How the two systems work
Under plurality voting—sometimes called 'first past the post'—each voter picks one candidate, and whoever receives the most votes wins. The winner does not need a majority; in a crowded field, a candidate can prevail with well under 50 percent of the vote.
Ranked-choice voting asks voters to rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate wins an outright majority of first-choice votes, the last-place candidate is eliminated and those ballots are reassigned to each voter's next-ranked choice. The process repeats until one candidate exceeds 50 percent.
Where RCV is used today
Maine became the first state to use RCV in federal elections in 2018, after voters approved it by ballot initiative. Alaska adopted RCV for state and federal general elections beginning in 2022, paired with a nonpartisan top-four primary. According to FairVote, an advocacy group that tracks the issue, roughly 50 U.S. jurisdictions—including cities such as New York, San Francisco, and Minneapolis—use RCV for some elections.
Other states have moved in the opposite direction. Florida, Tennessee, and several additional states have enacted laws banning RCV in public elections, citing concerns about complexity and uniformity across jurisdictions.
The case made by supporters
Proponents argue RCV reduces incentives for 'strategic voting'—choosing a less-preferred candidate to avoid wasting a vote on a likely loser—because voters can rank a favorite first without fearing it will help their least-preferred candidate win. Supporters also contend RCV rewards candidates who build broader coalitions, because winning often requires being many voters' second or third choice, and that it can lessen the impact of negative campaigning.
The case made by critics
Opponents say RCV ballots are more complex to mark and to count, which can confuse voters and slow the reporting of results, sometimes by days. They point to 'ballot exhaustion,' which occurs when a voter's ranked choices are all eliminated before the final round, meaning that ballot no longer counts toward the outcome. Some critics also argue that the traditional plurality system is simpler, more familiar, and easier to audit.
What it would take to change federal elections
Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution gives states the primary authority to set the 'time, place, and manner' of congressional elections, but it also allows Congress to alter those rules. That means a nationwide switch to RCV for federal races could happen state by state, as in Maine and Alaska, or through federal legislation. Presidential elections add another layer, because each state controls how its electors are chosen.
What voters are weighing
The debate often comes down to trade-offs: whether the potential benefits of majority winners and reduced strategic voting outweigh added complexity and longer counts, and whether election rules should be uniform nationwide or left to each state to decide.