Illinois State Senator Daniel Biss, who ran a progressive campaign for Governor and has previously submitted a Ranked Voting bill.

By Ben Chapman, President of Illinoisans for Ranked Choice Voting

(sign up for our email list)

To begin, let me be very clear: Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) benefits everyone, regardless of party. It is an electoral form that simply makes elections better — it’s about as party-blind as it gets. However, this party-blindness does not preclude RCV from being a progressive issue deserving of vocal support from progressives.

Furthermore, I should note that though I’m a proud progressive, that is not the reason I campaign for RCV. I campaign for RCV because I am a believer in democracy and I believe that, when given the right tools, the American people can build a country that will flourish.

To be very, very, very clear, the arguments I will make below should in NO WAY discourage people on the right side of the political spectrum from supporting RCV — there are still many reasons for them to do so, the integrity of our democracy being just one. However, for the sake of clarity and brevity, I will limit myself to one argument in this article.

Before addressing why RCV is a progressive reform, I should counter arguments that suggest it is regressive. One myth is that RCV disenfranchises voters because it is a more complex system that lower education voters may not understand. Technically, it is true that RCV is more complex than our current system. However, the vast majority of Americans are fully capable of listing elements in order of their favorite to least favorite — and those that aren’t capable of such a simple feat are unlikely to ever find their way into a polling booth. The argument that RCV disenfranchises low education voters is simply false. In fact, Maine recently adopted RCV statewide, and they experienced unexpectedly high turnout ( source ), indicating that RCV may actually increase voter enthusiasm.

With this myth dispelled, I will argue why RCV is a reform that progressives should actively support.

To provide context, I’ll note that I’m not the only person arguing that RCV is a progressive reform. In fact, after a rousing speech by my colleague Adam Friedman of Voter Choice Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Democratic State Committee added RCV to their party platform ( story ). Adam made the arguments that RCV is conducive to voter enfranchisement, diversity, inclusion, and unity in politics, and those were values the Democratic Party of Massachusetts supported.

Democrats have a politically strategic incentive to support RCV. Research has shown that when voters are less fearful of the world, they are more more likely to vote liberal ( 1 , 2 , 3 ). Before America was awakened to the problematic habit of attaching gender roles to phenomena, this effect was known as the “mommy-daddy divide.” When voters need a daddy to protect them from danger, they vote R, when they need a mommy to care for them and help them advance socially, they vote D. How does this relate to RCV?

Our current voting system promotes fearmongering because it encourages candidates to find a way to stand out from a crowd. They often do this by making vitriolic, alarmist claims to grab voters’ attention.

Ranked Choice Voting reduces the fearmongering and hostility because candidates are forced to court not only the 1st choice of voters, but also the 2nd and 3rd choices. This makes candidates wary of running smear campaigns on opponents, as they risk losing the favor of supporters of the attack ad’s subject. RCV makes vitriol less politically profitable. As a result, candidates are encouraged to play nice, which results in a less fear-laden political ecosystem, which in turn leads to more liberal sentiments from voters.

But aside from political strategy, there are ideological reasons that progressives should support RCV. Though the evidence is, admittedly, limited, what evidence exists suggests that Ranked Choice Voting — especially as used in localities — promotes the election of more diverse public officials, a goal progressives have been pursuing for decades.

Reports on Californian elections from FairVote, an RCV advocacy organization, have shown that after RCV was implemented, more women ( source ) and minorities ( source ) were elected.

Though the cause and effect chain of how RCV promotes diversity in government is unclear, one hypothesis is that RCV, when used as an IRV system to bypass primaries, shortens election cycles. With this shorter campaign season, candidates have to spend much less time and money courting voters. These factors allow people of more diverse backgrounds with different levels of income and social connections to enter races and be competitive. When more diverse people run, more diverse people win.

But RCV goes further in diminishing the effect money can have on politics. Because it reduces vote splitting and spoiling, RCV creates races with larger numbers of competitive candidates, meaning that if a special interest wants to gain political favor with candidates in a race via donations, they have to spend more money due to the increased quantity of candidates. Similarly, because RCV is capable of breaking or weakening the party duopoly, special interests have to split up their lobbying influence across multiple parties and party leaders, making their lobbying less efficient and less effective.

So far, I have only shown that RCV can be used as a means to progressive ends — not that RCV is a progressive end in itself. But it is. Here’s why.

RCV is progressive because it empowers The People. By definition, RCV gives voters more choices and grants them expanded expression at the ballot box. Additionally, because RCV eliminates the potential for wasting votes, voters cannot be intimidated into voting for one of the two main parties. Voters can vote their preference.

Under RCV, you don’t have to vote for a lesser evil.

RCV revokes the politicians’ ability to shame, intimidate, oppress, or silence non-mainstream voters that don’t toe a party line. In political jargon, RCV is an anti-machine tool that will keep elected officials accountable without allowing power structures to corrode or become rancid.

RCV is a nonpartisan issue — but the fact that it is nonpartisan in no way precludes it from being a progressive idea. And the fact that it is a progressive idea in no way precludes it from being a good idea deserving of support from across the political board.

RCV strengthens voter expression at the ballot box, weakens the force of money in politics, and increases diversity amongst elected officials. RCV is progressive because it is, at a basic level, a forward-looking reform. It recognizes that we are in a quickly advancing world made up of people with complex opinions that deserve to be expressed at the ballot box.

Ranked Choice Voting gives power to the people — and isn’t that what progressivism is all about?