America needs ranked-choice voting for the presidential election

Disgruntled voters periodically drift to insurgents like John Anderson in 1980, Ross Perot in 1992, Ralph Nader in 2000, and Jill Stein and Gary Johnson in 2016. With Robert Kennedy's approval rating in double digits and Libertarians, Greene and Cornel West appearing on many state ballots, shadow campaigns are emerging. Democrats are spending millions to counter these candidates, while Republicans are looking to see if they can replicate their 2016 strategy. In 2016, Trump flipped crucial states like Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin with an average vote share of less than 48%.

American politics already has a proven solution to the “spoiler” problem: ranked-choice voting. In Australia, ranked-choice elections have an average of more than five candidates running, and there's no talk of “spoilers.” Maine and Alaska are already planning to use ranked-choice voting in this year's presidential election. If all states had ranked-choice voting, there would be no need to worry about a third-party candidate swinging a state, and the White House, against the will of the people.

Instead of indicating a single choice, RCV voters rank candidates first, second, and so on. If no winner emerges with more than half of the first choice, the lower-ranked candidates are eliminated and their votes count for the next choice. A final “instant runoff” between the top two candidates ensures a representative result without the expense and burden of a December runoff election.

Alaska adopted RCV in the 2020 presidential election, and Maine did so after legislative action in 2019. But why have 48 states not passed RCV, especially the seven battleground states that will determine the outcome of November's election? Why is the collective decision of voters unwilling to settle for the “lesser of two evils” a bigger uncertainty than Trump's criminal trial or Biden's age?

Indeed, change is happening. Fifty U.S. cities and hundreds of NGOs have adopted RCV, and exit polls show generally strong support. RCV has won the polls in 27 cities in a row, and four states and Washington, D.C., may vote on whether to adopt RCV statewide this November. RCV has also appeared as a clue on “Jeopardy!” and in the national crossword puzzle.

Several proven approaches can help scale RCV more quickly. Perfection is an illusion, but we should never compromise. Voters of all backgrounds rank things easily every day. Every jurisdiction should be able to do it in RCV elections with well-designed ballots and tested voter education models. RCV results should be as quick, transparent, and auditable as non-RCV results. States should purchase voting equipment that makes using RCV as easy as flipping a switch.

This change is happening. Many cities are releasing preliminary RCV tallies on election night and embracing best practices around transparency, auditing, and timely data release. Now that all modern voting equipment is capable of conducting RCV elections (a major concern for cities considering implementing RCV in the 1990s and 2000s), policymakers are harmonizing standards so vendors can offer RCV as a default option. More jurisdictions are investing in better ballot design, intuitive results display, and voter education.

By focusing on the battleground states that will decide the White House, it is achievable to virtually end election interference by 2028. RCV is already on the ballot in Nevada this November, and active movements for change are also underway in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Americans are fundamentally unhappy with their ballot choices, and voter suppression issues are not going away anytime soon. It's time to scale up RCV nationwide to respond to voters' choices and reward leaders who strive to represent the majority of Americans.