Ranked Choice Voting Just Makes Sense 🤷‍♂️

More options. Less negativity. Real representation.

Author’s note: While I firmly believe that Ranked Choice Voting should be used in every nomination and election contest, I understand it is not an overnight solution and can be costly. There are often special circumstances where the Party or a committee is unable to implement it. For example, the VA-11 firehouse primary did not have the time, manpower, or funds to organize RCV in just three weeks to nominate a candidate. My hope is that we can work towards a future where this is no longer an issue.

We have seen it too many times in recent elections: a crowded field with more than six qualified candidates who differ only slightly on policy or demographic traits. The electorate cannot coalesce around one candidate, splitting the vote and resulting in a nominee who wins with under 50% of the vote.

Here in Virginia, this has happened twice in recent memory for the same office. In 2021, former Delegate Hala Ayala won the Democratic nomination for Lieutenant Governor with just 37% of the vote, with Delegate Sam Rasoul coming in second at 24%, and the other four candidates at 11% or below.

In this year’s Lt. Governor primary, Senator Ghazala Hashmi won the nomination with only 27.5% of the vote. Former Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney came in second with 26.5%, and Senator Aaron Rouse came in third with 26.25%. While Democrats have a strong candidate in Senator Hashmi, the race left a bitter taste for some voters, knowing that only 1.25% separated the winner from the third-place finisher.

This raises an important question: How can we truly know what the majority of voters want if we elect a candidate who did not win over the majority as their first choice?

While First-Past-the-Post (plurality) elections have worked in the past, they have also resulted in disastrous outcomes. For example, in 2016, third-party candidates like Gary Johnson and Jill Stein drew enough votes in key battleground states to help President Donald Trump defeat Secretary Hillary Clinton, despite Clinton winning the national popular vote.

Our elections have evolved over time, and they must continue to do so if we want a government that truly represents the will of the people. The first elections in the United States were shaped by the Founding Fathers based on what they believed was best at the time. They allocated representatives and electoral votes in ways that they thought were the most representative of all parts of our new nation —even if only 1.8% of people could vote then. While the House of Representatives eventually became more reflective of population growth, the Senate remained fixed at two senators per state. By 2040, 70% of the U.S. population will be represented by just 30 senators from 15 states, while the other 30% will have 70 senators from 35 states.

The fact is, our electoral system is not perfect. We have room to grow to build a democracy that is more representative and reflective of those who live in it.

That is why Ranked Choice Voting should be adopted in the United States.

Why Ranked Choice Voting Works

Real Representation

Two out of the five presidents elected without winning the popular vote came in this century alone. Three of the last seven presidential elections have resulted in a president who lost the popular vote. While the Electoral College has its own critiques, we are facing a situation of plurality or even minority rule if nearly half of our national elections are won without a majority.

Further down the ballot, 70 nominees won major party primaries for House, Senate, or statewide elections with less than 50% of the vote in 2024 alone. Many of these races were in states with dominant parties, meaning the general election would be won by someone who did not earn the majority of their own party’s votes.

Common sense tells us that anything less than 50% is a loss. But under First-Past-the-Post, a candidate can win with just over 20% in a five-person race—leaving nearly 80% of voters supporting a losing candidate and feeling unheard.

With RCV, voters can rank candidates by preference. Even if their first or second choice is eliminated, their vote transfers to their next preference. This ensures that the winner is a candidate the majority of voters can at least tolerate or support.

There are caveats. In 2021, former Governor Terry McAuliffe won the Virginia Democratic gubernatorial primary with 62% of the vote, despite a five-candidate field. Similarly, in the recent 2025 special Fire House VA-11 Democratic primary, Braddock Supervisor James Walkinshaw won 60% of the vote in a ten-candidate field. In both cases, RCV would not have changed the outcome because the majority supported the winner outright.

But that is the goal: to elect candidates with clear, broad support who voters are proud to have represent them.

Coalition Building

RCV encourages candidates to appeal broadly to voters and reduces negative campaigning. Candidates are incentivized to seek second and third-choice votes, building coalitions instead of divisions.

For example, in the recent NYC mayoral primary, Zohran Mamdani was victorious after asking his opponents’ supporters to consider him as their second choice. He and NYC Comptroller Brad Lander cross-endorsed each other, ensuring shared support. Michael Blake also cross-endorsed with Mamdani as his second choice, encouraging his base to do the same. Even canvassers for former Governor Andrew Cuomo posted pictures with Mamdani on the trail. This coalition helped Mamdani earn 43% in the first round and ultimately win.

One of the biggest complaints about the 2020 Democratic presidential primary was that too many similar, well-qualified candidates attacked each other, creating division rather than unity. RCV combats this by promoting coalition-building before the primary, strengthening general election prospects.

Not 3rd Party Spoilers, but 3rd Party Possibilities

We all know the spoiler effect:

• Ralph Nader (2000): Took votes from Vice President Al Gore in Florida, contributing to George W. Bush’s election.

• Jill Stein & Gary Johnson (2016): Drew enough votes in Wisconsin and Michigan to cost Hillary Clinton the presidency.

• 2024: Republicans fought to keep conservative third parties off swing-state ballots while pushing to keep left-leaning candidates like Cornel West on to split Democratic votes.

With RCV, voters can support third-party candidates without fear of wasting their vote. Our two-party system limits political diversity and fuels infighting under a “big tent.” Multi-party parliamentary governments worldwide demonstrate that diverse representation is achievable. In the most heterogeneous society in the world, our electoral system should reflect that.

Imagine a world where we do not fear RFK Jr. spoiler campaigns or “No Labels” scams funded by conservative megadonors. A world where progressive parties like the Working Families Party, Democratic Socialists of America, and an environmentally conscious Green Party–without a Russian stooge as the face of its party–push policy leftward without spoiling elections.

We Know It Can Work

RCV has been adopted in two states and 50 U.S. cities, including Washington, D.C., and New York City. Maine and Alaska use it for federal and state elections. In 2022, Democratic Congresswoman Mary Peltola flipped Alaska’s at-large district—held by Republicans for 49 years—by winning broad coalition support in RCV rounds.

Virginia has proven RCV works. After the General Assembly passed legislation allowing municipalities to adopt RCV, Arlington County used it in 2023 for their County Board elections. Following education efforts by groups like UpVote Virginia, Maureen Coffey and Susan Cunningham were elected, with Coffey becoming the youngest County Board member ever.

RCV was used again in Arlington’s 2024 primaries and has been adopted by Charlottesville for its 2025 local elections. Afterward, 80% of voters supported RCV for future elections, proving that with proper education, voters embrace systems that better represent them.

Ranked Choice Voting has its growing pains, but it is a pathway towards a stronger democracy: one built on coalitions, broad support, and real representation. The sooner we implement it, the sooner we will have candidates and elected officials who reflect and respect the will of the majority.

TL;DR: Why We Need Ranked Choice Voting

✅ Problem: In crowded elections, candidates often win with under 50% of votes, leaving most voters unrepresented. Recent Virginia Lt. Governor primaries are prime examples.

✅ What is Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)? Voters rank candidates by preference. If no one wins a majority, the lowest-ranked candidates are eliminated and their votes redistributed until someone does.

✅ Benefits:

• Ensures winners have broad support

• Reduces negative campaigning and builds coalitions

• Eliminates “spoiler” third-party candidates and encourages a more diverse, multi-party system

✅ Examples: RCV works in Maine, Alaska, New York City, and Virginia local races, leading to more representative outcomes and higher voter satisfaction.

What can you do (in Virginia or your own state)?

✔️ Contact your local elected officials to opt into RCV for local elections. Virginia law (passed in 2020) allows counties and cities to adopt it. Success at the local level builds momentum for broader adoption.

✔️ Contact your General Assembly members to support legislation allowing RCV in state and federal elections. Local successes make the case for statewide implementation like in Maine and Alaska.

✔️ Support organizations like FairVote, UpVote Virginia, and Ranked Choice Virginia. These nonpartisan groups are leading the charge to make elections fairer and more representative.

---

🏛 Bottom line: RCV creates a stronger democracy with candidates who reflect the majority, build unity, and govern for everyone. Once we prove RCV works here, it can work anywhere. As the saying goes: as goes Virginia, so goes the nation.

By the Ballot is an opinion series published on Substack. All views expressed are solely those of the author and should not be interpreted as reporting or objective journalism or attributed to any other individual or organization. I am not a journalist or reporter, nor do I claim to be one. This publication represents personal commentary, analysis, and opinion only.