In a broad, diverse line of candidates, ranked choice elections would ensure a stronger democratic majority order.

Following the COVID-19 pandemic, economies are being squeezed to its breaking point, racial inequities are still developing, and voting – the backbone of independence and a vital tool for change - is under attack.

To defend democracy, one must strengthen it.  One course of action is by “elaborating the consensus principle” while preserving the rights of all individuals, especially the marginalized and the minority, says Matthew Oberstaedt from FairVote. Not by coincidence, these are said to be direct consequences of Alaska’s new electoral system: ranked choice voting (RCV).

On the 31st of August 2022, Alaska’s controversial special House elections after the death of the late Republican Representative Don Young ended with mixed reactions and opinions from the candidates and voters. This was Alaska’s first use of rank choice voting, which voters approved in 2020.

The emerging victor from the recent special house elections – Ms. Mary Peltola becomes the first Alaskan local to work in Congress and the first woman to achieve the House with an optimistic campaign approach that appealed to Alaskan culture. However, Alaska’s new voting system is considered the primary factor of Ms. Peltola’s three-percentage-point win over her challenger, former Republican Governor Sarah Palin.

“We’re in a democracy, but our general elections are meaningless in 85 percent of cases, and we act like that’s normal,” says Katherine Gehl, the founder and chairwoman of the nonpartisan Institute for Political Innovation.

How does ranked choice voting work? 

Voters have the option to rank all candidates from most to least preferred rather than filling in a bubble for just one. Their top pick is at the top, their second favorite is at the second spot, and so forth. A candidate wins if they receive more than 50% of the first-place votes. If no candidate receives 50% of the vote, the ballots for the candidate in last place are redistributed to voters' second choices.  This process is repeated until a candidate wins a majority and is proclaimed the victor.

“The Alaska race was the most prominent example yet of ranked-choice voting,” according to The PEW Charitable Trusts. More than 50 localities now employ the system, including New York City and the state of Maine.

As more municipalities in the United States implement ranked choice voting, it is crucial to assess ranked choice voting against the plurality voting system that the majority of elections utilize in the United States.

Nevertheless, even Peltolta’s rival, Palin, criticized the new voting system as “weird and a scam to rig elections” versus Republicans. Thus, the question remains. Is ranked choice voting the most non-partisan way of electing a candidate, or should AK return to plurality voting?

A plurality vote is severely defective when there are more than two candidates to choose from. 

Given that plurality votes solely enable voters to register their preferences about one candidate, “a plurality vote with numerous candidates is extremely susceptible to ‘center squeeze’ effects,” according to Aaron Hamlin of The Center for Election Science. The most well-known "spoiler" nominees for the US presidency were not part of the political mainstream, such as James G. Birney in 1844 and Ralph Nader in 2000.

Additionally, the system is capable of electing individuals who would fall short in a head-to-head matchup. For instance, according to Arrow's theorem, a voting technique is a manner of converting voter ranks into candidate rankings. When viewed in this light, plurality voting has a clear flaw: It only takes first place choices into account. A person's second and third choices are identical to each other.

Despite this, plurality voting is common and has been around for a very long time; most voters are familiar with how it operates and are aware of ways to try to get around its drawbacks.

Why not give voters the option of voting for two or three candidates? Why shouldn't voters give each candidate a rating?

Voters have more options and a stronger voice with ranked choice voting. In a low participation election, no candidates are eliminated beforehand, giving voters more diverse candidates and opinions all the way up to the November election. Additionally, voters have the option to rank the candidates according to their preferences - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, among others. Voters don't have to worry about abstaining or helping the candidate they dislike the least win the election if they support their preferred candidate.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, ranked choice voting rids of the "spoiler" issue that causes people to back the "lesser evil" rather than their chosen candidate. It encourages candidates to reach out to every voter and seek for areas of agreement rather than stirring up conflict through prejudice and personal attacks. It is less expensive and boosts voter participation in runoff elections. It takes down barriers that prevent average citizens from seeking office. Ranked choice voting would replace political conflict with public consensus by making elections open to a variety of candidates and ideas.

In the case of Alaska, certain criticisms may have been made by one-sided political parties, but supporters of structures like Alaska's claim that this is how they should function. Voters are less inclined to vote strictly along political lines when they have more options, which lessens polarization and favors impartial or more neutral candidates.

In that regard, a poll conducted after the election by Alaskans for Better Elections, a group that pushed for the new system, revealed that 85% of voters thought the procedure was straightforward and that 95% of them had received instructions on how to fill out their ranked choice ballot. Moreover, the new primary system in Alaska, which is open to all voters, has the support of 62% of Alaskans.

In this time of vehement opposition, skeptical political commentary, and tiresome pessimism in governance, ranked-choice voting could be the kind of transformation we ought to have to nurture meaningful campaigns — and develop healthier, cohesive, and more sustainable solutions. It will pave the way for elections that better reflect the will of the entire population. If every vote is counted and every voter matters, then a better democracy will prevail.