West Virginia’s RCV Ban Would Be Self-Defeating

West Virginia lawmakers are considering Senate Bill 490, which would prohibit the use of ranked-choice voting (RCV) statewide. This bill would prevent municipalities and counties from using RCV in their local elections, even if their residents and elected officials believe it would improve representation and voter engagement.

Banning RCV outright is a misguided approach. While RCV may not be the right fit for every community, it has been implemented successfully across the country, strengthening voter choice, encouraging more positive campaigns, and ensuring that winning candidates represent their voters more closely. Instead of eliminating this option, West Virginia should let local governments decide whether RCV works for them.

At its core, RCV is all about options. The voting method allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference rather than forcing them to choose just one. In practice, it is the same as conducting a runoff election except it happens all at once, saving voters time and the local jurisdiction money.

The system has several benefits:

• Encouraging broad support: Candidates must appeal to a wider audience, as they need second- and third-choice rankings to win. This discourages extreme partisanship and negative campaigning. It also means the eventual winner is more representative of their constituents.
• Eliminating the “spoiler effect”: Voters can rank their true preferences without fear that their vote will inadvertently help elect a candidate they strongly oppose. Instead, voters can confidently cast their ballot for their first choice even in a crowded field, knowing they can reserve their second and later choices for more likely winners.
• Increasing turnout: Elections utilizing RCV see greater turnout than plurality elections. This increase in voter turnout becomes particularly significant when compared to standard runoff elections.

Opponents of RCV often claim the system is confusing and could disenfranchise voters. However, the data does not support these claims:

• Voters understand RCV: Research from R Street election experts demonstrates that voters grasp how to rank their choices and successfully participate in RCV elections. Ballot error rates in RCV contests are comparable to, or lower than, traditional elections.
• RCV does not favor any party: Some opponents allege that RCV benefits one political party over another. However, election results in RCV jurisdictions show that outcomes depend entirely on how voters engage with the system rather than any inherent advantage for one side.

The most concerning aspect of SB 490 is that it needlessly strips decision-making power away from local governments. Even if some West Virginia communities believe RCV would improve their elections, state law would bar them from adopting it.

Local governments are best positioned to determine how to run their elections. Cities and counties already make decisions about early voting, polling locations, and ballot design. Similarly, West Virginia municipalities should be free to experiment and innovate without state interference. If a community decides that RCV is right for them, the state legislature should not intervene.

Rather than banning RCV outright, West Virginia lawmakers should focus on policies that actually improve election security, transparency, and voter confidence. These include:

• Allowing local control: Let municipalities decide whether RCV works for them rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all ban.
• Educating voters: Provide clear, accessible voter education materials to ensure that any election system—RCV or otherwise—is well understood.
• Improving election infrastructure and audits: Institute policies that provide the necessary resources to municipalities and conduct standardized audits to ensure trust in election results.

The goal of any election reform should be to enhance voter choice and representation, not to limit it. SB 490 fails this test by eliminating a tool that some communities may find valuable.