Ranked-choice voting (RCV) can refer to one of several ranked voting methods used in some cities and states in the United States. The term is not strictly defined, but most often refers to instant-runoff voting (IRV) or single transferable vote (STV), the main difference being whether only one winner or multiple winners are elected.
RCV is used for state primary, congressional, and presidential elections in Maine; and for state, congressional, and presidential general elections in Alaska. It is used for local elections in 47 US cities including Salt Lake City and Seattle.[1] The San Francisco Bay Area and Minnesota also have a relatively large number of cities using the system.[2] It is also used by the Virginia, Utah, and Indiana Republican parties in state conventions and primaries.[3] [4] [5] As a contingency in the case of a runoff election, RCV ballots are used by overseas voters in six states.
Between 1912[6] and 1930, limited forms of RCV, typically with only two rankings, were implemented but later repealed, as has also occurred with Aspen[7] and Burlington[8] in the 21st century.
Cambridge, MA started using ranked-choice voting in 1941 for its city council elections. Starting in the early 2000's, ranked-choice voting spread in the San Francisco Bay Area and throughout Minnesota.
See main article: article. Ranked-choice voting has been described by supporters as a way to reduce toxicity and extremism by rewarding candidates with broader bases of support.[9] It has also been advocated for as expanding choice.
Opponents have noted research finding that IRV tends to disenfranchise poor, minority, and uneducated voters through improper ballot use.[10] Proponents argue that because 94% of RCV races with 3 or more candidates are won by the first-round winner (and such rates would likely be higher if voters strategically vote for the lesser-evil under plurality) disenfranchisement may not always be offset by greater fidelity to the popular opinion.[11]
In the 2020 Alaska elections, voters approved Measure 2, ranked-choice voting for state and federal (including presidential) elections.[12] It replaces party primaries with a single nonpartisan blanket primary, after which the top 4 candidates advance to a general election. However, presidential primaries continue to be partisan.
Five states used RCV in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, some in response to COVID-19 making an in-person caucus too risky.[13] [14] Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, and Wyoming used it for all voters and Nevada used it for absentee caucus voters.[15] Rather than eliminating candidates until a single winner is chosen, voters' choices were reallocated until all remaining candidates had at least 15%, the threshold to receive delegates to the convention.[16] While all candidates but one had dropped out by the time of the four primaries, use of RCV ensured that voters who selected non-competing candidates as their first choice would not have their votes wasted, but rather used toward determining delegate allocation among the remaining candidates.[17] [18]
On August 26, 2019, the Maine Legislature passed a bill adopting RCV for both presidential primaries and the general election.[19] [20] On September 6, 2019, Governor Janet Mills allowed the bill to become law without her signature, which delayed it from taking effect until after the 2020 presidential primaries in March. It was used in the general election, making Maine the first state to use RCV for a presidential general election.[21] However, in June the Maine Republican Party filed signatures for a veto referendum to ask voters if they want the law repealed and preclude the use of RCV for the 2020 election. Matthew Dunlap, Maine's secretary of state, rejected a number of signatures that had not been collected by a registered voter as required under the state constitution, resulting in there being insufficient signatures for the veto referendum to qualify for the ballot. A challenge to Dunlap's decision in Maine Superior Court was successful for the Maine Republican Party, but the case was appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.[22] [23] [24] On September 8, the court issued a stay of the Superior Court ruling pending appeal on the merits, causing confusion and uncertainty regarding the 2020 election.[25] Nevertheless, ballots began being printed later that day without the veto referendum and including RCV for the presidential election,[26] [27] and the court ruled in favor of the secretary of state on September 22, allowing RCV to be used.[28] An emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court claiming a First Amendment violation was denied by Justice Stephen Breyer (the circuit justice for the First Circuit) on October 6.[29] It was predicted that implementation of RCV could potentially delay the projection of the winner(s) of Maine's electoral votes for days after election day,[30] and could also complicate interpretation of the national popular vote.[31] However, the 2020 United States presidential election in Maine was won statewide and in the 1st congressional district by Joe Biden and in the 2nd congressional district by Donald Trump with majorities, so instant runoff vote transfers did not need to be conducted, and did not impact the determination of the winners or the national popular vote tally.
Outside of the presidential election, single-winner RCV was used in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House elections.
In the 2022 Nevada elections, voters approved Question 3, which proposed replacing party primaries with a single nonpartisan blanket primary where the top 5 candidates would advance to a general election that uses ranked-choice voting.[32] [33] [34] [35] Because the proposal modifies the Nevada constitution, it will have to be reapproved by Nevada voters in 2024 before it can take effect. If it is reapproved, the system would take effect for the 2026 election cycle and be used for all state and federal elections in Nevada except President and Vice President.[36] [37] [38]
On June 17th, 2022, Hawaii Governor David Ige signed Senate Bill 2162 into law allowing for the use of ranked-choice voting for the special elections of federal and county council offices.[39] [40] The bill's author, State Senator Karl Rhoads, expressed support for the usage of ranked-choice voting in special elections stating: "You often get a long list of people who are running and what it results in if it’s just the plurality winner, you can get a winner with 10% of the vote, and that doesn’t really truly reflect the will of the people that district".[41]
In the 2020 Alaska elections, voters approved Measure 2, which replaced party primaries with a single nonpartisan blanket primary, in which the top 4 candidates advance to a general election that uses ranked-choice voting. This system is now used for all state, federal, and presidential elections (except presidential primaries).[12] The first election using the system was held on August 16, 2022, and elected Democrat Mary Peltola to Congress over former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin[42] and Republican Nick Begich.
See also: 2016 Maine Question 5 and June 2018 Maine Question 1. In 2018, Maine began using RCV for primary and general elections for the U.S. Senate and House, and for primary elections for governor and the state legislature. Maine was the first state to use RCV for all these elections.
In 2016, Maine voters approved Maine Question 5 with 52% of the vote, approving ranked-choice voting for primary and general elections for governor, U.S. Senate, U.S. House and the state legislature, starting in 2018.[43] However, in May 2017, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court stated that RCV can be used only for federal offices and primary elections for state offices because the state constitution specifies that a plurality suffices to win general elections for state offices.[44]
In October 2017, the state legislature voted to delay implementation of Question 5 until 2021, at which time the entire Question would be considered repealed unless a constitutional amendment had been passed permitting RCV for general elections for state offices.[45] Maine voters then collected enough signatures to put a Question on the June 2018 ballot to veto the October 2017 law. The people's veto, Question 1, passed in the June 2018 election. This election also initiated the use of RCV for state and federal primaries because the presence of Question 1 on the ballot suspended the October 2017 law.[46]
In the 2018 United States House of Representatives elections in Maine, though Republican incumbent Bruce Poliquin led by 2,171 votes in the first round of vote tabulation in the 2nd Congressional District, he did not have a majority of the votes, initiating the ranked-choice tabulation process. Poliquin filed a lawsuit in federal court on November 13, seeking an order to halt the second-round tabulation of ballots and declare RCV unconstitutional, but his request for an injunction to halt the counting was denied.[47] [48] On November 15, the Maine Secretary of State announced Democratic candidate Jared Golden as the winner by 3,509 votes, after votes for independent candidates Tiffany Bond and Will Hoar were eliminated and ballots with these votes had their second- or third-choice votes counted.[49]
Poliquin requested a recount of the ballots just before the deadline of November 26.[50] On December 14, with almost half of the votes recounted and with the result not being significantly changed, Poliquin ended the recount after incurring $15,000 in fees.[51]
Poliquin also continued his lawsuit[52] and asked the judge, Lance Walker, to order a new election be held should he decline to hold RCV unconstitutional.[53] Judge Walker ruled against Poliquin on December 13, rejecting all of his arguments.[54] Poliquin appealed to the Court of Appeals in Boston and requested an order to prevent Golden from being certified as the winner, but that request was also rejected.[55] On December 24, Poliquin dropped his lawsuit, allowing Golden to take the seat.[56] [57] [58] [59]
As a result, Poliquin became the first incumbent to lose the 2nd Congressional District since 1916, whereas Golden became the first member of Congress to be elected via RCV (along with 1st district Representative Chellie Pingree and Senator Angus King, who won with majorities that did not require subsequent rounds of counting).
After voting to authorize its use, the Utah Republican Party used RCV in 2002, 2003 and 2004 at its statewide convention,[60] including in a contested race to nominate a governor in 2004.[61] In 2005, Republicans used repeated balloting for its statewide convention and has done so in subsequent years. Some county Republican parties like Cache County continue to use instant runoff voting at their conventions,[62] and IRV was used by Republicans to fill several state legislative vacancies in 2009-2011.[63]
In 2014, the Democratic Party of Arlington County, Virginia used RCV in two "firehouse primaries" for countywide office that each drew several thousand voters, and it joined with the Democratic Party of Fairfax County that year to use RCV in a seven-candidate primary election for a special election for the House of Delegates.[64] Arlington Democrats also used the system in 2016.[65]
RCV was also used in 2014 by leaders of the Henrico County Democrats in a three-candidate special election nomination contest for the House of Delegates in December 2014.[66]
In May 2009, the Democratic Party of Charlottesville, Virginia, held its first open caucus to select its nominees for city council and sheriff, using RCV. Voter turnout was close to 1,600 voters. One of two city council incumbents was renominated and another was defeated by a challenger without the need for an instant runoff. Three candidates ran in the sheriff's race. No candidate won an initial majority. In the instant runoff, James E. Brown III defeated Mike Baird.[67]
In August 2011, the Party again used RCV to nominate candidates. Voter turnout rose to 2,582 in the city council race for three nominations. Two candidates were nominated with a majority of the first round vote. The final nomination was determined by RCV.[68]
For the first time in 2023, the Democratic Party of Fairfax County elected to hold a caucus to determine the party's endorsees for school board and Soil and Water Conservation District. Although these offices are officially non-partisan, parties traditionally endorse candidates and party-endorsed candidates almost always win. For the three at-large seats on each board, the party elected to use a form of voting they dubbed S-IRV, or successions of instant runoff voting, which combined single-winner IRV with multi-winner STV. The first endorsed candidate would be determined like a single-winner IRV election, with candidates being eliminated until someone received a majority. The winner's first place votes would then be re-allocated to the voters' second choices in their entirety (unlike in STV where only the excess portion of the winners' vote share is reallocated), all other voters' ballots would be re-allocated back to their first place choice even if that candidate was previously eliminated, and the process would repeat again until three winners had been determined.[69] The soil and water board vote was ultimately cancelled after one candidate withdrew, leaving only three remaining.[70] The caucus rules also called for traditional IRV to be used for single-winner races for individual district seats on the school board in the event there were three or more candidates. However, no district seats had more than two candidates for the endorsement.[71]
In 2021, Republicans in Virginia used RCV in their primary elections for statewide offices. The Democrats in Virginia did not. In the general election, the Republican Party, which had last won an election for a statewide office in 2009, swept all three statewide races.
In 2022, Republican voters in three congressional districts (CD 7, CD 10, and CD 11) used RCV in the primary election. This created an opportunity for a natural experiment comparing CD 10 with an adjacent district, CD 7, where ordinary plurality voting was used. A survey of Republican primary voters in the two districts found that the Republican nominee in the district using RCV (CD 10) enjoyed a substantially higher net favorable rating than the nominee in the other district (CD 7), and substantially more primary voters in CD 10 said that the Republican candidates ran positive campaigns. Also, the winner in CD 10 enjoyed higher name recognition, presumably because RCV gives voters more reason to learn about all the candidates.[72]
| Municipality | Office(s) | Date Passed | Margin Passed | First Use Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Berkeley[73] | Mayor, auditor, and city council | March 2, 2004 | 72% | November 2, 2010[74] [75] |
| Oakland[76] | Mayor, city council, city attorney, city auditor, and school directors[77] | November 7, 2006 | 67% | November 2, 2010 |
| Ojai[78] | City council[79] | November 8, 2022 | 56%[80] | November 5, 2024 (Planned) |
| San Francisco[81] | All city officials | March 5. 2002 | 55% | October 2004[82] |
| San Leandro | Mayor and city council | November 7, 2000 January 19, 2010 | 63%[83] 5-2[84] | November 2, 2010 |
| Palm Desert[85] | City council | May 14, 2020[86] | 5-0 | November 8, 2022[87] |
| Eureka[88] | Mayor and city council | November 3, 2020 | 63% | November 5, 2024 (Planned)[89] |
| Municipality | Office(s) | Date Passed | Margin Passed | First Use Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Basalt | Mayor | 2002[89] | — | 2004[90] | |
| Boulder[91] | Mayor | November 3, 2020 | 78% | November 7, 2023[92] | |
| Broomfield[93] | Mayor and city council | November 2, 2021 | 52% | November 7 2023 | |
| Carbondale[94] | — | April 29, 2003 | 80% | Yet to implement[95] | |
| Fort Collins[96] | All city officials | November 8, 2022 | 58% | TBD |
| Municipality | Office(s) | Date Passed | Margin Passed | First Use Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Portland | Mayor | November 2, 2010[98] | 52% | November 8, 2011[99] | |
| All other city officials[100] | March 3, 2020 | — | — | ||
| Westbrook[101] | All city elections | November 2, 2021 | 63% | — |
| Municipality | Office(s) | Date Passed | Margin Passed | First Use Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Easthampton[103] | Mayor and city council | November 5, 2019 | 55% | November 2, 2021[104] | |
| Amherst | Town Council, school committee, library trustees (using multi-member districts)[105] [106] | 2018 | tbd[107] |
| Municipality | Office(s) | Date Passed | Margin Passed | First Use Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minneapolis | All city officials | November 7, 2006 | 65%[108] | November 3, 2009[109] | |
| St. Louis Park[110] | Mayor and city council | April 2018 | — | November 5 2019 | |
| Saint Paul[111] | Mayor and city council | November 4, 2009 | 52% | November 2011[112] | |
| Minnetonka[113] | Mayor and city council | November 3, 2020 | 55% | November 2021 | |
| Bloomington, Minnesota | Mayor and city council | November 3, 2020 | 51%[114] | November 2, 2021[115] |
| Municipality | Office(s) | Date Passed | Margin Passed | First Use Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ann Arbor[116] | All city officials | 2021 | tbd | ||
| Eastpointe | City council | — | tbd | ||
| Ferndale | 2004 | 68%[117] | tbd |
Entered a consent decree with the US Department of Justice to implement RCV for city council elections for at least four years starting in 2019 to address claims of racial discrimination. Multi-winner RCV in the form of the single transferable vote would have been used, with two city council members elected at each staggered election.[118] [119] The method has yet to actually be implemented, and city council seats continue to use First-past-the-post.[120]
| Municipality | Office(s) | Date Passed | Margin Passed | First Use Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Santa Fe[121] | Mayor and city council | March 4, 2008 | 65% | March 6, 2018[122] | |
| Las Cruces[123] | Mayor and city council | June 2018 | 6-0 | November 5, 2019 |
| Municipality | Office(s) | Date Passed | Margin Passed | First Use Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benton County[127] | All county officials | November 8, 2016 | 54% | November 3, 2020[128] | |
| Corvallis | All city officials[129] | January 19, 2022 | 9-0[130] | November 8, 2022[131] | |
| Multnomah County[132] | All county officials | November 8, 2022 | 67% | 2026 | |
| Portland[133] [134] | Mayor and auditor | November 8, 2022 | — | November 5, 2024 (Planned) |
In 2018, Utah passed a law allowing municipalities to opt in to a temporary RCV trial, the Municipal Alternative Voting Methods Pilot Project, starting with the 2019 municipal elections and ending with the 2025 elections.[135]
| Municipality | Office(s) | Participation Years | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vineyard[136] [137] | — | 2019-2023 | |
| Payson | — | 2019-2023 | |
| Salt Lake City | — | 2021-2023 | |
| Springville[138] | — | 2021 | |
| Draper | — | 2021 | |
| Lehi | — | 2021-2023 | |
| Riverton | — | 2021 | |
| Goshen | — | 2021 | |
| Newton | Town council[139] | 2021 | |
| Woodland Hills | — | 2021-2023 | |
| Heber City | Mayor and city council[140] | 2021-2023 | |
| Moab[141] | Mayor and city council[142] | 2021 | |
| Genola | — | 2021-2023 | |
| Sandy | — | 2021 | |
| South Salt Lake | — | 2021-2023 | |
| Magna | — | 2021-2023 | |
| Bluffdale | — | 2021 | |
| Nibley | Mayor and city council[143] [144] | 2021 | |
| Millcreek | — | 2021-2023 | |
| River Heights | City council[145] | 2021 | |
| Cottonwood Heights | — | 2021 | |
| Midvale | — | 2021-2023 | |
| Kearns | — | 2023 |
| Municipality | Office(s) | Date Passed | Margin Passed | First Use Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burlington | City Council[146] [147] | March 2, 2021 | 64% | — |
| Mayor, city councilors, school commissioners, ward Clerks, and inspectors of election[148] | March 2023 | 64% | — |
The Virginia legislature passed a bill in 2020 providing a local option for municipalities to use ranked-choice voting through 2031.[149]
Seattle's adoption of RCV is notable in two distinct ways. The voters were first asked if they wanted to change the voting system at all, and then were asked to choose between RCV and approval voting.[151] Additionally, RCV will be used for the primary, while use in the general is more typical.
Several states jurisdictions that hold runoff elections allow certain categories of absentee voters to submit ranked-choice ballots, because the interval between votes is too short for a second round of absentee voting. Ranked-choice ballots enable long-distance absentee votes to count in the runoff election if their first choice does not make the runoff. Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, and South Carolina all use ranked-choice ballots for overseas and military voters in federal elections that might go to a runoff.[153] [154] Springfield, Illinois follows the same practice for city elections after voters approved it with 91% support.[155]
Some of the jurisdictions that have adopted RCV use a proportional variant for multi-winner elections known as single transferable vote. While considered a separate voting system by voting theorists, it is common for these municipalities to refer to the system as proportional RCV or even simply RCV and so these adoptions have been included here.
| Municipality | Office(s) | Date Passed | Margin Passed | First Use Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Albany, California | City Council and School Board | November 3rd, 2020 | 73%[156] | November 8th, 2022 | |
| Arden, Delaware | Board of Assessors[157] | 1912[158] | — | — | |
| Portland, Maine[159] | All multi-seat offices[160] | November 8th, 2022 | 63% | — | |
| Park Board[161] | November 7th, 2006 | 65% | November 3, 2009 | ||
| Cambridge, Massachusetts[162] | City council and school committee | — | — | 1941 | |
| Easthampton, Massachusetts[163] [164] | City council and school committee | November 7th, 2023 | 62% | 2025 | |
| Eastpointe, Michigan[165] [166] | City Council | June 5, 2019 | — | 2019 | |
| Portland, Oregon | City commissioner | November 8, 2022 | 58% | November 4th, 2024 |
In 2021, Austin voters approved a ballot measure 59–41% to adopt ranked-choice voting for city elections, replacing the two-round system.[167] However, it is not clear if the reference to "majority" in state law allows its use.[168] [169]
On February 28th, 2022, Tennessee became the first state to ban ranked choice voting state-wide. The sponsor of the bill, then Republican State Senator Brian Kelsey, said the ban was "a win for protecting election integrity and ensuring voter clarity at the ballot box."[170] Florida quickly followed with a similar ban, when governor Ron DeSantis signed senate bill 524 into law on April 25th.[171] In spring of the following year, there was another rash of bans in red states, with Idaho passing a ban on March 23rd,[172] South Dakota on March 21st,[173] and Montana on April 26th, 2023.[174] Between April and June of 2024, the use of RCV was banned statewide in Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Oklahoma.[175]
In Missouri, backlash to RCV after the 2022 Alaska House special election led the legislature to refer a ballot initiative mandating block plurality voting in all elections to voters for the 2024 election in November. This would prevent the expansion of approval voting in the state, despite its successful implementation in St. Louis.[176]
Between 1912 and 1930, limited forms of ranked-choice voting were implemented and subsequently repealed in Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. In the 1970s, it was implemented in Ann Arbor, Michigan, but quickly repealed after only a single election.[177] More recently, it was adopted and repealed in Pierce County, Washington (2006–2009);[178] Burlington, Vermont (2005–2010); and Aspen, Colorado (2007–2010). It has since been reinstated in Burlington,[179] and Ann Arbor residents voted to reinstate it as well, with that use likely needing approval from Michigan’s state legislature.[180]
Aspen, Colorado passed ranked-choice voting in November 2007[181] for the mayoral race and for at-large council races with two winners. In March 2009, the Aspen council adopted a unique variation of RCV for the council races.[182] A block voting tally based on the first and second rank choices was used to determine first round support. Any candidate with initial majority support was elected. If there were not two first-round winners, there was a batch elimination of low-placing candidates to reduce the number of continuing candidates before the instant runoff. In the latter case, separate rounds of ranked-choice counting would be conducted for each council seat, with the winner of the first seat eliminated from the race for the second seat.
Aspen's first elections with RCV and the new city council system were on May 5, 2009. The number of voters was the highest in the history of Aspen elections.[183] Mick Ireland was re-elected as mayor in the fourth round of a four-candidate race. Both city council incumbents were defeated in the two-seat RCV election in which nine candidates participated. The winners were selected after RCV tallies. 168 spoiled ballots were recast by voters alerted to errors by their optical scanning machine.[184] The city reported 0% invalid ballots in the mayor's race and 0.9% invalid ballots in the two-seat city council elections.[185]
The elections were close, and some Aspen observers argued that a traditional runoff system would have given more time to consider their top choices. There also was debate over how to implement audit procedures.[186] In 2009, voters rejected an advisory measure to maintain IRV[187] and in 2010, approved a binding amendment to return to a traditional runoff system.[188] [189]
On November 4, 2008, voters in the town of Telluride, Colorado, passed an ordinance with 67% of the vote to adopt RCV for the next three mayoral elections, starting in November 2011 if three candidates file for the office.[190] The system was used for the city's 2011 mayoral election. The incumbent mayor Stu Fraser was re-elected by securing a majority of first choices.[191] In the 2015 mayoral election, Sean Murphy handily won an open seat election for mayor after trailing in first choices.[192]
In 2023, the city returned to first-past-the-post voting.[193]
Ranked-choice voting (then called preferential voting) was adopted for mayoral races in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1974 after a successful ballot initiative sponsored by the local Human Rights Party. RCV was used in the 1975 mayoral election. Democratic Party nominee Albert H. Wheeler, the city's first African-American mayor, won after trailing the Republican incumbent 49% to 40% in the first round of counting, with remaining votes cast for the Human Rights Party nominee.[194] The ousted incumbent Stephenson alleged in a lawsuit that RCV violated the equal protection clause, but the county circuit court upheld the voting system.[195]
In April 1976, 62% of voters voted to repeal RCV.[196]
A 2006 law established that ranked-choice voting would be used when judicial vacancies were created between a primary election and sixty days before a general election. The law also established a pilot program for RCV for up to 10 cities in 2007 and up to 10 counties for 2008; to be monitored and reported to the 2007–2008 General Assembly.[197] In November 2010, North Carolina had three RCV elections for local-level superior court judges, each with three candidates, and a statewide IRV election for a North Carolina Court of Appeals seat (with 13 candidates). The Court of Appeals race is believed to be the first time RCV has been used in any statewide general election in the United States.[198] [199]
Several municipalities considered participating in the RCV pilot in 2007. Cary, Hendersonville and Kinston voted to participate; Kinston dropped out because there were not enough candidates running to use RCV. Other cities declined to participate in the pilot. No North Carolina counties volunteered to participate in RCV in the 2008 elections held in conjunction with state and federal races.[200] In August 2008 the governor signed legislation extending the pilot program for local elections to be held in 2009–2011.[201]
There was much debate whether RCV was successful when it was used.[202] [203] [204] This debate continued in the North Carolina legislature when it debated legislation to extend the pilot program.[205] Some "verified voting" advocates contended that the RCV tabulation procedures used were not legal.[206] [207] [208] Both advocates and opponents of the provision supported amendments to the pilot program to ensure that the local governing body of any jurisdiction participating in the pilot must approve their participation; the jurisdiction must develop and implement voter education plans; and the University of North Carolina School of Government must approve procedures for conducting RCV elections by January 2009. After these amendments were adopted, the state House of Representatives, by a majority of 65-47, rejected an amendment designed to remove the pilot program from the legislation, and the legislation ultimately won approval by both houses.[209]
In 2009, Hendersonville again used RCV.[210] Three candidates ran for mayor in Hendersonville in November 2009; five candidates ran for two seats on the city council using a multi-seat version of RCV.[211] All seats were filled based on first choices without the need for further counting.[212]
In 2011, Hendersonville's city council unanimously voted to use RCV a third time, although ultimately not enough candidates filed for office to trigger the need for the system.[213]
The RCV pilot program was repealed by the General Assembly in 2013, meaning special judicial elections with more than two candidates would once again be decided by simple plurality.[214] [215]
In October 2007, the city of Cary, North Carolina used RCV for municipal election for three council seats and for mayor.[216] The mayor's race (with two candidates) and two of the council seats (with four and three candidates on the ballot) were won with a majority in the first round. The remaining council seat, with three candidates, went to a second round of counting; the plurality winner in the first round went on to win with 50.9% of the final round vote, amounting to 46.4% of first-round ballots cast, with 8.9% of the ballots offering no preference between the top two candidates.[217]
| Round 2 | |||||
| Don Frantz | 1151 | (38.1%) | 1401 | (46.4%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vickie Maxwell | 1075 | (35.6%) | 1353 | (44.8%) | |
| Nels Roseland | 793 | (26.2%) | colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" | -- | |
| Other | 3 | (0.0%) | colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" | -- | |
| Exhausted ballots | colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" | -- | 268 | (8.9%) | |
| Total | 3022 | (100%) | 3022 | (100%) |
Cary used hand or machine-marked paper ballots that are read on optical scanners manufactured by ES&S. First column choices were tallied at the precinct. The second and third column choices were counted at a central location. In 2009, the Cary Town Council voted to use a traditional runoff method.[218]
After home rule was adopted, Ashtabula was the first American adoption of single transferable vote in 1915. It was repealed in 1929.
Cincinnati adopted a single transferable vote charter in 1925 until it was repealed in 1957.
In 1921, Cleveland amended its charter adopting proportional representation to elect city council.[219] :116 Single transferable vote with large multi member districts was used in 5 elections until repealed in 1931.
Hamilton changed its charter to adopt single transferable vote in 1926 until its repeal in 1960.
Toledo adopted a single transferable vote charter in 1935 until its repeal in 1949.
Springville, Elk Ridge, Draper, Riverton, Goshen, Newton, Moab, and Sandy have all used RCV for a single election under the state's trial program and chose not to use it again.
See also: Burlington, Vermont mayoral election, 2009. The city of Burlington, Vermont approved ranked-choice voting for use in mayoral elections with a 64% vote in 2005.[220] The 2006 Burlington mayoral race was decided after two rounds of tallying, and the mayoral race in 2009 was decided in three rounds. Unlike Burlington's first RCV mayoral election in 2006, the RCV winner in 2009 (VT Progressive candidate Bob Kiss) was neither the same as the plurality winner (Republican Kurt Wright) nor the majority-preferred candidate (Democrat Andy Montroll).[221]
The results caused a post-election controversy regarding the RCV method.[222] In late 2009, a group of several Democrats (who supported Republican Kurt Wright) led a signature drive to force a referendum on RCV.[223] RCV was repealed in March 2010 by a vote of 52% to 48%.[224] [225] [226]
Pierce County, Washington, passed (53%) ranked-choice voting in November 2006 for most of its county offices.[227] Voters upheld the 2008 implementation timing with a vote of 67% in 2007 and made minor adjustments to the charter language involving ballot access and numbers of rankings.[228] Seven RCV elections took place on November 4, 2008 and one on November 3, 2009.[229] The introduction of RCV was marked by controversies about costs and voter confusion. On November 3, 2009, voters repealed RCV.[230]
The city of Vancouver, Washington voted in 1999 to adopt RCV and the state legislature enacted enabling legislation in 2004, but the city in 2006 chose not to exercise its option. In Washington, an initiative seeking to adopt RCV in 2005 failed to garner enough signatures. In 2008, Vermont governor Jim Douglas vetoed legislation which would have established RCV for that state's congressional elections starting that year.[231] RCV for all state and federal elections was on Alaska's statewide ballot in August 2002, when it was defeated (though it would suceed in a future ballot). It also was defeated by voters in Glendale, Arizona in 2008, in Fort Collins, Colorado in 2011 (though was adopted later), and in Duluth, Minnesota in 2015.
San Juan County, Washington put RCV to a vote in November 2022 and rejected the proposal, with 57% voting against.[232] Voters in Clark County, Washington rejected RCV that same day, with 58% electing to keep their system unchanged.[233]
Massachusetts rejected Ballot Question 2 in the 2020 general election, which would have authorized ranked-choice voting for "primary and general elections for all Massachusetts statewide offices, state legislative offices, federal congressional offices, and certain other offices beginning in 2022," but not "for President of the United States, county commissioner, or regional district school committee members."[234]
In the U.S. Congress, the Voter Choice Act of 2005[235] would require the use of ranked-choice voting for general elections for federal office. The For the People Act, passed by the House of Representatives in 2019 and reintroduced in 2021, would promote the purchase of voting systems capable of RCV.[236] [237]
The proposed Fair Representation Act would amend several laws including the Help America Vote Act and the Reapportionment Act of 1929 to mandate the conversion of all congressional districts from single- to multi-member districts elected by RCV as well as the creation of state-level nonpartisan redistricting commissions for congressional redistricting.[238] [239] [240] [241] Originally introduced in 2017 during the 115th Congress by Don Beyer (D–VA), it was reintroduced by Beyer in 2019, 2021, and 2024.[242] [243] Beyer has stated the goal of the bill is to reduce polarization and partisanship by incentivizing elected representatives to appeal to a broader range of voters. Ranked choice voting and multi-seat districts would reduce the number of safe-seat districts and encourage more political competition.[244]
Oregon will vote in 2024 on a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment which, if passed, will adopt ranked-choice voting for subsequent elections for both federal offices (U.S. president, senator and representative) and state constitutional officers (governor, secretary of state, attorney general, state treasurer, and commissioner of labor and industries), as well as allow local government bodies to adopt ranked-choice voting unless prohibited by local charter.[245] [246]
In Washington DC, a proposed voter referendum would implement ranked choice voting. Known as Initiative 83 or the Make All Votes Count Act of 2024, the measure aims to appear on the ballot in November 2024 and would also require open primaries.[247]
In Idaho, there is a ballot petition to implement a top-four nonpartisan blanket primary which, if passed, would repeal the state law allowing parties to close their primaries, replacing it by pooling all the candidates from all the parties and independents, the top 4 of which would advance to the general election. In the general election, voters will use RCV to choose one of the 4 candidates. Supporters of the petition say they are almost at the required number of signatures, after which the measure will appear on the ballot in November 2024.[248]
RCV is used in American non-governmental elections as well. Examples include student elections at approximately 95 colleges and universities, along with elections for officers in professional associations, such as the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (Oscars), American Chemical Society, American Philosophical Association, and Society of Actuaries.