Rep. Jamie Raskin’s push for ranked-choice voting (RCV) exemplifies a significant shift in how elections could be run in the United States. Just before pivotal midterm elections, Raskin introduced H.R. 6589, a bill demanding that RCV be adopted for elections to the U.S. House and Senate. His framing of RCV as a remedy for American political woes raises critical questions about the validity and implications of such a drastic change.
In a video posted to X, Raskin asserts, “I believe our Ranked Choice Voting Act will not only guarantee majority winners across America but dramatically reduce negative politics and promote positivity in our elections.” This statement encapsulates his belief that a new voting system will alter candidate behavior, encouraging them to seek broader support instead of diving into personal attacks. However, such promises require scrutiny.
The ranked-choice voting system—where voters rank candidates by preference—sounds straightforward in theory. If no candidate secures a majority from first-choice votes, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated. Their votes are redistributed until a candidate surpasses the 50 percent mark. Raskin cites examples where this system supposedly leads to healthier campaigns, but real-world examples tell a different story.
Take Alaska, where RCV turned a Republican seat into a victory for Democrat Mary Peltola, despite 60% backing for GOP candidates. This raises concerns about how effectively RCV reflects the will of voters. In New York, socialist Zohran Mamdani initially led with 43.5% of first-choice votes, only to emerge victorious after rounds of eliminations pushed him past 56%. Such outcomes may confuse voters who expect traditional rules to apply.
A significant study of elections in Maine reveals troubling aspects of RCV. In 98 recent elections, 60% of winning candidates did not achieve a true majority of overall votes cast, indicating a disconnection from a straightforward democratic principle. RCV invites allegations of manipulation, creating a blurred line between genuine support and sheer number games.
Critics note that the prolonged tabulation process can lead to accusations of fraud and manipulation. Furthermore, if a voter’s second or third choice is disregarded, they might find themselves feeling their vote did not matter. Websites like RCVScam.com highlight these issues, claiming it undermines the democratic ideal of “one person, one vote.”
In response, a growing number of states—17 in total—have moved to prohibit ranked-choice voting, including Idaho, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and South Carolina. This pushback reflects skepticism about RCV’s efficacy and its potential to disrupt the electoral process further rather than enhance it.
Raskin’s enthusiastic promotion of ranked-choice voting as a panacea for American politics stands in stark contrast to the mounting evidence questioning its effectiveness. As these midterm elections approach, the implications of switching to such a system could resonate for years to come, making it imperative for voters to consider what ranked-choice voting truly means for their representation.
"*" indicates required fields
