Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

Academic studies on ranked-choice voting (RCV)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Election Policy Logo.png
Electoral system
Electoral systems by state
Ranked-choice voting (RCV)
Academic studies on RCV
Election dates
Election agencies
Election terms
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker
Public Policy Logo-one line.png

Ranked-choice voting (RCV) is widely studied in academia, think tanks, and advocacy organizations. On this page, you'll find analysis of RCV ranging from peer-reviewed academic articles to studies released by organizations that may support or oppose RCV.

If you know of a study on RCV we should include, please email us.

RCV is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. There are multiple forms of ranked-choice voting, including instant-runoff voting, the most commonly used form of RCV in the United States. You can learn more about RCV, including information on where it is used, its history, and the arguments for and against it here.

In instant-runoff voting, if a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. Ballots that ranked a failed candidate as their first, or highest choice, depending on the round, are then reevaluated and counted as first-preference ballots for the next highest ranked candidate in that round. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority ballots. The process is repeated until a candidate wins an outright majority. Elements of this process, such as the number of candidates eliminated in each round, may vary by jurisdiction.

Related terms associated with RCV include approval voting, ballot exhaustion, and Condorcet voting.

Academic studies

We add studies to the list below as we find them. Each entry includes the title, publishing journal or institution, date of publication, and the study or report's abstract. The list is not comprehensive.

Does Ranked Choice Voting Promote Legislative Bipartisanship? Using Maine as a Policy Laboratory

  • Authors: Rachel Hutchinson, Benjamin Reilly
  • Journal/Institution: The Forum
  • Date published/released: 2025
“ Political polarization in the United States has increased dramatically, hampering the functioning of American government. Some scholars attribute this dynamic to the use of plurality elections and posit that a ranked choice voting (RCV) system may promote greater bipartisanship. Maine’s 2016 adoption of RCV presents an early opportunity to test this theory on congressional races. Using comparative analysis, we show that bipartisan bill cosponsorship increased after the adoption of RCV in Maine’s swing House district but not in its safe district. These results, along with more anecdotal evidence from Alaska, which introduced RCV in 2020, indicate an association between RCV and bipartisanship. However, it is an open question which way the causation runs. On one hand, RCV has, to date, been implemented in states that have a history of and prerequisites for bipartisanship (e.g. competitive races involving both major parties and third parties/independents, and significant numbers of centrist or independent voters). On the other hand, RCV may more easily allow jurisdictions with such “preconditions” to elect centrists who are primed for legislative bipartisanship. In the next few years, there will likely be a more diverse collection of House and Senate races held under RCV, and we can better understand how the causation works.[1] ”

Overvotes, Overranks, and Skips: Mismarked and Rejected Votes in Ranked Choice Voting

  • Authors: Stephen Pettigrew, Dylan Radley
  • Journal/Institution: Political Behavior
  • Date published/released: 2025
“ Voters express their electoral preferences through their ballot. More states and local jurisdictions are adopting ranked choice voting (RCV), which affects how voter preferences are translated into electoral results by introducing a more complex ranked ballot and accompanying tabulation process. This research provides empirical estimates of rates of improper marking and vote rejection, and compares them to those rates on non-ranked offices (particularly single-mark, ‘choose-one-candidate’ offices). We describe a new, general typology for categorizing the ways voters can improperly mark a ranked ballot. We apply this typology to a database of ranked choice ballots that includes 3 million cast vote records representing over three-quarters of all Americans living in a jurisdiction that uses RCV. The data show that in a typical ranked choice race, nearly 1 in 20 (4.8%) voters improperly mark their ballot in at least one way. We argue that these improper marks are consistent with voter confusion about their ranked ballot, and find evidence that this mismarking rate is higher in areas with more racial minorities, lower-income households, and lower levels of educational attainment. We further find that votes in ranked choice races are about 10 times more likely to be rejected due to an improper mark than votes in non-ranked choice races. These findings raise key questions about voter participation and representation in ranked choice systems and have important policy implications for jurisdictions that already have or are considering adopting ranked choice voting.[1] ”

Assessing Alaska’s Top-4 Primary and Ranked Choice Voting Electoral Reform: More Moderate Winners, More Moderate Policy

“ In recent years, ranked choice voting (RCV) has emerged as a leading electoral reform, often in combination with moves to open up primaries in order to increase voter choice and select more widely-supported representatives. Both nonpartisan primaries and RCV general elections have attracted advocacy from those seeking solutions to democratic malaise and polarization, and been introduced in different forms in several states. Despite this, only one legislature across the country has ever been elected under this model: the 2022 Alaskan State legislature, which combined a Top-4 nonpartisan primary with an RCV election. We assess the impact of this reform via ‘before and after’ case studies of individual electoral (re)matches, a survey of candidate ideological and policy positions, and examination of legislative coalitions. This research design allows us to isolate the impact of Top 4/RCV compared to the former model of closed party primaries and plurality general elections. We show that Alaska’s new electoral system provided more choice for voters and appears to have driven changes in both electoral outcomes and public policy. Despite more extremists standing for election post-reform, winning candidates were more likely to be centrists willing to work across the aisle and espouse moderate policy positions than prior to the reform.[1] ”

Beyond the Spoiler Effect: Can Ranked-Choice Voting Solve the Problem of Political Polarization?

“ Ranked-Choice Voting (“RCV”) is growing in popularity among election reformers, who have coalesced in particular around Instant Runoff Voting (“IRV”), a specific form of RCV that has recently been adopted in Maine and Alaska and will likely be proposed in many more states as ballot initiatives in the coming years. While reformers hope that IRV can ameliorate extremism and political polarization, this paper presents empirical evidence that undercuts these hopes. For instance, Alaska’s very first election following the state’s adoption of IRV signaled that the method may fail to elect the candidate most preferred by a majority of the state’s voters. Extrapolating from Alaska’s experience, and using a nationally representative sample of over 50,000 voters, we analyze the prospective effects of adopting IRV in every state. This analysis shows that IRV tends to produce winning candidates who are more divergent ideologically from their state’s median voter than do other forms of RCV. And the effect is most pronounced in the most polarized states—precisely the electorates for which IRV is being promoted as an antidote to existing divisiveness. We conclude by highlighting other formulations of RCV that result in more representative outcomes and are thereby better positioned to combat extremism and political polarization.[1] ”

Does ranked choice Voting Increase voter turnout and mobilization?

  • Authors: Eveline Dowling, Caroline Tolbert, Nathan Micatka, Todd Donovan
  • Journal/Institution: Electoral Studies
  • Date published/released: 2024
“ Many jurisdictions in the United States have recently adopted single-winner ranked choice voting (RCV) to replace first-past-the-post plurality elections. This study contributes to the literature examining the potential consequences of changing to RCV by modeling the relationship between electoral systems and voter turnout. We propose that RCV may increase turnout by incentivizing increased contacts with voters. Previous attempts at assessing the relationship between RCV and turnout in the US have been limited by a lack of individual-level turnout data measured across all cases where RCV is and is not used. The study utilizes large, unique data from administrative voter turnout records that overcomes this limitation. We find significant and substantially higher probabilities of turnout in places that use RCV, and find evidence that campaigns in RCV places have greater incidences of direct voter contacting than in similar places that do not use RCV.[1] ”

An Evaluation of the Ranked Choice Voting Pilot in Utah

  • Authors: Alan Parry, John Kidd, Michael Erickson, Addison Stott
  • Journal/Institution: Herbert Institute
  • Date published/released: 2024
“ This report presents a statistical analysis of the results of two recent surveys performed by Y2 Analytics gauging Utah voters’ reaction to Utah’s ongoing ranked choice voting (RCV) pilot. The surveys were conducted in 2021 and 2023 from likely and confirmed voters, with a non-exclusive focus on those that participated in RCV. We conclude from the survey that[:]


• About the same number of Utah voters prefer single-vote plurality as those that prefer RCV. It is statistically unlikely that either group includes a majority of voters.

• A majority of Utah voters enjoyed using RCV.

• More than 75% of Utah voters found RCV easy to use.

• A majority of Utah voters were more likely to vote for their preferred candidate using RCV.

• A majority of Utah voters want RCV to continue in Utah in at least local elections.


We also conclude from the survey that over 80% of Utah voters are confident that their votes are counted accurately and that their local elections produce fair outcomes.[1]

”

Finding Condorcet

“ Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is having a moment. More than a dozen American localities have adopted it over the last few years. So have two states. Up to four more states may vote on switching to IRV in the 2024 election. In light of this momentum, it’s imperative to know how well IRV performs in practice. In particular, how often does IRV elect the candidate whom a majority of voters prefer over every other candidate in a head-to-head matchup, that is, the Condorcet winner? To answer this question, this article both surveys the existing literature on American IRV elections and analyzes a new dataset of almost two hundred foreign IRV races. Both approaches lead to the same conclusion: In actual elections—as opposed to in arithmetical examples or in simulated races—IRV almost always elects the Condorcet winner. What’s more, a Condorcet winner almost always exists. These findings help allay the concern that candidates lacking majority support frequently prevail under IRV. The results also reveal an electorate more rational than many might think: voters whose preferences among candidates are, at least, coherent in virtually all cases.[1] ”

Minority Electorates and Ranked Choice Voting

“

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) has become a very popular reform designed to mitigate several of the perceived flaws inherent in single-district plurality electoral systems. However, relatively little attention has been paid to how RCV might impact the representation and influence of minority voters. In theory, RCV poses several difficulties for minority representation. First, RCV is by design a majoritarian system in that the winner must claim the support of a majority of the participating voters. Thus, RCV forecloses opportunities under plurality voting for minority-group-backed candidates to win elections when majority-group voters fail to coordinate on a single candidate. Second, this problem is compounded to the extent that majority-group candidates lack incentives to appeal to minority-group voters. Such incentives will be lacking to the extent to which minority voters are unwilling or unable to rank multiple candidates. So patterns of ballot exhaustion and truncation across demographic groups is key to understanding how RCV might affect opportunities for minority-group voters. Third, high ballot exhaustion rates among minority-group voters would mean that those voters exercise less electoral influence. In this paper, I examine the racial and ethnic patterns of ballot exhaustion in the 2021 New York City Democratic Primary and the 2022 elections in Alaska. I find strong evidence that electorates with heavy concentrations of ethnic and racial minorities have substantially higher rates of ballot exhaustion. These findings raise important questions about the impact of RCV on the electoral influence of such groups.[1]

”

The impact of voter confusion in ranked choice voting

  • Author: Lonna Rae Atkeson, Eli McKown-Dawson, Jack Santucci, Kyle L. Saunders
  • Journal/Institution: Social Science Quarterly
  • Date published/released: 2024
“ Election observers have expressed concerns about voter “confusion” under ranked choice voting (RCV) since the 1890s. What is the meaning of “confusing,” and how does it affect behavior? We argue (with much of the literature) that ranking candidates for public office is a cognitively complex task because of a lack of information.[1] ”

Sincere, Strategic, or Something Else? The Impact of Ranked-Choice Voting on Voter Decision Making Processes

“ The academic debate on how voters decide which candidates to support often centers on whether they prioritize their personal preferences or consider who can beat the opposing candidate. American research on voting behavior has largely focused on first-past-the-post (FPTP) elections. However, considering jurisdictions are adopting new electoral systems such as ranked-choice voting (RCV) this leads to several questions about the impact of system adoption on voter decision-making. Particularly, does the voter decision-making process differ depending on the system used? To investigate the impact of RCV on voter decision-making across electoral systems we conducted a survey experiment in a federal senate election. Our findings indicate that in comparison to FPTP elections, RCV elections may lead to decreases in both sincere and strategic voting. Instead, RCV appears to increase voter uncertainty around how to decide which candidates to support and leads to voters who appear to be neither sincere nor strategic.[1] ”

Memo: Ranked Choice Voting and Women's Representation

  • Author: N/A
  • Journal/Institution: Represent Women
  • Date published/released: 2023
“ RCV is one of the most promising tools for advancing women’s representation in the United States. Of the 31 cities that use ranked choice voting to elect their executives (mayors), 12 (39%) are currently represented by women. In the 41 cities that use ranked choice voting to elect their legislatures (councils, boards), almost half of all electeds (147 of 300, or 49%) are women. Systems-level strategies, like RCV, advance gender parity by creating a level playing field for all candidates and eliminating the opportunity barriers that exist under plurality voting. Though women are underrepresented at every level of government in the U.S., holding less than one-third of all elected positions, women in ranked choice jurisdictions are better represented.[1] ”

Politics Transformed? How Ranked Choice Voting Shapes Electoral Strategies

“ We compare electoral outcomes under plurality rule versus ranked choice voting (RCV). Candidates compete by choosing platforms that can either mobilize their core supporters, or instead attract undecided voters. RCV exacerbates platform polarization in contexts of low voter engagement, strong partisan attachments, and imbalances in the candidates’ share of core supporters. RCV may increase or decrease voter turnout relative to plurality rule, and strong partisan attachments increase the likelihood that the winning candidate receives a minority of votes cast.[1] ”

Election Reform and Women’s Representation: Ranked Choice Voting in the U.S.

  • Author(s): Cynthia Richie Terrell, Courtney Lamendola, Maura Reilly
  • Journal/Institution: Politics and Governance
  • Date published/released: 2021
“ Ranked choice voting first gained a foothold in the U.S. during the Progressive Movement in the 20th century as calls for electoral reforms grew. Ranked choice voting was implemented in many cities across the U.S. in both single- and multi-seat districts. But, by the 1940s it became a victim of its own success, turning the tides of the hegemonic white male leadership in U.S. legislative bodies with the election of women. Since the 1990s, ranked choice voting has once again gained traction in the U.S., this time with the focus on implementing single seat ranked choice voting. This article will build on the existing literature by filling in the gaps on how ranked choice voting—in both forms—has impacted women’s representation both historically and in currently elected bodies in the U.S.[1] ”


Arguments for and against ranked-choice voting

See also: Ranked-choice voting (RCV)
RCV trends: Six states ban RCV in 2025, bringing the number of states with bans to 17.
As of September 3, six states had banned RCV in 2025, which brought the total number of states that prohibit RCV to 17.

• Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon (R) signed HB 165 on March 18.
• West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey (R) signed SB 490 the March 19.
• Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly (D) signed SB 6 into law on April 1.
• North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong (R) signed HB 1297 on April 15.
• Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) signed HB 1706 which became law on April 17. • Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) signed HF 1954 into law on June 2.

Six states banned RCV in 2024.

Ballotpedia’s comprehensive Election Administration Legislation Tracker is the basis for this analysis.

We've compiled the following arguments for and against RCV from various ideologically diverse sources, including policy institutes, elected officials, and academics. This section begins with arguments made in defense of RCV and continues with arguments made against RCV.

See also: Support and opposition to 2024 ranked-choice voting ballot measures

Supporting arguments

Supporters of ranked-choice voting argue that it provides voters with an alternative to the two-party system, allows voters to more freely support minor and third-party candidates without acting as a spoiler and benefiting a less-preferred candidate, increases civility in political campaigning, and may lead to more diverse candidates. Supporters also argue that using ranked-choice voting saves the taxpayers money.

RCV provides an alternative to the two-party system and allows voters to more freely support minor and third-party candidates

In an 2021 article on its website, the Better Government Association argued that RCV promotes better governance by providing voters with an alternative to the two-party system:

The Better Government Association's website says it is "a non-partisan, nonprofit news organization and civic advocate working for transparency, equity and accountability in government in Chicago and across Illinois."[2]

“

RCV is also framed as an antidote to the current two-party system because it allows more candidates to compete. In plurality elections, because the goal is simply to get more votes than anyone else, it’s possible for candidates with longer odds of winning to siphon votes from bigger party candidates (see: Ralph Nader for Al Gore, Jill Stein for Hillary Clinton). Without the stigma of supporting a “spoiler,” voters can feel free to vote based on their true intentions instead of on a calculation of who has the best likelihood of winning. In that same vein, fewer candidates would be discouraged from running for fear of splitting voters, allowing more third party, independent, and minority candidates to enter the fray. Supporters also believe that more choices that may speak to more voters could boost voter turnout and engagement.[1]

”
—Better Government Association (2021)[3]

RCV increases civility in political campaigning

In the Journal of Representative Democracy, political scientists Todd Donovan and Caroline Tolbert wrote about their research findings on increased civility in RCV political campaigns:[4]

“ For RCV to meet proponents’ expectations of facilitating mutual accommodation among rivals and civil campaigns, candidates and campaigns would be expected to moderate how they engage with their rivals – at least compared to candidates in similar contests not held under RCV rules – while appealing to their rivals’ supporters for second place and lower place rankings. ...


We find that some RCV candidates asked voters to support themselves as well as other candidates seeking the same seat. RCV candidates also reported groups working on their behalf were telling people to support multiple candidates in their contest. Candidates in RCV cities were also more likely to report the tone of campaigns they were in was less negative than what was reported by candidates in other contests – but this result did not apply to the most viable candidates..[1]

”
—Dr. Todd Donovan, Western Washington University, and Dr. Caroline Tolbert, University of Iowa

RCV may lead to more diverse candidates

In a 2021 New America report titled "What We Know About Ranked-Choice Voting," Lee Drutman and Maresa Strano wrote about the theory that ranked-choice voting may lead to more diverse candidates:[5] New America describes itself as a nonprofit think tank conducting research and making policy recommendations in the following areas: education, economic security, global politics, political reform, civic engagement, technology, and democracy.[6]

“ Ranked-choice voting has a few features that should, theoretically, enable a more diverse range of candidates to run for office than our traditional single-mark plurality method. One is that RCV allows newcomers and less traditionally electable candidates to run for second and third place rankings from opponents, including co-partisans, without being dismissed as 'spoilers.' As discussed later in this section, RCV changes campaign incentives in ways that can reduce the negativity and incivility. This kind of nasty campaigning can deter many qualified and talented people, especially women and women of color, from entering politics.


The data we have from local elections is thin and analyses are mostly correlational—but evidence that exists indicates that RCV does lower the barriers to running, an may even encourage more, and more diverse, candidate entry, as theory suggests. For instance, in an analysis of RCV’s effects in city elections, David Kimball and Joseph Anthony observed that the number of council candidates almost doubled in Minneapolis from 2005 and 2013 after the implementation of RCV.[1]

”
—Lee Drutman, Senior Fellow, and Maresa Strano, Political Reform Program Deputy Director, New America


A 2023 memo from RepresentWomen discussed the impact of RCV on women and minority candidates at the local level.[7] On its website, RepresentWomen says, "we imagine a healthy 21st century democracy with gender-balanced representation in elected and appointed positions, at every level of government."[8]

“ The impact of RCV on women’s representation is best demonstrated at the local level, which has long been the testing ground for new voting systems. Of the 30 mayors in RCV cities today, 12 (40%) are women, nine are people of color (30%), and four are women of color (13%). In city councils, 147 of 300 RCV seats (49%) are held by women, 96 by people of color (34%), and 55 (20%) by women of color. Comparatively, women held 32% of all local offices as of March 2022. [1] ”
—Courtney Lamendola, Marvelous Maeze, and Steph Scaglia

RCV saves money for states and local governments

FairVote, which describes itself as "a nonpartisan organization seeking better elections for all," said on its website that ranked-choice voting saves money for states and local governments by eliminating additional rounds of voting:[9]

“ Many local offices are elected in two rounds. In some cases, a preliminary election winnows the field to two and is followed by a general election. In other cases, a general election follows a runoff election if no candidate won a majority. In either case, the election that takes place on a day other than the general often draws weak and unrepresentative turnout. First-round elections, meanwhile, raise concerns about vote splitting and the possibility of disenfranchising military and overseas voters.


These problems are not present with RCV. Jurisdictions enjoy the benefits of two rounds of voting in a single, more representative, higher-turnout election, also known as “instant runoff voting.” In this context, RCV saves taxpayers a lot of money — the entire cost of a second election — while promoting majority rule and civil campaigning. ... New York City saves an estimated $20 million each cycle where RCV avoids a runoff and San Francisco saves an estimated $3 million.[1]

”
—FairVote

Opposing arguments

Opponents of ranked-choice voting argue that it benefits voters with more time and information, leads to decreased voter confidence in elections, and disconnects voting from important issues and debates. Opponents of ranked-choice voting also argue that RCV winners do not necessarily represent the will of the voters.

RCV benefits voters with more time and information

Stop RCV, which describes itself as a coalition of organizations seeking "transparent elections that can be verified by hand recounts and audits," wrote on its website that ranked-choice voting benefits voters with more time and information and leads to voter disqualification:[10]

“ In an RCV election, voters may get more power if they rank more candidates. But that means, rather than identifying one candidate to support, voters must research multiple candidates and form opinions about their relative preferences for as many as five or more. This benefits those who have more time and access to information—in short, RCV gives more power to elites while making it harder for everyone else. An RCV ballot is also longer and takes more time for voters to complete. This means more delays and longer lines at polling places. It also creates many new opportunities to make a mistake, increasing the chances that a voter’s intent is not correctly recorded or that ballots are disqualified and discarded.[1] ”
—Stop RCV

RCV leads to decreased voter confidence in elections

The Foundation for Government Accountability, which describes itself as a nonprofit organization working with state legislators on welfare, unemployment, workforce, election integrity, and health care policies, argued on its website that ranked-choice voting leads to a decrease in voter confidence in U.S. elections:[11]

“ Ranked-Choice Voting is a Disaster. One person. One vote. That’s how American elections work. Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) threatens to undo this very principle—discounting votes, diminishing voter confidence, and threatening prompt election results. The end result? A drop in voter confidence that lingers long after Election Day. Experiences with RCV in Maine and New York City should serve as cautionary tales, encouraging voters and policymakers to reject RCV in their communities.[1] ”
—Foundation for Government Accountability

RCV disconnects voting from important issues and debates

In a 2019 report for the Heritage Foundation, Hans von Spakovsky and J. Adams argued that ranked-choice voting disconnects voting from important issues and debates:[12]

“ Ranked choice destroys clarity of political debate and forces voters to cast ballots in hypothetical future runoff elections. When we have Republicans versus Democrats versus Greens and Libertarians, we know who is running against whom and the actual distinctions between the candidates on issues. Second- or third-choice votes should not matter in America; they do not provide the mandate that ensures that the representatives in a republic have the confidence and support of a majority of the public in the legitimacy of their decisions.[1] ”
—The Heritage Foundation

RCV winners do not necessarily represent the will of the voters

The Foundation for Government Accountability's website also described the concept of ballot exhaustion and argued that RCV winners do not necessarily represent the will of the voters:[13]

“ “Exhausted ballots” in RCV elections do not count towards the final tally. While many RCV ballots are thrown out due to voter error in following convoluted instructions, ballots that follow the instructions to the letter can also be thrown away because the voter ranked candidates who are no longer in contention. As candidates are eliminated through multiple rounds of tabulation, voters have their ballots exhausted if they only ranked candidates that have been removed during successive rounds. In other words, for a voter’s voice to fully count in every round of an RCV election, he must vote for all candidates on the ballot, even those he may not support.


Because of ballot exhaustion, winners of RCV races do not necessarily represent the choice of all voters who participated. RCV claims to protect majority rule, but in reality, RCV creates an artificial majority by eliminating the votes of the lowest-scoring candidates during successive tabulations. One study of Maine elections found that, of 98 recent RCV elections, 60 percent of RCV victors did not win by a majority of the total votes cast.[1]

”
—Foundation for Government Accountability

History and usage of RCV in the United States

Jack Santucci, an associate professor of politics at Drexel University, discussed the origins of ranked-choice voting systems in a 2016 American Politics Research article. Using this research, the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center provides the following summary of the history of ranked-choice voting in local elections in the United States: [14][15]

“ Ashtabula, Ohio, became the first place in the United States to use RCV in 1915, using it to elect its city council. RCV spread through the rest of Ohio (to Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, and Hamilton) and across the country to places like Boulder, Colorado; Kalamazoo, Michigan; Sacramento, California; and West Hartford, Connecticut. New York City adopted the multi-winner form for their city council and school board elections in 1936, spurring another 11 cities to adopt RCV quickly.


This spate of adoption brought the number of RCV cities to two dozen spread across six states by the early 1940s. However, even as the adoption of RCV grew, repeal efforts succeeded in Cleveland, Hamilton, Michigan, and California. In the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s, repeal efforts continued. Politicians displaced by RCV, a lack of organization amongst groups that benefited from RCV, and a political climate that turned against the parties elected through the proportional representation of RCV led to the repeal of RCV in 23 of the 24 cities where it was used in the U.S. By 1962, Cambridge, [Massachusetts] was the only city left that retained the RCV system it adopted, a form of multi-winner RCV used to elect their nine-member city council and six-member school board.[1]

”

States and localities that use or prohibit RCV

The table below summarizes the use of ranked-choice voting in the U.S. by state as of September 2025.

Ranked-choice voting usage in U.S. states and localities
State RCV use Details State law
Alabama RCV prohibited RCV was banned by legislation in 2024 Alabama Code § 11-46-10, Alabama Code § 17-1-6
Alaska RCV used statewide RCV has been authorized for federal and certain statewide elections since 2020 and used since 2022.
RCV was used for the 2020 Democratic presidential primary in this state.		 Alaska Statutes § 15-15-350
Arizona No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections  
Arkansas RCV prohibited RCV was banned by legislation in 2025 Arkansas Code § 7-1-116
California RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities RCV is used in the following seven localities: Albany, Berkeley, Eureka, Oakland, Palm Desert, San Francisco, and San Leandro.
RCV is also authorized in the following two localities: Ojai (scheduled for use in 2024) and Redondo Beach (scheduled for use in 2025).
Cal. Government Code § 24206 also permits Santa Clara County to use RCV		 California Government Code § 24206
Colorado RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities RCV is used in the following five localities: Basalt, Boulder, Broomfield, Carbondale, and Fort Collins. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-7-118 permits certain municipalities to use RCV for local elections. Colorado Revised Statutes § 1-7-118.
Connecticut No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections  
Delaware RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities RCV is used in the following locality: Arden
Florida RCV prohibited RCV was banned by legislation in 2022, blocking its adoption in the following locality: Sarasota Florida Statutes § 101.019
Georgia No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections Military/UOCAVA voters use ranked ballots when voting in runoff elections.
Hawaii RCV used statewide RCV has been authorized statewide for certain federal and local elections since 2022 and used since 2023.
RCV was used for the 2020 Democratic presidential primary in this state.		 Hawaii Revised Statutes § 11-100
Idaho RCV prohibited RCV was banned by legislation in 2023 Idaho Statutes § 34-903B
Illinois RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities RCV is authorized in the following localities: Evanston (scheduled for use in 2025), Skokie (scheduled for use in 2026), Springfield (only used by overseas absentee voters in local elections)
Indiana No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections
Iowa RCV prohibited RCV was banned by legislation in 2025 Iowa Code § 49.93
Kansas RCV prohibited RCV was banned by legislation in 2025. RCV was used for the 2020 Democratic presidential primary in this state
Kentucky RCV prohibited RCV was banned by legislation in 2024 Kentucky Revised Statutes § 117.147
Louisiana RCV prohibited RCV was banned by legislation in 2024 Louisiana Revised Statutes § 18:404
Maine RCV used statewide RCV has been authorized for federal and statewide elections since 2016 and used since 2018.
Maine has also authorized RCV for all municipal election and it is currently used for these elections in the following localities: Portland, and Westbrook		 30-A Maine Revised Statutes § 2528, sub-§ 10
Maryland RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities RCV is used in the following locality: Tacoma Park
Massachusetts RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities RCV is used in the following two localities: Cambridge and Easthampton. Cambridge holds the record for the longest continuous use of RCV in the U.S. (1941-present).
RCV is also authorized in the following locality: Amherst (schedule for use is uncertain)
Michigan No laws addressing RCV, not in use RCV has been approved, but is not used, in the following localities: Ann Arbor, Ferndale, Kalamazoo, East Lansing, and Royal Oak. Although Michigan does not explicitly prohibit the use of RCV, state election laws prevent the implementation of RCV.
Minnesota RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities RCV is used in the following five localities: Bloomington, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, St. Louis Park, and St. Paul. RCV was also used in the following locality, but it is no longer in use: Hopkins
Mississippi RCV prohibited RCV was banned by legislation in 2024 Mississippi Code § 23-15-893
Missouri RCV prohibited Missouri voters approved Amendment 7 on November 5, 2024. The constitutional amendment prohibited ranked-choice voting, among other changes to the state's election laws Article VIII, § 3 of the Missouri Constitution
Montana RCV prohibited RCV was banned by legislation in 2023 Montana Code Annotated § 13-1-125
Nebraska No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections  
Nevada No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections RCV was used for the 2020 Democratic presidential primary in this state
New Hampshire No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections  
New Jersey No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections  
New Mexico RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities RCV is used in the following two localities: Las Cruces and Santa Fe New Mexico Annotated Statutes § 1-22-16
New York RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities RCV is used in the following locality: New York City
North Carolina No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections  
North Dakota RCV prohibited RCV was banned by legislation in 2025 North Dakota Century Code § 16.1-01
Ohio No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections  
Oklahoma RCV prohibited RCV was banned by legislation in 2024 Oklahoma Statutes § 26-1-112
Oregon RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities RCV is used in the following locality: Benton County and Corvallis.
RCV is also authorized in the following two localities: Multnomah County (scheduled for use in 2026) and Portland (scheduled for use in 2024)
Pennsylvania No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections  
Rhode Island No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections  
South Carolina No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections Military/UOCAVA voters use ranked ballots when voting in runoff elections
South Dakota RCV prohibited RCV was banned by legislation in 2023 South Dakota Codified Laws § 12-1-9.1.
Tennessee RCV prohibited RCV was banned by legislation in 2022, blocking its adoption in the following locality: Memphis Tennessee Code § 2-8-117
Texas No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections  
Utah RCV is used in the following 12 localities as of 2025: Genola, Heber, Kearns, Lehi, Magna, Midvale, Millcreek, Payson, Salt Lake City, South Salt Lake, Vineyard, and Woodland Hills. The state adopted a pilot program allowing RCV in 2018. The program expires after the 2025 election.   Utah Code § 20A-4-603
Vermont RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities RCV is used in the following locality: Burlington
Virginia RCV authorized by state law, but not in use All localities in Virginia have been authorized to use RCV since 2021. RCV is used for a partisan primary in the following locality: Arlington Code of Virginia § 24.2-673.1
Washington RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities RCV is authorized in the following locality: Seattle (scheduled for use in 2027)
West Virginia RCV prohibited RCV was banned by legislation in 2025 West Virginia Code § 3-1-52.
Wisconsin No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections  
Wyoming RCV prohibited RCV was banned by legislation in 2025 Wyoming Code § 22-2-117

States and localities that stopped using RCV

It is important to note that some of the jurisdictions listed below may not have used the term ranked-choice voting to describe their electoral systems, and that the rules of those systems may have been different from what we think of as RCV today.

As of September 2025, the following 39 localities stopped using RCV after using it in past local elections.[16][17][18][19][20][21] Some of these localities later resumed use of RCV. This is noted below where applicable.

Historical use of ranked-choice voting in U.S. localities
State Locality History of RCV
California Sacramento Authorized for city council elections from 1919-1922. Last used in 1921.
Colorado Aspen Authorized for municipal elections from 2007-2010. Last used in 2009.
Colorado Boulder Authorized for city council elections from 1917-1947. Last used in 1950.
Boulder subsequently voted to elect the city's mayor using ranked-choice voting through a local ballot measure at the November 2020 general election. RCV was used for mayoral elections for the first time in November 2023.[22]
Colorado Telluride Authorized by local ballot measure in 2008 for the three subsequent mayoral elections. Last used in 2019.
Connecticut West Hartford Authorized for city council elections from 1921-1923. Last used in 1922.
Massachusetts Lowell Authorized for city council elections from 1943-1957. Last used in 1957.
Massachusetts Medford Authorized for city council elections from 1947-1952. Last used in 1951.
Massachusetts Quincy, Revere Both cities authorized for city council elections from 1947-1952. Last used in 1953.
Massachusetts Saugus Authorized for city council elections from 1947-1951. Last used in 1950.
Massachusetts Worcester Authorized for city council and school board elections from 1947-1960. Last used in 1959.
Michigan Kalamazoo Authorized for city council elections from 1918-1920. Last used in 1921.
Minnesota Hopkins Authorized for city council elections from 1947-1959. Last used in 1961.
New York Long Beach Authorized for city council elections from 1943-1947. Last used in 1947.
New York New York City Authorized for municipal elections from 1936-1945. Adopted again in 2018 for local primaries and special elections. Used since 2021.
New York Yonkers Authorized for city council elections from 1940-1948. Last used in 1947.
Ohio Ashtabula Authorized for city council elections from 1915-1929. Last used in 1931.
Ohio Cincinnati Authorized for city council elections from 1924-1957. Last used in 1955.
Ohio Cleveland Authorized for city council elections from 1921-1931. Last used in 1933.
Ohio Hamilton Authorized for city council elections from 1926-1960. Last used in 1959.
Ohio Toledo Authorized for city council elections from 1935-1949. Last used in 1949.
Oregon Coos Bay Authorized for city council elections from 1944-1948. Last used in 1947.
Tennessee Norris Authorized for city council elections from 1936-1948. Last used in 1945.
Tennessee Oak Ridge Authorized for city council elections from 1948-1958. Last used in 1957.
Utah Bluffdale Statewide pilot program participant in 2021.
Utah Cottonwood Heights Statewide pilot program participant in 2021.
Utah Draper Statewide pilot program participant in 2021.
Utah Elk Ridge Statewide pilot program participant in 2021.
Utah Goshen Statewide pilot program participant in 2021.
Utah Moab Statewide pilot program participant in 2021.
Utah Newton Statewide pilot program participant in 2021.
Utah Nibley Statewide pilot program participant in 2021.
Utah River Heights City Statewide pilot program participant in 2021.
Utah Rivertone Statewide pilot program participant in 2021.
Utah Sandy Statewide pilot program participant in 2021.
Utah Springville Statewide pilot program participant in 2021.
Vermont Burlington Authorized for mayoral elections from 2006-2009. Adopted again for municipal elections in 2023.
Virginia Arlington Authorized for municipal elections in 2022 and used for county board primary elections in June 2023. In July 2023, the Arlington County Board voted to not proceed with the use of RCV for general elections.
In December 2023, the board subsequently voted to use RCV for all future county board primaries.[23]
West Virginia Wheeling Authorized for city council elections from 1935-1950. Last used in 1949.


Explore election legislation with Ballotpedia

  • Try Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker
    Try Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker
    Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker provides daily updates on legislative activity related to election policy in all 50 states.

    Our election policy experts translate complex bill text into easy-to-understand summaries. And because it's from Ballotpedia, our legislation tracker is guaranteed to be neutral, unbiased, and nonpartisan.
    Search bills
  • Read Ballotpedia's State of Election Administration Legislation Reports
    Read Ballotpedia's State of Election Administration Legislation Reports
    Ballotpedia publishes regular analysis of election administration legislation, including three full reports per year, providing ongoing coverage of legislative activity affecting election policy in each state.

    These reports deliver insights into partisan priorities, dive deep into notable trends, and highlight activity in key states.
    Read the latest report
  • Subscribe to The Ballot Bulletin

    Subscribe to The Ballot Bulletin
    The Ballot Bulletin is a weekly email that delivers the latest updates on election policy.

    The newsletter tracks developments in election policy around the country, including legislative activity, big-picture trends, and recent news. Each email contains in-depth data from our Election Administration Legislation Tracker.
    Subscribe


See also

Select a state on the map below to read more about electoral systems in that state.

http://ballotpedia.org/Electoral_systems_in_STATE

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  2. ↑ Better Government Association, "About Us," accessed October 31, 2023
  3. ↑ Better Government Association, "Can Ranked Choice Voting Transform Our Democracy?" May 27, 2021
  4. ↑ Journal of Representative Democracy, "Civility in Ranked-Choice Voting Elections: Does Evidence Fit the Normative Narrative?" June 4, 2023
  5. ↑ New America, "What We Know About Ranked-Choice Voting: Candidates and Campaigns" Novemver 10, 2021
  6. ↑ New America, "What We Know About Ranked-Choice Voting: Candidates and Campaigns" November 10, 2021
  7. ↑ RepresentWomen, "Memo: Ranked Choice Voting and Women's Representation" January 23, 2023
  8. ↑ RepresentWomen, "About Us" accessed March 6, 2023
  9. ↑ FairVote, "Ranked Choice Voting Information," accessed August 7, 2023
  10. ↑ Stop RCV, "Risks of Ranked-Choice Voting," accessed July 6, 2023
  11. ↑ Foundation for Government Accountability, "Ranked Choice Voting Is a Disaster," accessed July 6, 2023
  12. ↑ Heritage Foundation, "Ranked Choice Voting Is a Bad Choice," August 23, 2019
  13. ↑ Foundation for Government Accountability, "Ranked Choice Voting: A Disaster in Disguise," August 25, 2022
  14. ↑ American Politics Research, “Party Splits, not Progressives: The Origins of Proportional Representation in American Local Government,” November 10, 2016
  15. ↑ Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center, "History of RCV," accessed August 1, 2023
  16. ↑ Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center, "Historical Uses of RCV In Cities, 1915-1962," accessed August 1, 2023
  17. ↑ Aspen Daily News, "City voters repeal IRV," November 3, 2010
  18. ↑ The Fulcrum, "Back to the future: What New York’s democracy experiment of the 1930s says about today," February 5, 2020
  19. ↑ Seven Days, "Scott Vetoes Noncitizen Voting in Burlington, Allows Ranked-Choice Voting to Become Law," May 29, 2023
  20. ↑ FairVote, "Lessons from Burlington," March 4, 2010
  21. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named arlingtonwapo
  22. ↑ City of Boulder, "Ranked Choice Voting Guide," accessed January 9, 2024
  23. ↑ Arlington, Virginia, "Ranked Choice Voting," accessed January 9, 2024
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Academic_studies_on_ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)&oldid=10427149"