Holy Grail of Elections: Does Ranked Choice Voting Produce True Majority Winners?

Source: fairvote.org

In the ongoing search for electoral systems that meet the demands of modern democracies, ranked choice voting (RCV) is gaining momentum. Advocates present it as a smarter alternative to plurality voting—one that strengthens majority rule, reduces negative campaigning, and offers voters more meaningful choices. By ranking candidates rather than selecting just one, voters can express preferences more fully and support their ideal candidate without fear of "wasting" their vote.

Proponents also argue that RCV encourages a more diverse field of candidates, giving independents and third-party contenders a better chance to compete. Critics, however, caution that RCV may simply exchange old problems for new ones. They point to the complexity of ballots, the need for extensive voter education, and the risk of confusion or ballot errors, particularly in lower-information elections.

How RCV Works

RCV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the one with the fewest is eliminated. Ballots for that candidate are then redistributed based on the next-ranked choices. This continues until a candidate earns a majority of remaining active votes.

Why People Like It

Supporters say RCV more accurately reflects the will of the electorate. Under plurality systems, candidates can win with as little as 30–35% of the vote in crowded fields. RCV requires broader support, helping ensure that winners reflect a wider voter base.

Is It a "True Majority"?

A central debate around RCV is what constitutes a "majority." Because ballots that don’t list enough preferences can become “exhausted” and drop out before the final round, the winning candidate may achieve a majority of continuing ballots—but not a majority of all ballots cast. Whether this counts as a “true majority” depends on how one defines the electorate: by all participants or only those whose ballots remain active. Supporters emphasize that better ballot design and voter education can reduce exhaustion.

Complexity and Voter Understanding

RCV is more complex than single-choice voting and requires public education to ensure voters fill out their ballots correctly. Without proper outreach, voters may misunderstand the ranking process or leave ballots partially blank, leading to ballot exhaustion. However, in cities like San Francisco, Santa Fe, and Minneapolis, post-implementation studies have found high levels of voter understanding and confidence. A report by New America found that most voters in the US, even first-timers, say they understand how RCV works (New America report).

Impact on Campaigns

RCV may also influence how candidates campaign. Since being a second or third choice can help secure victory, candidates may be less likely to attack opponents and more likely to appeal to a broader coalition. While the actual impact varies across elections, many observers suggest that RCV can help foster more civil discourse.

Preventing Vote Splitting

RCV can help reduce vote-splitting, a common problem in plurality elections where similar candidates divide support and allow a less popular option to win. Under RCV, voters can support a preferred candidate without worrying about inadvertently helping their least preferred one. FairVote: RCV solves the "spoiler" problem.

Administrative Trade-Offs

Despite its benefits, RCV does bring administrative challenges. It can be more expensive to implement and slower to tabulate, especially in large races with many candidates. Multiple rounds of counting and the need for more sophisticated systems can raise concerns about transparency and trust. MIT Election Data + Science Lab report. 

• RCV in Global News New York City (2025 Democratic Mayoral Primary): Over a million voters used five-choice RCV. A SurveyUSA poll found 96% of voters said the ballot was easy to use.
• Australia (2025 Federal Election): Australia continues using RCV (instant-runoff) for House elections, reaffirming its status as a global model.
• Washington, D.C. (2024): Voters overwhelmingly approved RCV for local elections. Vox coverage.
• Portland, Oregon (2022): Voters approved RCV and a city government overhaul including a 12-member council. The Guardian.
• Alaska (2024): Voters rejected an RCV repeal, keeping their open primary + RCV system. Wikipedia summary.
• Ireland: Uses RCV for parliamentary elections.
• India: Uses RCV to elect the President and in some legislative council elections.
• Papua New Guinea: Uses Limited Preferential Voting (a form of RCV) since 2003 to promote stability and inclusion.

Is It the Holy Grail?

RCV offers meaningful improvements: it reduces vote-splitting, broadens voter expression, and may promote more civil campaigning. But it’s not a universal fix. It brings trade-offs in cost, complexity, and the definition of majority. As global examples from New York to Australia to India show, RCV can succeed with transparency, robust education, and thoughtful implementation.

No system is perfect. But for jurisdictions aiming to reflect the will of more voters in crowded fields, RCV remains a compelling option—worthy of continued study, testing, and refinement.

E-Voting denied in Switzerland over hacking fears

No one ever said that the path to progress was going to be easy, straightforward and without challenges, but that does not mean we should abandon any of the positive steps we have taken to move forward. One area where this has become increasingly pronounced is in the context of voting technology.

A very recent example of this comes from Switzerland, widely regarded as one of the safest and most affluent countries in the world. There, the government has decided to deny access to e-voting technology in nine cantons. The explanation provided is that an audit of the electronic voting system being put forth for the upcoming federal elections has unearthed a number of significant security flaws in regards to protecting voting secrecy.

The electronic voting system was developed by Unisys, a company based in the United States. “Some serious deficiencies were noted,” according to government spokesperson Andre Simonazzi. “Hackers would have been able to reveal the electors' vote, which is not tolerable in a democracy.”

Absolutely, it is of incredible importance that the confidentiality and privacy of the vote must be secured in any election, let alone one of this magnitude. However, such deficiencies should not deter governments like the Swiss to move backward in its progress toward greater and more widespread adoption of e-voting technology. With this move, over one-third of Switzerland's 26 cantons will be without access to the electronic voting system.

This follows a recent story involving Swiss expatriates who are calling for electronic technology for voting from abroad. Significant progress has been made in Switzerland and in other European countries, most notably in Estonia, a democracy that continues to serve as a positive model of how e-voting can be very successfully implemented.

A bigger part of the problem with this government question is that it may now cause citizens to question their confidence in the credibility and reliability of e-voting technology in general. The problem here comes specifically from the Unisys system and it should not reflect poorly on other systems developed by other vendors.

If anything, it further solidifies the proposition that such hacking fears, among other possible causes of concern, need to be suitably addressed by the careful selection of the most reputable vendors with proven track records. A robust series of audits – before, during and after an election is held – must also be put in place.

The decision to repeal the Unisys-developed electronic voting system may offer some positives to the Swiss people if the system is as “seriously flawed” as the government report indicates. However, it is important that the government follow up as soon as possible by pursuing another vendor and another solution in order to keep the momentum moving forward with e-voting rather than sliding back to more archaic and arguably even more flawed systems of voting. 

On the issue of expatriate voting rights

Do citizens who are living and working abroad, particularly for an extended period of time, still have the same voting rights as the citizens who choose to stay in their home country? Should these expatriates be granted the same level of access to exercising their right to franchise, even if they haven't lived in their home country for several years?

This is surely a very controversial subject and it will continue to be a hotly debated issue as the global economy continues to grow and expand. A growing number of people are now working remotely or seeking new career opportunities in countries other than their own, all while retaining citizenship in their homeland rather than seeking citizenship where they currently reside. And what about students attending school abroad?

Most recently, a very significant change was made in Canada in regards to the voting rights of expatriates. The current Canadian government has stated that expatriates who have lived abroad for a period of more than five years are no longer be able to cast ballots and participate in the country's elections.

The rationale, according to Chief Justice George Strathy, is that non-residents should not be able to vote on laws that “have little to no practical consequence for their own daily lives.” Indeed, if legislators are passing laws related to the infrastructure of a country, like schools and roads, but the expatriate never accesses these schools and roads, should they still have a say in how these issues are resolved?

Unsurprisingly, this ruling has consequently resulted in a significant backlash from the expatriate community, including celebrated actor and octogenarian Donald Sutherland. He stated that he only has one passport – a Canadian one – and he deserves the right to vote, even if he doesn't live in Canada. He has refused American citizenship and has no interest in pursuing dual citizenship. He was made an Officer of the Order of Canada nearly 40 years ago. He feels Canadian, through and through, but he cannot vote. 

Questions have been raised as to how such laws should be applied and whether they require significant revision. Should and do the circumstances matter in determining whether a person living abroad can vote? What if it's a student taking a five-year program at a university abroad? What if it is a professional, like Sutherland, who hasn't lived in Canada for years? What if it's someone who works abroad most of the time, but comes “home” on a periodic basis where his family continues to reside?

Voting rights as related to non-residents and expatriates is not unique to Canadian politics.

A major movement is taking place among the community of Swiss citizens living and working abroad, for example, calling for the implementation of electronic voting technology. Remote e-voting was recently mandated for non-resident Indians so they can vote in elections without having to make the physical journey back home. But what does “home” really mean in this context?

And this lends itself to another related issue. If expatriates are granted the right to franchise, can e-voting better accommodate their ability to cast a ballot? Postal ballots or being forced to return to a home constituency can be inconvenient at best and an overwhelming obstacle at worst. By being able to vote through e-voting machines at local embassies or voting over the Internet instantly from anywhere in the world, expatriates can have far greater access to democracy. 

Internet voting improving voter turnout and securing the system

The Internet is used for just about every aspect of everyday life and it has become an integral part of the modern lifestyle. Friends communicate online through e-mail, social media and instant messengers far more often than they would send a regular letter through the postal mail. Companies conduct their business online, buying and selling their products and services. And in many parts of the world, correspondence with government agencies can also be performed through the Internet, filing income tax returns and applying for employment insurance benefits. Why hasn't Internet voting become just as widespread and commonplace?

In the case of the town of Ajax near Toronto, Canada, Internet voting was incredibly popular in its recent municipal election. The election was held almost exclusively online and voter turnout, at 30.4%, was significantly higher than the voter turnout in the previous two elections: 23% in 2006 and 26% in 2010. There is still much room for improvement in terms of voter turnout, but the trend is positive and a full 92% of people cast their vote online. 

And while Internet voting does appear to have a positive impact on voter turnout, it should never replace all other forms of voting. The online system is convenient, to be sure, but Ajax supplemented that primary system with the opportunity for voters to cast their ballot over the phone or at one of 10 polling stations with computer terminals set up on Election Day itself. The goal of Internet voting is to improve accessibility, not hinder it. Internet voting is particularly effective in substituting for postal voting as the ballot can be received and tabulated instantly. This also saves significantly in cost, both for the postage and for the printing of paper ballots. 

However, not all systems are made equally. While the online voting experiment in Ajax was deemed a success, there were significant issues experienced by the nearby town of Innisfil, also in the province of Ontario in Canada. Voters were unable to access the Internet voting system “due to technical errors.” Reportedly, the top cause for the online voting issues was that some people typed the website code into a search engine rather than into the address bar. 

Worse yet, overall voter turnout dropped by six percent compared to previous elections in Innisfil. 

This demonstrates that Internet voting isn't necessarily the magic bullet for improving voter turnout and it is of paramount importance that municipalities and governments select reputable and reliable vendors to manage their elections. An adequate audit system needs to be in place and the i-voting infrastructure needs to be thoroughly tested. Estonia is perhaps one of the best examples of Internet voting done right with a high level of voter and ballot authentication. 

One issue that has been brought to light is that voters casting their ballot over the Internet can be coerced and their votes can be bought or sold. This is a problem inherent with any remote voting solution that is not supervised by election officials. However, this concern can also be remedied in a rather simple manner: multiple voting. By allowing voters to cast more than one ballot and allowing the latest one to supersede any previous ballots submitted, online or otherwise, even votes that are coerced or bought can be overridden by a newer ballot. This is how Internet voting works in Estonia. 

Online voting can be an incredibly powerful tool to improve voter turnout and to empower a democracy. However, it can and should not be the sole solution, as voters should have the option to vote in other manners. Regardless of which system is used, maintaining the security and integrity of the vote is crucial.

Online voting needs to be an option in future elections

Democracy has taken on many different forms over the years and the exact mechanics utilized in capturing the will of the people have also adapted with the times. In the earlier days of democracy, votes were cast in a very public fashion, but the concept of the secret ballot has become a cornerstone of many modern democracies. Whereas people may have once selected to place a ball in one of two jars to signify which candidate they supported, the vote is now captured in a number of different ways.

The now traditional paper ballot allowed for some flexibility, as several candidates could be listed and it would be possible to get votes on multiple issues or elections at the same time. And while traditional paper ballots may continue to persist, a number of more modern technologies have really started to pick up in popularity. Direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting machines are increasingly widespread and, more recently, Internet-based voting has been used in many parts of the world.

It is true that Internet voting (sometimes called “i-voting” to differentiate from “e-voting” on voting terminals) has ran into trouble here and there. A recent article in The Mississauga News, by way of the Waterloo Region Record, has stated that online voting in Cambridge, Ontario, Canada is “worth the risks.” One of the primary reasons for promoting online voting raised in the article is that it may help to boost voter participation. Voter turnout rates have continued to drop in many countries and part of the explanation is that the tech-savvy generation of today have become disenchanted or disinterested in the electoral process.

It has become abundantly clear that young people can be very interested in human interest issues and in politics, as evidenced by the events in places like Hong Kong and Cairo, but they may not necessarily participate in politics in a more traditional manner. Online voting can help to make the electoral process both more accessible and more relevant to this demographic. The convenience of voting “from the comfort of your home” cannot be understated.

The issues surrounding the security and reliability of online voting have been a topic of hot debate. In the case of Cambridge, Ontario, Internet-based voting is still in testing phases. However, online voting is not new to Canada and it has been experimented with in the past and it continues to be explored across the country. 

The author of the article recognizes the risks of online voting, including the potential for hacking the system and for compromising the integrity of election results, but these can be substantially minimized with the right provider using the right software, under the right guidelines for a robust audit system throughout the election process. There are challenges to be faced in maintaining the privacy of the secret ballot and protecting the system against distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks, but it needs to be recognized that traditional paper ballots also come with their own set of challenges and difficulties to overcome.

The goal, at least in the short term, is not for online voting to replace traditional ballots altogether. Instead, it is far better to combine the best elements of both systems in order to promote greater voter turnout while maintaining a high level of security, reliability and integrity. An online voting system can work in parallel with paper-based ballots or with direct-recording electronic voting machines situated in official voting places, as the former provides greater access to those with disabilities, those living in remote areas, or simply those who enjoy the comfort and convenience of voting anywhere they have an Internet connection.

Thailand to hold early elections in a bid to defuse tension

Tumultous is one word that has often been used to describe Thailand’s political landscape. To most observers, the Asian country has indeed experienced one too many upheavals for comfort. Subjected to the absolute rule of kings for centuries, Thailand became a constitutional monarchy in 1932 when the country’s elite staged a “democratic revolution.”

Yet the change in the form of government did little to quell the restiveness. Shortly thereafter, Thailand has been wracked with numerous coups, which often left the country under the rule of juntas and resulted to seventeen charter changes.

The instability came to a head last year, when anti-government forces led a series of occasionally-violent protests against Yingluck Shinawatra, the country’s first female Prime Minister and sister to exiled ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra.

In hopes of easing the rapidly escalating tension, the Prime Minister has called for early elections on February 2. The Election Commission has said that it is ready for Election Day, where the country’s estimated 46 million voters are set to elect 480 members of the House of Representatives. 

Yet things are never that easy in this deeply-divided country. The main opposition Democrat Party has said that it will boycott the polls. The party had demanded that the PM resign ahead of the elections and that an interim government be installed to effect reforms. The same position is being noisily advocated by protesters, which had been massing in crowds of as large as 150,000 warm bodies in the almost-weekly rallies since October. 

Opponents of the Shinawatras, which mostly come from the educated middle and upper class as well as the business sector, are calling to reboot Thai society to stamp out the culture of corruption that they believe is driving away business and hampering the development of the country

Yet the appeal has fallen on deaf ears as Yingluck has already declared that the polls will proceed despite the planned boycott. Instead, she unveiled her own plan to ensure reforms which involves candidates taking an oath to call for the creation of a reform council right after being sworn into office. Her suggestion also specifies that the reform council be made up of members representing a broad spectrum of sectors at local and national levels.