On May 20th, the Millennial Action Project (MAP) hosted a virtual convening entitled “Ranked Choice Voting: Innovating Electoral Systems.” The panel discussion featured a diverse group of policymakers and experts on ranked choice voting (RCV) from across the country. The panel included the following RCV experts:
Utah State Rep. Mike Winder
Paul Schlichtman, School Board Member of the Arlington School Committee
Scott Kendall, Author of Alaska Ballot Measure 2 and Former Chief of Staff for Senator Lisa Murkowski
Mandy Vigil, New Mexico Election Director, Regional Representative for the National Association of State Election Directors
Mandy Vigil kicked off the webinar by describing the process of RCV for the audience. In an RCV system, voters rank candidates by preference. If no candidate receives more than 50% of first-ranked votes, the candidate with fewest first-ranked votes is eliminated and their votes are passed on to the second-ranked candidate on those voters' ballots. This process continues until one candidate has more than 50% of the vote total.
Advocates argue that RCV provides a better system for voter representation by allowing people to vote based on their true preferences, eliminating the spoiler effect of third-party candidates, and allowing third-party candidates to meaningfully compete.
Rep. Winder continued with a discussion of Utah House Bill 127, a measure he sponsored to implement RCV in certain local and state elections. Though the bill did not pass during the most recent legislative session, Rep. Winder described broad voter support of a more limited RCV program being piloted in Utah. With 90% support, he explained, the program demonstrates the bipartisan appeal of RCV:“It’s being embraced by both the Left and the Right,” said Rep. Winder. “People like that it is empowering their vote in a way that traditional voting does not allow.”
Scott Kendall weighed in with his experience drafting and promoting Alaska Ballot Measure 2. Successfully passed in 2020, the measure replaced partisan primaries with top-four open primaries, instituted ranked choice voting, and curbed “dark money” campaign donations by mandating that donors disclose the source of their campaign funds. Scott echoed Rep. Winder, arguing that plurality voting systems damage voters’ confidence in their elections, especially when candidates win elections while receiving a minority of votes cast. Despite institutional opposition, he stated, voters in Alaska and across the country are expressing a strong appetite for the improved voter representation provided by RCV systems.
Paul Schlictman acknowledged a clear need for voting reform, but emphasized that RCV is not a panacea for electoral issues. He relayed his experience campaigning against Massachusetts’ Question 2, which attempted to implement RCV in the state. He argued that, in Massachusetts, uncontested elections and closed primaries in a state dominated by one party are the most urgent electoral problems to address. While insisting that RCV is not the correct solution for his state's issues, Schlictman acknowledged the potential benefits of the system and argued that electoral reforms tailored to unique circumstances are vital to democracy's health.
The panelists discussed how RCV can more accurately translate voters’ preferences into electoral outcomes without advantaging one party or the other. Rep. Winder noted that, were it not for Ross Perot, President George H. W. Bush would have likely won reelection against President Bill Clinton in 1992. Kendall listed several examples in Alaska where RCV benefitted members of both political parties. RCV measures are an example of nonpartisan reform that has the potential to bring government closer to the people it represents.
If you are a state legislator interested in policy support from MAP related to ranked choice voting or similar election modernizations, please reach out to policy@millennialaction.org.