R Street on RCV
As many state legislatures begin their work for 2026, there is again a slate of bills that would either expand the use of ranked-choice voting (RCV) or ban it completely. RCV is a tool for determining the most broadly acceptable candidate for a given office. Voters rank candidates in order of preference, and if no one wins a majority of first-place votes, then the rankings are used to conduct an instant runoff.
R Street has produced a collection of research on RCV that can help highlight what the tool does and does not do as states consider it once again.
The Strengths of RCV
RCV has three primary strengths: 1) it rewards candidates for representing their constituency more closely; 2) it increases the legitimacy of eventual winners; and 3) it allows voters to vote their conscience by eliminating the “spoiler effect.” Requiring the eventual winner to achieve a true majority of votes incentivizes candidates to broaden their appeal. Research shows that voters are more likely to accept a candidate as legitimate if they know they had to secure a majority of votes. Knowing their ballot will still count if their first-choice candidate is eliminated, voters are free to support their preferred option rather than voting strategically for the “least bad but politically viable” alternative. A standard runoff election can replicate these advantages to a degree; however, RCV achieves these results all at once, saving taxpayers’ money and voters’ time.
R Street has also produced research demonstrating the value of RCV in primary settings, including presidential primaries. Ultimately, primaries are more likely than general elections to have a competitive yet crowded field. RCV can aid parties in selecting the candidate who best reflects participating party members while avoiding minority victories with small pluralities of the vote.
Analysis: “West Virginia’s RCV Ban Would Be Self-Defeating”
Explainer: “Ranking Presidents: How Ranked-Choice Voting Can Improve Residential Primaries”
Addressing the Criticisms of RCV
R Street research has investigated several prominent criticisms of RCV, one of which maintains that RCV elections are inherently biased in favor of left-wing candidates or against Republicans. This has not been the case in practice; instead, RCV favors candidates who represent voters and their political leanings more closely. Conservative candidates are already more likely to secure a majority where voters are inherently conservative; however, RCV would benefit Republican candidates in competitive districts where current election rules give Democrats an unfair advantage.
Op-Ed: “Why Republicans Should Embrace Ranked-Choice Voting”
Real Solutions: “Ranked-Choice Voting: A Conservative Election Reform”
Op-Ed: “Republicans Could Benefit From Ranked-Choice Voting”
A similar critique runs that RCV is biased toward moderate or centrist candidates. Results from RCV elections—including the most recent example of Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s victory in New York City—have proven this statement false. In practice, RCV changes successful strategies by privileging those that build large coalitions rather than a specific set of ideological outcomes.
Analysis: “NYC and RCV: Changing Behavior, Not Outcomes”
There are also concerns that RCV is too confusing for voters to understand, which could lead to inaccurate results. R Street’s investigation of RCV implementation in Maine found that the vast majority of voters understood the system and took advantage of the opportunity to rank candidates on their ballot.
Analysis: “An Analysis of Ranked-Choice Voting in Maine”
Conclusion
States, localities, and parties should ultimately decide if and how RCV can benefit them. While RCV may not be the right choice for every circumstance, our research has proven it a valuable tool for securing more representative election results and helping successful candidates enjoy greater legitimacy.