candidate to support, voters must research multiple candidates and form opinions about their relative preferences for as many as five or more. This benefits those who have more time and access to information—in short, RCV gives more power to elites while making it harder for everyone else. An RCV ballot is also longer and takes more time for voters to complete. This means more delays and longer lines at polling places. It also creates many new opportunities to make a mistake, increasing the chances that a voter’s intent is not correctly recorded or that ballots are disqualified and discarded.[25] | ” |
| —Stop RCV | ||
Claim: RCV leads to decreased voter confidence in elections
The Foundation for Government Accountability, which describes itself as a nonprofit organization working with state legislators on welfare, unemployment, workforce, election integrity, and health care policies, argued on its website that ranked-choice voting leads to a decrease in voter confidence in U.S. elections:[43]
| “ | Ranked-Choice Voting is a Disaster. One person. One vote. That’s how American elections work. Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) threatens to undo this very principle—discounting votes, diminishing voter confidence, and threatening prompt election results. The end result? A drop in voter confidence that lingers long after Election Day. Experiences with RCV in Maine and New York City should serve as cautionary tales, encouraging voters and policymakers to reject RCV in their communities.[25] | ” |
| —Foundation for Government Accountability | ||
Claim: RCV disconnects voting from important issues and debates
In a 2019 report for the Heritage Foundation, Hans von Spakovsky and J. Adams argued that ranked-choice voting disconnects voting from important issues and debates:[44]
| “ | Ranked choice destroys clarity of political debate and forces voters to cast ballots in hypothetical future runoff elections. When we have Republicans versus Democrats versus Greens and Libertarians, we know who is running against whom and the actual distinctions between the candidates on issues. Second- or third-choice votes should not matter in America; they do not provide the mandate that ensures that the representatives in a republic have the confidence and support of a majority of the public in the legitimacy of their decisions.[25] | ” |
| —The Heritage Foundation | ||
Claim: RCV winners do not necessarily represent the will of the voters
The Foundation for Government Accountability's website also described the concept of ballot exhaustion and argued that RCV winners do not necessarily represent the will of the voters:[45]
| “ | “Exhausted ballots” in RCV elections do not count towards the final tally. While many RCV ballots are thrown out due to voter error in following convoluted instructions, ballots that follow the instructions to the letter can also be thrown away because the voter ranked candidates who are no longer in contention. As candidates are eliminated through multiple rounds of tabulation, voters have their ballots exhausted if they only ranked candidates that have been removed during successive rounds. In other words, for a voter’s voice to fully count in every round of an RCV election, he must vote for all candidates on the ballot, even those he may not support.
|
” |
| —Foundation for Government Accountability | ||
State legislation
The table below lists bills related to ranked-choice voting introduced during, or carried over to each state's regular legislative session this year. The following information is included for each bill:
- State
- Bill number
- Official name or caption
- Most recent action date
- Legislative status
- Topics dealt with by the bill
Bills are organized alphabetically, first by state and then by bill number. The table displays up to 100 results by default. To view additional results, use the arrows in the upper-right corner of the table. For more information about a particular bill, simply click the bill number. This will open a separate page with additional information.
Ballot measures
The term ballot measures describes all questions or issues that appear on election ballots for voters to approve or reject. Ballot measures may apply to state and local jurisdictions (including cities, counties, special districts, etc.). Initiatives permit citizens to propose (or initiate) statutes or constitutional amendments via petition. Referenda allow citizens to refer statutes passed by legislatures to the ballot for enactment or repeal by voters. Legislative referrals appear on voters' ballots as a result of actions taken by legislatures; these can include state statutes, constitutional amendments, and bond issues.
The sections below list ballot measures related to electoral systems and campaign laws, including certified measures, potential measures, and measures that did not make the ballot.
Statewide measures
2024
| State | Type | Title | Description | Result | Yes Votes | No Votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AK | Ballot Measure 2 | Repeal the top-four ranked-choice voting (RCV) system that was adopted in 2020 |
|
159,955 (50%) |
160,619 (50%) |
|
| CO | Proposition 131 | Establish top-four primaries and ranked-choice voting (RCV) for federal and state offices in Colorado |
|
1,385,060 (46%) |
1,595,256 (54%) |
|
| ID | Proposition 1 | Establish top-four primaries and ranked-choice voting (RCV) for federal, state, and certain local offices in Idaho |
|
269,960 (30%) |
618,753 (70%) |
|
| MO | Amendment 7 | Prohibit ranked-choice voting (RCV) and the state local and governments from allowing noncitizens to vote |
|
1,952,138 (68%) |
899,408 (32%) |
|
| NV | Question 3 | Establish top-five primaries and ranked-choice voting (RCV) for federal and state offices in Nevada |
|
664,011 (47%) |
747,719 (53%) |
|
| OR | Measure 117 | Establish ranked-choice voting (RCV) for federal and state offices in Oregon |
|
884,945 (42%) |
1,208,981 (58%) |
2002—2023
The following table provides a list of state ranked-choice voting (RCV) ballot measures:
| State | Year | Type | Measure | Yes | No | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nevada | 2022 | Initiative | Question 3: Top-Five Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative | 52.94% | 47.06% |  |
| Alaska | 2020 | Initiative | Ballot Measure 2: Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative | 50.55% | 49.45% | |
| Massachusetts | 2020 | Initiative | Question 2: Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative | 45.22% | 54.78% |  |
| Maine | 2018 | Initiative | Question 1: Ranked-Choice Voting Delayed Enactment and Automatic Repeal Referendum | 53.88% | 46.12% | |
| Maine | 2016 | Initiative | Question 5: Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative | 52.12% | 47.88% | |
| Alaska | 2002 | Initiative | Ballot Measure 1: Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative | 36.27% | 63.73% | |
Local ballot measures
2024
The following is a list of local ballot measures related to ranked-choice voting in 2024:
| Jurisdiction | State | Type | Title | Description | Result | Yes Votes | No Votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Richmond | CA | Measure L | Adopt ranked-choice voting for mayoral and city council elections |
|
19,070 (54%) |
16,053 (46%) |
|
| District of Columbia | DC | Initiative 83 | Establish ranked-choice voting for elections in Washington, D.C. |
|
212,332 (73%) |
78,961 (27%) |
|
| Oak Park | IL | Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative | Adopt ranked-choice voting to elect the Oak Park President and Village Board of Trustees |
|
22,347 (80%) |
5,756 (20%) |
|
| Peoria | IL | Ranked-Choice Voting Advisory Question | Advise the government to adopt ranked-choice voting |
|
23,027 (67%) |
11,277 (33%) |
|
| Bloomington | MN | Question 1 | Repeal ranked-choice voting for mayoral and city council elections |
|
23,360 (49%) |
24,596 (51%) |
1965—2023
The following table provides a list of ranked-choice voting local ballot measures from 1965 to 2023.
Noteworthy events
Tallying error in Oakland, Calif., led to inaccurate election results (2022)
On March 6, 2023, Judge Brad Seligman of the Alameda County Superior Court declared Mike Hutchinson the official winner of the school director election race in District 4 of the Oakland Unified School District in California, saying, “Errors were made sufficient to change the result of the election...contestant Hutchinson received a majority of the votes cast and accordingly, is declared the winner of the Nov. 8, 2022 general municipal election.”[46]
On December 28, 2022, the Alameda County Registrar of Voters acknowledged in a press release that the initial certified results for this election were incorrect. Although Nick Resnick was initially certified as the winner, Hutchinson, who originally finished third, was later told by election officials that he won: "Without being cynical, I now believe in holiday miracles. So it was very shocking to wake up this morning and receive a phone call at 10:30 a.m. from the Alameda County head of elections informing me that I had actually won the election."[47]
According to the press release from the Alameda County Registrar of Voters:
| “ | The ROV learned that its RCV tally system was not configured properly for the November 2022 General Election. It should have been configured to advance ballots to the next ranking immediately when no candidate was selected for a particular round. ... After reviewing the election data and applying the correct configuration, the ROV learned that only one outcome was affected: Oakland School Director, District 4, for the Oakland Unified School District. No other result for any RCV election in any jurisdiction was changed.[47][25] | ” |
California Ranked Choice Voting Coalition and FairVote, two organizations that supported the use of ranked-choice voting in California, discovered the error while auditing the election results. They found that county officials used the wrong method to tally votes that did not include a first choice candidate. Sean Dugar, consulting executive director of the California Ranked Choice Voting Coalition, said, "In Alameda County, the correct setting should have advanced the second choice to become the first choice ... The algorithm and the election officials almost always get it right. In this instance, it was simply a button that was left checked in the menu option for the algorithm."[48][47]
Resnick was officially sworn into the position of District 4 Oakland school director on January 9, 2023.[49] His attorney initially responded to the Alameda County Registrar of Voters, saying, “We are not aware of any legal authority... which allows the registrar’s office to retabulate election results or take any other actions vis-a-vis the results of an election after it completes the official canvass and the results are certified by the local governing body.”[50]
Hutchinson filed a petition in Alameda County Superior Court on December 29, 2022, asking a judge to overrule the prior certification and name him the official winner. [51] Resnick resigned from office on February 21, 2023, saying in a statement on his website that a prolonged legal fight was not “what’s best for this community and I don’t think that’s going to help get our schools where they need to go.”[46]
New York Democratic mayoral primary is largest RCV election in the Unites States to date (2021)
Eric Adams (D) defeated 12 other candidates in the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City on June 22, 2021.[52] The primary election was the first use of ranked-choice voting for a mayoral primary in the city's history.
After the first-round of tabulation, Adams won 30.8% of first-choice votes while three other candidates received more than 10% of first-choice votes, Maya Wiley, Kathryn Garcia, and Andrew Yang. Despite a strong lead after the first round, Adams did not reach 40% of first-choice votes until round seven when 10 candidates had been eliminated. Three candidates remained in round seven, Adams, Wiley, and Garcia. Wiley was eliminate after the round, and of her 254,728 first-choice votes, 49,856 went to Adams while 130,384 went to Garcia. Despite a nearly three-to-one preference for Garcia over Adams among remaining eligible ballots, the share of transferred votes was sufficient to secure Adams the majority, and nomination. In the final round, 14.9% of ballots were exhausted, or no longer countable in a tally as all of the candidates marked on the ballot are no longer in the contest.
In addition to the mayoral primaries, primary elections for 63 separate offices in New York City used ranked-choice for the first time in 2021. In all but three of these elections the candidate that won the most first-choice votes in the first round ultimately won the election.[53] In 21 of these primaries a candidate won a majority in the first round and the election.
Because New York City has a larger population than any of the states that used ranked-choice voting statewide at the time, this election made the city the largest electoral jurisdiction in the country to use ranked-choice voting.[54] New York City previously used a type of ranked-choice voting called single-transferable vote (STV) for city council elections between 1936-1947.[55]
Maine becomes first state to use RCV for congressional elections (2018)
State Rep. Jared Golden (D) defeated Rep. Bruce Poliquin (R), Tiffany Bond (I) and Will Hoar (I) in the November 6, 2018, ranked-choice general election to represent Maine's 2nd Congressional District.
Golden trailed incumbent Poliquin in first-choice votes, 45.6% to 46.3%, after the first round of tabulation. Both independent candidates were eliminated after the first round; Golden was transferred 44.5% of their ballots while Poliquin received 20.3% and the remaining portion of ballots were exhausted. Golden's share of first-choice voted after the second round of tabulation was 50.6%, overtaking Poliquin's first round advantage and winning the election. In the final round, 2.8% of ballots were exhausted and not counted for either remaining candidate.
This was the first general election in Maine for which ranked-choice voting was law, and this race was the first in U.S. history where the process was used to decide a congressional election.[56][57]
After the first round of tabulation in which he led, Poliquin sued the Maine secretary of state to stop tabulation of transferred votes.[58] Poliquin dropped the lawsuit in December 2018. [59]
To read more about ranked-choice voting in Maine, see here.
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker
State election laws are changing. Keeping track of the latest developments in all 50 states can seem like an impossible job.
Here's the solution: Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker.
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Tracker sets the industry standard for ease of use, flexibility, and raw power. But that's just the beginning of what it can do:
- Ballotpedia's election experts provide daily updates on bills and other relevant political developments
- We translate complex bill text into easy-to-understand summaries written in everyday language
- And because it's from Ballotpedia, our Tracker is guaranteed to be neutral, unbiased, and nonpartisan
The Ballot Bulletin
The Ballot Bulletin is a weekly email that delivers the latest updates on election policy. The Ballot Bulletin tracks developments in election policy around the country, including legislative activity, big-picture trends, and recent news. Each email contains in-depth data from our Election Administration Legislation Tracker. You'll also be able to track relevant legislation, with links to and summaries of the bills themselves.
Recent issues
Click below to view recent issues of The Ballot Bulletin.
- The Ballot Bulletin: November 22, 2024
- The Ballot Bulletin: November 15, 2024
- The Ballot Bulletin: November 1, 2024
- The Ballot Bulletin: October 25, 2024
- The Ballot Bulletin: October 18, 2024
Subscribe
Enter your email address below to subscribe to The Ballot Bulletin.
See also
Select a state on the map below to read more about electoral systems in that state.
- Electoral systems legislation in the United States, 2023
- Primary systems legislation in the United States, 2023
- Electoral system
- Ballot exhaustion
- Academic studies on ranked-choice voting (RCV)
External links
- ACE: The Electoral Knowledge Network
- Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center
- Electology.org (The Center for Election Science)
- Protect My Ballot
- RankedVote: Create Ranked-Choice Contests & Elections
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center, "What is RCV?" November 22, 2022
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 MinneapolisMN.gov, "Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV)," accessed January 17, 2023
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Washington Post, "Arlington reverses use of ranked-choice voting system for fall elections," accessed July 15, 2023
- ↑ RCVis, "Homepage," accessed January 24, 2023
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 University of Illinois Law Review, "Beyond the Spoiler Effect: Can Ranked Choice Voting Solve the Problem of Political Polarization?" April 5, 2023
- ↑ FairVote, "RCV Elections and Runoffs: Exhausted Votes vs Exhausted Voters in the Bay Area," October 19, 2016
- ↑ MinnPost, "Ranked-choice-voting reality: Theoretical 'perfect case' doesn't happen," August 26, 2013
- ↑ FairVote, "Proportional Ranked Choice Voting," accessed September 27, 2023
- ↑ NPR, "The next round of counting begins in Alaska. Here's how ranked-choice voting works," November 22, 2022
- ↑ Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center, "Where is RCV Used," accessed January 17, 2023
- ↑ Michigan is included in this category despite numerous local jurisdictions approving the use of RCV. Although Michigan does not explicitly prohibit the use of RCV, state election laws prevent the implementation of RCV. One jurisdiction in the state, Eastpointe, did use RCV between 2019-2023 as a result of federal enforcement under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The jurisdictions of Ann Arbor, Ferndale, Kalamazoo, East Lansing, and Royal Oak have all authorized the use of RCV and plan to begin using the election method if legislation providing the state's authorization is signed into law.
- ↑ The Detroit News, "Eastpointe to make Michigan history with ranked-choice voting," November 3, 2019
- ↑ Bill Track 50, "Alabama SB186," accessed May 13, 2024
- ↑ Bill Track 50, "Florida S0524," accessed June 20, 2023
- ↑ Bill Track 50, "Idaho H0179," accessed June 20, 2023
- ↑ Bill Track 50, "Kentucky HB44," accessed April 15, 2024
- ↑ Bill Track 50, "Louisiana SB101," accessed June 3, 2024
- ↑ Bill Track 50, "Mississippi SB2144," accessed May 21, 2024
- ↑ Bill Track 50, "Montana HB598," accessed June 20, 2023
- ↑ Bill Track 50, "Oklahoma HB3156," accessed May 2, 2024
- ↑ Bill Track 50, "South Dakota SB55," accessed June 20, 2023
- ↑ Tennessee State Legislature, "Public Chapter No. 621, Senate Bill No. 1820," accessed June 20, 2023
- ↑ American Politics Research, “Party Splits, not Progressives: The Origins of Proportional Representation in American Local Government,” November 10, 2016
- ↑ Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center, "History of RCV," accessed August 1, 2023
- ↑ 25.00 25.01 25.02 25.03 25.04 25.05 25.06 25.07 25.08 25.09 25.10 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center, "Historical Uses of RCV In Cities, 1915-1962," accessed August 1, 2023
- ↑ Aspen Daily News, "City voters repeal IRV," November 3, 2010
- ↑ The Fulcrum, "Back to the future: What New York’s democracy experiment of the 1930s says about today," February 5, 2020
- ↑ Seven Days, "Scott Vetoes Noncitizen Voting in Burlington, Allows Ranked-Choice Voting to Become Law," May 29, 2023
- ↑ FairVote, "Lessons from Burlington," March 4, 2010
- ↑ City of Boulder, "Ranked Choice Voting Guide," accessed January 9, 2024
- ↑ Arlington, Virginia, "Ranked Choice Voting," accessed January 9, 2024
- ↑ gazetteleader.com, "Arlington board opts to test out ranked-choice voting in November," February 26, 2024
- ↑ Better Government Association, "About Us," accessed October 31, 2023
- ↑ Better Government Association, "Can Ranked Choice Voting Transform Our Democracy?" May 27, 2021
- ↑ Journal of Representative Democracy, "Civility in Ranked-Choice Voting Elections: Does Evidence Fit the Normative Narrative?" June 4, 2023
- ↑ New America, "What We Know About Ranked-Choice Voting: Candidates and Campaigns" Novemver 10, 2021
- ↑ New America, "What We Know About Ranked-Choice Voting: Candidates and Campaigns" November 10, 2021
- ↑ RepresentWomen, "Memo: Ranked Choice Voting and Women's Representation" January 23, 2023
- ↑ RepresentWomen, "About Us" accessed March 6, 2023
- ↑ FairVote, "Ranked Choice Voting Information," accessed August 7, 2023
- ↑ Stop RCV, "Risks of Ranked-Choice Voting," accessed July 6, 2023
- ↑ Foundation for Government Accountability, "Ranked Choice Voting Is a Disaster," accessed July 6, 2023
- ↑ Heritage Foundation, "Ranked Choice Voting Is a Bad Choice," August 23, 2019
- ↑ Foundation for Government Accountability, "Ranked Choice Voting: A Disaster in Disguise," August 25, 2022
- ↑ 46.0 46.1 The Oaklandside, "Judge declares Mike Hutchinson winner of OUSD school board race," March 7, 2023
- ↑ 47.0 47.1 47.2 ABC 7 News, "Alameda Co. finds error in ranked-choice voting system, investigating Oakland school board race," December 29, 2022
- ↑ ABC 7 News, "Error in ballot counting in Alameda Co. changes outcome in Oakland school board race," December 29, 2022
- ↑ The Oaklandside, "Oakland school board inauguration overshadowed by election mishap," January 9, 2023
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Alameda County election error that flipped one Oakland race heads to courts," January 4, 2023
- ↑ Pleasanton Weekly, "Trial set for next month to determine winner of Oakland school board race following county registrar error," February 12, 2023
- ↑ The New York Times, "New York Primary Election Results," June 22, 2021
- ↑ Politico, "New York’s first full ranked-choice election changed campaigns — if not the results," August 24, 2021
- ↑ National Public Radio, "Ranked-Choice Voting Gets A Prime-Time Shot Under New York City's Bright Lights," June 23, 2021
- ↑ FairVote, "Proportional Representation in New York City, 1936-1947," accessed November 30, 2023
- ↑ Maine Secretary of State, "Resources for Ranked-choice Voting (RCV)," accessed November 29, 2023
- ↑ Maine Public, "Golden Wins Nation's First Ranked-Choice Voting Runoff For A Congressional Seat," November 15, 2018
- ↑ Politico, "GOP congressman sues to stop vote tabulation in undecided Maine race," November 13, 2018
- ↑ New York Times, "Maine Republican Drops Challenge to State’s New Vote System, Conceding House Race," December 24, 2018
| |||||||||||
