Ranked-choice voting (RCV)

Ranked-choice voting (RCV)

Ballotpedia’s go-to resource, with coverage, analysis and expert commentary on all things RCV, from a definition, to ballot measures, history, pro and con perspectives, and trends.

A ranked-choice voting system (RCV) is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. There are multiple forms of ranked-choice voting. This page focuses on the most commonly used form of RCV, sometimes called instant-runoff voting (IRV), and provides some supplemental information on other forms of this electoral system.

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 of 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.

As of Septmeber 2025, eight states had laws authorizing or requiring the use of RCV for certain elections, while 17 states had laws prohibiting or restricting the use of RCV.

Note: There are a number of terms related to and sometimes used synonymously with ranked-choice voting that describe specific forms of ranked voting electoral systems. See below for more information on related terms.

Explore the topics below for detailed information:

• How RCV works

  This section lists the general steps involved in ranked-choice voting (RCV) and provides detailed examples of its application.

• Related terms

  This section lists the terms and phrases that are commonly associated with ranked-choice voting.

• Where is RCV used?

  This section provides details on the current usage of ranked-choice voting systems in the United States.

• State laws

  This section provides details about state laws authorizing, requiring, restricting, or prohibiting the use of RCV..

• History of RCV in the United States

  This section provides a history of the use of ranked-choice voting in the United States and lists the localities that no longer use RCV after implementing it in local elections.

• Arguments for and against ranked-choice voting

  This section details the arguments in favor of and opposed to ranked-choice voting.

• State legislation

  This section lists state legislation dealing with ranked-choice voting.

• Ballot measures

  This section lists statewide and local ballot measures dealing with ranked-choice voting and other electoral system changes.

How RCV works

How ranked-choice voting works

Broadly speaking, the ranked-choice voting process unfolds as follows for single-winner elections:

1. Voters rank the candidates for a given office by preference on their ballots.
2. If a candidate wins an outright majority of first-preference votes (i.e., 50 percent plus one), he or she will be declared the winner.
3. If, on the other hand, no candidates win an outright majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated.
4. All first-preference votes for the failed candidate are eliminated, and second-preference choices on these ballots are then counted as first-preference.
5. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won an outright majority of the ballots.
6. The process is repeated until a candidate wins a majority of votes cast.

Example #1

Assume that there are six candidates for mayor in a hypothetical city. The table below presents the raw first-preference vote totals for each candidate (Round 1).

No candidate won an outright majority of first-preference votes. As a result, the candidate (Candidate F) with the smallest number of first-preference votes is eliminated. Any ballot that ranked Candidate F as first-preference is then re-counted, and second-preference choices on those ballots are counted as first-preference in the subsequent round of tallying.

Assume that, of the 1,399 first-preference votes for Candidate F, 393 listed Candidate A as their second preference, 489 listed Candidate B, and so on. Of these first-preference votes for Candidate F, 297 did not list a second preference. On the second tally, no candidate secured a simple majority of votes. The rounds continue until a candidate has received a majority. In Round 6, Candidate B received a simple majority of the remaining votes.

RCV election results
Candidate	Round 2		Round 3			Round 4			Round 5			Round 6
	Votes	%	Votes	%	+/-	Votes	%	+/-	Votes	%	+/-	Votes	%	+/-
Candidate A	8,423	31.3%	8,816	33.1%	▲1.8%	9,423	35.9%	▲2.7%	10,294	39.8%	▲3.9%	12,311	48.7%	▲8.9%
Candidate B	6,162	22.9%	6,651	25.0%	▲2.1%	8,449	32.2%	▲7.2%	10,253	39.6%	▲7.5%	12,984	51.3%%	▲11.7%
Candidate C	4,655	17.3%	4,705	17.7%	▲0.4%	4,802	18.3%	▲0.6%	5,321	20.6%	▲2.3%	Eliminated
Candidate D	3,418	12.7%	3,525	13.2%	▲0.5%	3,593	13.7%	▲0.4%	Eliminated
Candidate E	2,852	10.6%	2,916	11.0%	▲0.4%	Eliminated
Candidate F	1,399	5.2%	Eliminated
Inactive	0 ballots		297 ballots			643 ballots			1,042 ballots			1,615 ballots

Note: The above is a simplified example used for illustrative purposes. Specific procedures vary by jurisdiction and according to the nature of the election (i.e., whether it is a single-winner or multi-winner contest).

Example #2

The following example from RCVis shows the actual results of an election using ranked-choice voting. For more details on this election, visit our page on the United States House of Representatives special election in Alaska, 2022.

Example #3

The following interactive example allows you to simulate using ranked-choice voting in order to select your favorite dessert.

Not loading? Click here

Powered by RankedVote

Related terms

This section defines the key terms and phrases commonly associated with ranked-choice voting.

• Approval voting: The term approval voting refers to a type of electoral system that is distinct from ranked-choice voting. In approval voting, a voter may choose to vote for any number of candidates in a race. The candidate receiving the most votes wins. As of September 2025, this type of voting was used in one U.S. localities: St. Louis, Missouri.

• Ballot exhaustion: The term ballot exhaustion is used to describe situations in which a ballot is no longer countable because all of the candidates marked on the ballot are no longer in the contest. This can occur in some forms of ranked-choice voting. In cases where a voter has ranked only candidates that did not make it to the final round of counting, the voter's ballot is said to have been exhausted.

• Condorcet voting: The term condorcet voting or round robin voting refers to a variation of ranked-choice voting that identifies the candidate voters would prefer most in a hypothetical series of head-to-head contests. As Atkinson, Foley, and Ganz wrote in the University of Illinois Law Review,

Condorcet’s method was to see if any candidate was ranked higher on more ballots than each other candidate, when considering each pair of candidates one-on-one (as in a round-robin sports tournament); because this candidate, when one exists, is preferred by a majority of voters to every other candidate on ballot, Condorcet considered that this most- majority-preferred candidate necessarily the top one.

• Instant-runoff voting: The term instant-runoff voting is generally used as a synonym for ranked-choice voting. However, as Nathan Atkinson, Edward B. Foley, and Scott Ganz wrote in the University of Illinois Law Review, the term instant-runoff voting can be used more precisely to describe only the ranked-choice voting processes used in single-winner elections:

The mathematical formula used in Alaska, and most everywhere else in the United States that employs ranked-choice ballots, is a sequential elimination procedure most accurately labeled Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), because it is designed to emulate a traditional runoff election, where voters express their preference between two finalists after other candidates have been eliminated. But rather than having voters cast a second ballot, IRV conducts the runoff instantly based on the information contained on the ranked-choice ballots. IRV operates by eliminating the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes on all the ranked-ballots and then redistributes the ballots which ranked the eliminated candidate first to whichever other candidate is ranked second. IRV repeats this sequential elimination procedure until one candidate has a majority of post-redistribution ballots.

Multi-winner elections

• Proportional representation: The term proportional representation refers to a multi-member electoral system in which the number of seats that a party wins is proportional to the level of support that party receives amongst the electorate. Proportional representation elections may use ranked-choice voting. In proportional representation ranked voting, a threshold is established based upon the number of seats up for election. Once a candidate reaches that threshold in ranked voting rounds, subsequent ballots that rank that candidate first will have their second place (or next highest ranked and still eligible) choice counted. This process continues until the number of candidates that have reached the threshold equals the number of seats up for election.

• Single-transferable voting: The term single-transferable voting is also used synonymously with proportional ranked-choice voting. Single-transferable voting is used to refer to ranked-choice voting processes used in multi-winner elections in which a vote threshold for a candidate's election is established based on the number of vacant seats up for election.

Where is RCV used?

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.

As of September 2025, ranked-choice voting is used in some states and localities across the United States. See the map, tables, and list below for further details. The numbers below do not include states where RCV is used by a political party for partisan primaries, or where military/UOCAVA voters use ranked ballots for runoff elections. For more information on these uses of RCV, see the table beneath the map below.

If you know of any additional U.S. localities using RCV that should be included here, please email editor@ballotpedia.org.

• RCV used statewide: Three states use RCV statewide. Alaska and Maine use RCV in some federal and statewide elections, while Hawaii uses it for certain statewide elections.
• RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities: Fourteen states contain localities that either use or are scheduled to begin using RCV in municipal elections.
• RCV prohibited: Seventeen states have adopted law prohibiting the use of RCV in any elections.
• No laws addressing RCV, not in use: Twenty-two states have no laws addressing RCV, and neither the state nor any localities in the state use it.

The map below shows which states use ranked-choice voting statewide or in some localities as of September 2025. It also shows the states where RCV is either prohibited or not addressed in the law. It does not show states where RCV is used by a political party for partisan primaries, or where military/UOCAVA voters use ranked ballots for runoff elections. See the table beneath the map for details on these uses of 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 four localities: Basalt, Boulder, Broomfield, and Carbondale. RCV is also authorized in the following locality: Fort Collins (scheduled for use in 2025) 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

State laws

State laws authorizing or requiring the use of RCV

As of September 2025, the following eight states have adopted laws authorizing or requiring the use of RCV in certain elections.

Alaska

Voters approved the Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative on November 3, 2020. The measure requires the use of ranked-choice voting for all general elections in the state. The law was chaptered as Alaska Statutes § 15-15-350.

California

Governor Gavin Newsom (D) signed AB 1227 into law on October 7, 2023. The law allows the county of Santa Clara to use ranked-choice voting. The law was chaptered as California Government Code § 24206.

Colorado

Governor Jared Polis (D) signed HB 21-1071 into law on June 28, 2021. The law allows municipalities located in one county to take formal action to conduct their elections using ranked-choice voting. On or after July 1, 2026, municipalities located in more than one county will also be able to conduct their elections using ranked-choice voting. The law was chaptered as Colorado Revised Statutes § 1-7-118.

Hawaii

Governor David Ige (D) signed SB 2162 into law on June 17, 2022. The law requires the use of ranked-choice voting for special federal elections and county council vacancies. The law was chaptered as Hawaii Revised Statutes § 11-100.

Maine

Voters approved the Maine Ranked Choice Voting Initiative on November 8, 2016. The initiative requires the use of ranked-choice voting for all congressional, state legislative, and gubernatorial elections. However, in May 2017, the Justices of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court issued a unanimous advisory opinion concluding that the application of the ranked-choice voting law to general elections for State Representative, State Senator, and Governor were unconstitutional under the Maine Constitution. On August 26, 2019, Governor Janet Mills (D) allowed LD 1083 to become law without her signature, expanding the requirement to use ranked-choice voting to presidential primaries and general elections.

Chaptered as 21-A Maine Revised Statutes § 1, sub-§ 27-C, the use of ranked-choice voting is required for:

“

any of the following elections in which 3 or more candidates have qualified to be listed on the ballot for a particular office or at least 2 such candidates plus one or more declared write‑in candidates have qualified for that particular office: A. Primary elections for the offices of United States Senator, United States Representative to Congress, Governor, State Senator and State Representative; B. General and special elections for the offices of United States Senator and United States Representative to Congress; D. General elections for presidential electors; and E. Primary elections for the office of President of the United States.

”

Mills also signed HB 859 into law on April 7, 2022. The law allows towns to use ranked-choice voting if decided at a municipal meeting at least 180 days before an election. It was chaptered as 30-A Maine Revised Statutes § 2528, sub-§ 10.

New Mexico

Governor Susana Martinez (R) signed HB98 into law on March 7, 2018. The law requires the use of ranked-choice voting for municipal runoff elections. The law was chaptered as New Mexico Annotated Statutes § 1-22-16.

Utah

Governor Spencer Cox (R) signed SB 19 into law on March 22, 2022. The law establishes a pilot program that allows municipalities to use ranked-choice voting. It expires on January 1, 2026. The law was chaptered as Utah Code § 20A-4-602 and Utah Code § 20A-4-603.

Virginia

Governor Ralph Northam (D) signed HB 1103 into law on April 10, 2020. The law allows the use of ranked-choice voting for the elections of members of a county board of supervisors or a city council. It is a pilot program that expires on July 1, 2031. The law was chaptered as Code of Virginia § 24.2-673.1.

State laws prohibiting RCV

As of April 2025, the following 17 states have adopted laws banning the use of ranked-choice voting statewide. For more information on anti-RCV legislation, read more in Ballotpedia News.

Alabama

Governor Kay Ivey (R) signed SB 1886 into law on May 10, 2024. The law said, "Ranked-choice voting shall not be used in determining the election or nomination of any candidate to any local, state, or federal office." The bill made an exception for members of the military and citizens residing abroad eligible to vote under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.

Arkansas

Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) signed HB 1706 which became law on April 17, 2025. The law said, "Ranked choice voting shall not be used to determine the election or nomination of a candidate to any local, state, or federal elective office in this state." The Republican-sponsored bill passed both chambers of the Arkansas Legislature along party lines. The bill made an exception for members of the military and citizens residing abroad voting in elections that may require a runoff.

Florida

S 524 was signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis (R) on April 26, 2022. The law stated, "A ranked-choice voting method ... may not be used in determining the election or nomination of any candidate to any local, state, or federal elective office in this state."

Idaho

H 179 was signed into law by Governor Brad Little (R) on March 24, 2023. The law said, "No county elections of- fice shall use ranked choice voting or instant runoff voting to conduct an election or nomination of any candidate in this state for any local govern- ment, statewide, or federal elective office."

Iowa

Governor Kim Reynolds (R) signed https://legislation.ballotpedia.org/elections/bill/19385 HF 1954] into law on June 2, 2025. The law said, “An election in this state shall not be conducted using ranked choice voting or instant runoff voting,” and defined these terms as:

“

method of casting and tabulating votes in which a voter ranks candidates in order of preference, tabulation of ballots proceeds in rounds such that in each round either a candidate is elected or the candidate receiving the fewest votes is defeated, votes are transferred from elected or defeated candidates to a voter's next- ranked candidate in order of preference, and tabulation ends when a candidate receives the majority of votes cast or the number of candidates elected equals the number of offices to be filled, as applicable.

”

The Republican-sponsored bill passed the Iowa General Assembly largely along party lines, although one Republican in the Iowa Senate voted against the measure.

The bill made several other changes to the state's election laws, including authorizing the use of electronic poll books; requiring the state department of transportation to share a list with the state registrar of individuals who have submitted documentation indicating that they are not a U.S. citizen; requiring the counting of absentee ballots to begin no later than 9 a.m. on Election Day; requiring minor parties to receive 2% of the vote in the preceding three general elections for ballot access, instead of the last general election, to qualify; and, allowing poll workers to challenge a voter's eligibility based on their citizenship status.  

Kansas

Governor Laura Kelly (D) signed SB 6 into law on April 1, 2025. The law stated, "No form of ranked-choice voting method shall be used in determining the election or nomination of any candidate to any federal, state, county or other municipal elected office."

Gov. Kelly became the first Democratic governor to sign a bill banning RCV into law. The bill passed the legislature with nearly unanimous support from Republicans and little support from Democrats.

Kentucky

HB 44 became law after the Kentucky General Assembly successfully overrode Gov. Andy Beshear's (D) veto on April 12, 2024. The law said, "A ranked-choice voting method that allows electors to rank candidates for an office in order of preference and has ballots cast to be tabulated in multiple rounds following the elimination of a candidate until a single candidate attains a majority shall not be used in determining the election or nomination of any candidate to any local, state, or federal elective office in this state."

Louisiana

Governor Jeff Landry signed SB 101 into law on May 28, 2024. The new law said, "A ranked-choice voting or instant runoff voting method shall not be used in determining the election or nomination of any candidate to any local, state, or federal elective office in this state." The legislation provides an exception for military and overseas absentee voters voting in runoff elections.

Mississippi

Governor Tate Reeves (R) signed SB 2144 into law on May 13, 2024. The law stated, "Ranked-choice voting, also known as instant runoff voting, is prohibited in statewide, county, local, municipal and school district elections in the State of Mississippi." The legislation also prohibited the use of any ranked voting method for primary or party nominating contests.

Missouri

On November 5, 2024, Missouri voters approved Amendment 7 68.5% to 31.5%. The constitutional amendment prohibited ranked-choice voting, among other changes to the state's election laws.

Montana

Governor Greg Gianforte (R) signed HB 598 into law on April 27, 2023. The law stated, "An election conducted under Title 13 or under Title 20 may not use a ranked-choice voting method to determine the election or nomination of a candidate to a local, state, or federal office."

North Dakota

Governor Kelly Armstrong (R) signed HB 1297 into law on April 18, 2025. The law said, "Approval voting or ranked-choice voting may not be used in an election held within this state to elect or nominate a candidate to any local, state, or federal elective office." No jurisdiction in the state used RCV at the time the bill became law, but Fargo, North Dakota used approval voting.

Oklahoma

HB 3156 was signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt (R) on April 29, 2024. The law stated, "No election conducted by the State Election Board, a county election board, or any municipality authorized to conduct elections in Oklahoma shall use ranked choice voting, ranked voting, proportional ranked voting, preferential voting, or instant runoff voting."

South Dakota

Governor Kristi Noem (R) signed SB55 into law on March 27, 2023. The law said, "The State Board of Elections may not authorize and a political subdivision may not adopt or enforce in any manner a rule, resolution, charter provision, or ordinance establishing a system of voting for any office where: (1) Voters rank candidates in order of preference..."

Tennessee

Governor Bill Lee (R) signed HB 1868 and SB1820 into law on March 7, 2022. The laws sated, "A county election commission shall not utilize instant runoff voting or ranked choice voting to conduct an election in this state for a statewide or local government office."

West Virginia

Governor Patrick Morrisey (R) signed SB 490 on March 19, 2025. The law prohibits the use of RCV for any election in the state, providing that, "No state, county, or local elections office may use ranked choice voting or instant runoff voting to conduct an election or nomination of any candidate in this state for any local government, statewide, or federal elective office."

Wyoming

Governor Mark Gordon (R) signed HB 165 into law on March 18, 2025. The law provided that, "Nothing in this election code shall be deemed to authorize any election in Wyoming to be conducted through ranked choice voting. Any existing or future ordinance enacted or adopted by a county, municipality or any other governmental entity that purports to authorize ranked choice voting in violation of this subsection is void."

History 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:

“

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.

”

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.

States and localities that stopped using RCV

As of September 2025, the following 39 localities stopped using RCV after using it in past local elections. 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.
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.
West Virginia	Wheeling	Authorized for city council elections from 1935-1950. Last used in 1949.

Arguments for and against ranked-choice voting

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."

“	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.	”
—Better Government Association (2021)

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:

“	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..	”
—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: 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.

“	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.	”
—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. 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."

“	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.	”
—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:

“	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.	”
—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:

“	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.	”
—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:

“	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.	”
—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:

“	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.	”
—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:

“	“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.	”
—Foundation for Government Accountability

State legislation

See also: Electoral systems legislation in the United States, 2024

The table below lists bills related to ranked-choice voting introduced during (or carried over to) each state's regular legislative session this year. The following information is included for each bill:

• State
• Bill number
• Official bill name or caption
• Most recent action date
• Legislative status
• Sponsor party
• Topics dealt with by the bill

Bills are organized by state and then by most recent action. The table displays up to 100 results. To view more bills, use the arrows in the upper-right corner. Clicking on a bill will open its page on Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker, which includes bill details and a summary.

Ballot measures

See also: History of ranked-choice voting (RCV) ballot measures

The term ballot measures describes all questions or issues that appear on election ballots for voters to approve or reject. Ballot measures may apply to state and local jurisdictions (including cities, counties, special districts, etc.). Initiatives permit citizens to propose (or initiate) statutes or constitutional amendments via petition. Referenda allow citizens to refer statutes passed by legislatures to the ballot for enactment or repeal by voters. Legislative referrals appear on voters' ballots as a result of actions taken by legislatures; these can include state statutes, constitutional amendments, and bond issues.

The sections below list ballot measures related to electoral systems and campaign laws, including certified measures, potential measures, and measures that did not make the ballot.

Statewide measures

The following table provides a list of state ranked-choice voting (RCV) ballot measures:

State	Year	Type	Measure	Position	Yes	No	Outcome
Alaska	2024	Initiative	Ballot Measure 2: Repeal Top-Four RCV Initiative	Anti-RCV	49.88%	50.12%	d
Colorado	2024	Initiative	Proposition 131: Top-Four RCV Initiative	Pro-RCV	46.47%	53.53%	d
Idaho	2024	Initiative	Proposition 1: Top-Four RCV Initiative	Pro-RCV	30.38%	69.62%	d
Missouri	2024	Referral	Amendment 7: Require Citizenship to Vote and Prohibit RCV Amendment	Anti-RCV	68.44%	31.56%	a
Nevada	2024	Initiative	Question 3: Top-Five RCV Initiative	Pro-RCV	47.04%	52.96%	d
Oregon	2024	Referral	Measure 117: RCV for Federal and State Elections Measure	Pro-RCV	42.30%	57.70%	d
Nevada	2022	Initiative	Question 3: Top-Five RCV Initiative	Pro-RCV	52.94%	47.06%	a
Alaska	2020	Initiative	Ballot Measure 2: Top-Four RCV and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative	Pro-RCV	50.55%	49.45%	a
Massachusetts	2020	Initiative	Question 2: RCV Initiative	Pro-RCV	45.22%	54.78%	d
Maine	2018	Initiative	Question 1: Overturn RCV Delayed Enactment and Automatic Repeal Legislation Referendum	Pro-RCV	53.88%	46.12%	a
Maine	2016	Initiative	Question 5: RCV Initiative	Pro-RCV	52.12%	47.88%	a
Alaska	2002	Initiative	Ballot Measure 1: RCV Initiative	Pro-RCV	36.27%	63.73%	d

Local ballot measures

2025

Jurisdiction	State	Type	Title	Description	Result	Yes Votes	No Votes
Skokie	IL	Initiative	Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative	Adopt ranked-choice voting for city elections	a	6,800 (59%)	4,812 (41%)

1965-2024

The following table provides a list of ranked-choice voting local ballot measures from 1965 to 2024.

Jurisdiction	State	Year	Title	Adopt or Repeal	Yes vote	No vote	Status
Richmond	California	2024	Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Adopt	54.39%	45.61%	a
Washington, D.C.	D.C.	2024	Initiative 83, Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative	Adopt	72.89%	27.11%	a
Oak Park	Illinois	2024	Ranked-Choice Voting for Village President and Board of Trustees Initiative	Adopt	79.57%	20.43%	a
Peoria Township	Illinois	2024	Ranked-Choice Voting Advisory Question	Adopt	67.13%	32.87%	a
Bloomington	Minnesota	2024	Question 1, Repeal of Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative	Repeal	48.71%	51.29%	d
Redondo Beach	California	2023	Ranked-Choice Voting Amendment	Adopt	76.67%	23.33%	a
Easthampton	Massachusetts	2023	Question 1, Multi-Winner Ranked-Choice Voting Advisory Question	Adopt	61.76%	38.24%	a
East Lansing	Michigan	2023	Question 3, Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative	Adopt	52.48%	47.52%	a
Kalamazoo	Michigan	2023	Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative	Adopt	70.97%	29.03%	a
Royal Oak	Michigan	2023	Proposal B, Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative	Adopt	50.53%	49.47%	a
Minnetonka	Minnesota	2023	Repeal of Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative	Repeal	41.34%	58.66%	d
Burlington	Vermont	2023	Question 6: Ranked-Choice Voting for Mayor, School Commissioner, and Ward Election Officer Amendment	Adopt	64.42%	35.58%	a
Clark County	Washington	2022	Amendment 10: Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Adopt	41.94%	58.06%	d
San Juan County	Washington	2022	Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Adopt	45.64%	54.36%	d
Seattle	Washington	2022	Proposition 1A and 1B: Approval Voting Initiative and Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Adopt	50.95%	49.05%	a
Multnomah County	Oregon	2022	Measure 26-232: Ranked-Choice Voting for County Elections Amendment	Adopt	69.09%	30.91%	a
Portland	Oregon	2022	Measure 26-228: Changes to City Governance and Ranked-Choice Voting	Adopt	58.10%	41.90%	a
Portland	Maine	2022	Question 4: Proportional Ranked-Choice Voting Amendment	Adopt	63.59%	36.41%	a
Evanston	Illinois	2022	Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Adopt	82.58%	17.42%	a
Fort Collins	Colorado	2022	Ballot Question 2C: Ranked-Choice Voting Amendment	Adopt	58.15%	41.85%	a
Ojai	California	2022	Measure M: Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Adopt	55.84%	44.16%	a
Burlington	Vermont	2021	Question 4: Ranked-Choice Voting Amendment	Adopt	64.44%	35.56%	a
Austin	Texas	2021	Proposition E: Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative	Adopt	57.95%	42.05%	a
Ann Arbor	Michigan	2021	Proposal B: Ranked-Choice Voting Charter Amendment	Adopt	72.83%	27.17%	a
Westbrook	Maine	2021	Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative	Adopt	62.94%	37.06%	a
Broomfield	Colorado	2021	Question 2A: Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Adopt	51.90%	48.10%	a
Minnetonka	Minnesota	2020	Question 1: Ranked-Choice Voting Amendment	Adopt	54.71%	45.29%	a
Bloomington	Minnesota	2020	Question 3: Ranked-Choice Voting Amendment	Adopt	51.19%	48.81%	a
Portland	Maine	2020	Ranked-Choice Voting for City Council and School Board Measure	Adopt	81.24%	18.76%	a
Boulder	Colorado	2020	Measure 2E: Ranked-Choice Voting for Mayor Amendment	Adopt	78.14%	21.86%	a
Albany	California	2020	Measure BB: Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Adopt	73.27%	26.73%	a
Eureka	California	2020	Measure C: Ranked-Choice Voting Amendment	Adopt	61.05%	38.95%	a
Easthampton	Massachusetts	2019	Question 1: Ranked-Choice Voting for Mayor Measure	Adopt	55.32%	44.68%	a
Easthampton	Massachusetts	2019	Question 2: Ranked-Choice Voting for City Council Measure	Adopt	55.62%	44.38%	a
Lowell	Massachusetts	2019	Question 1: Ranked-Choice Voting Advisory Question	Adopt	49.07%	50.93%	d
New York City	New York	2019	Ballot Question 1: Elections Charter Amendment	Adopt	73.61%	26.39%	a
Memphis	Tennessee	2018	Referendum Ordinance No. 5669: Repeal of Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Repeal	37.41%	62.59%	d
Santa Clara	California	2018	Measure A: District Council Elections and Ranked-Choice Voting Amendment	Adopt	47.78%	52.22%	d
Amherst	Massachusetts	2018	Amherst Home Rule Charter, Ballot Initiatives, and Ranked-Choice Voting Commission Amendment	Adopt	58.43%	41.57%	a
Benton County	Oregon	2016	Measure 2-100: Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Adopt	54.18%	45.82%	a
Duluth	Minnesota	2015	Question 2: Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative	Adopt	25.30%	74.70%	d
Fort Collins	Colorado	2011	Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative	Adopt	38.63%	61.37%	d
Burlington	Vermont	2010	Question 5: Repeal of Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Repeal	51.98%	48.02%	a
Portland	Maine	2010	Question 1: Ranked-Choice Voting for Mayor Measure	Adopt	52.29%	47.71%	a
Aspen	Colorado	2010	Aspen Referendum 2B: Repeal of Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Repeal	65.28%	34.72%	a
Aspen	Colorado	2009	Referendum 2A: Continue Ranked-Choice Voting Advisory Question	Adopt	49.78%	50.22%	d
Pierce County	Washington	2009	Amendment 3: Repeal of Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Repeal	70.65%	29.35%	a
St. Paul	Minnesota	2009	Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Adopt	52.45%	47.55%	a
Cincinnati	Ohio	2008	Issue 8:Proportional Representation for City Council Initiative	Adopt	47.24%	52.76%	d
Glendale	Arizona	2008	Proposition 404: Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative	Adopt	45.20%	54.80%	d
Memphis	Tennessee	2008	Referendum 5: Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Adopt	70.70%	29.30%	a
Santa Fe	New Mexico	2008	Amendment 5: Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Adopt	65.02%	34.98%	a
Telluride	Colorado	2008	Question 202: Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative	Adopt	67.08%	32.92%	a
Aspen	Colorado	2007	Referendum 2E: Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Adopt	76.78%	23.22%	a
Clallam County	Washington	2007	Amendment 1: Allow for Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Adopt	45.38%	54.62%	d
Sarasota	Florida	2007	Question 2: Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative	Adopt	77.61%	22.39%	a
Springfield	Illinois	2007	Ranked-Choice Voting for Military and Overseas Voters Measure	Adopt	91.01%	8.99%	a
Pierce County	Washington	2006	Amendment 3: Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Adopt	52.93%	47.07%	a
Minneapolis	Minnesota	2006	Question 1: Ranked-Choice Voting Amendment	Adopt	64.95%	35.05%	a
Oakland	California	2006	Measure O: Ranked-Choice Voting Amendment (November 2006)	Adopt	68.63%	31.37%	a
Davis	California	2006	Measure L: Multi-Winner Ranked-Choice Voting Advisory Question	Adopt	55.41%	44.59%	a
Burlington	Vermont	2005	Question 5: Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Adopt	64.46%	35.54%	a
Takoma Park	Maryland	2005	Ranked-Choice Voting Advisory Question	Adopt	83.63%	16.37%	a
Ferndale	Michigan	2004	Proposal B: Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Adopt	69.75%	30.25%	a
Berkeley	California	2004	Measure I: Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Adopt	72.25%	27.75%	a
Carbondale	Colorado	2003	Home Rule Charter and Ranked-Choice Voting Amendment	Adopt	80.06%	19.94%	a
Basalt	Colorado	2002	Referendum 2A: Home Rule Charter and Ranked-Choice Voting Amendment	Adopt	74.44%	25.56%	a
San Francisco	California	2002	Proposition A: Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Adopt	55.48%	44.52%	a
Eugene	Oregon	2001	Measure 20-51: Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Adopt	34.41%	65.59%	d
San Leandro	California	2000	Measure F: Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Adopt	63.05%	36.95%	a
Vancouver	Washington	1999	Amendment 1: Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Adopt	52.91%	47.09%	a
Multnomah County	Oregon	1998	Measure 26-85: Repeal Election Runoff Requirement and Allow RCV Measure	Adopt	40.07%	59.93%	d
Santa Clara County	California	1998	Measure F: Allow for Ordinance for Ranked-Choice Voting Measure	Adopt	53.93%	46.07%	a
San Francisco	California	1996	Proposition H: Preference Voting for Board of Supervisors Measure	Adopt	43.60%	56.40%	d
Cincinnati	Ohio	1991	Issue 6: Proportional Representation for City Council Amendment	Adopt	44.84%	55.16%	d
Cincinnati	Ohio	1988	Issue 2: Proportional Representation for City Council Amendment	Adopt	45.39%	54.61%	d
Ann Arbor	Michigan	1976	Proposal B: Repeal of Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative	Repeal	62.43%	37.57%	a
Ann Arbor	Michigan	1974	Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative	Adopt	52.55%	47.45%	a
Cambridge	Massachusetts	1965	Question 1: Repeal of Proportional Representation Initiative	Repeal	45.69%	54.31%	d

Noteworthy events

Tallying error in Oakland, Calif., led to inaccurate election results (2022)

On March 6, 2023, Judge Brad Seligman of the Alameda County Superior Court declared Mike Hutchinson the official winner of the school director election race in District 4 of the Oakland Unified School District in California, saying, “Errors were made sufficient to change the result of the election...contestant Hutchinson received a majority of the votes cast and accordingly, is declared the winner of the Nov. 8, 2022 general municipal election.”

On December 28, 2022, the Alameda County Registrar of Voters acknowledged in a press release that the initial certified results for this election were incorrect. Although Nick Resnick was initially certified as the winner, Hutchinson, who originally finished third, was later told by election officials that he won: "Without being cynical, I now believe in holiday miracles. So it was very shocking to wake up this morning and receive a phone call at 10:30 a.m. from the Alameda County head of elections informing me that I had actually won the election."

According to the press release from the Alameda County Registrar of Voters:

“

The ROV learned that its RCV tally system was not configured properly for the November 2022 General Election. It should have been configured to advance ballots to the next ranking immediately when no candidate was selected for a particular round. ... After reviewing the election data and applying the correct configuration, the ROV learned that only one outcome was affected: Oakland School Director, District 4, for the Oakland Unified School District. No other result for any RCV election in any jurisdiction was changed.

”

California Ranked Choice Voting Coalition and FairVote, two organizations that supported the use of ranked-choice voting in California, discovered the error while auditing the election results. They found that county officials used the wrong method to tally votes that did not include a first choice candidate. Sean Dugar, consulting executive director of the California Ranked Choice Voting Coalition, said, "In Alameda County, the correct setting should have advanced the second choice to become the first choice ... The algorithm and the election officials almost always get it right. In this instance, it was simply a button that was left checked in the menu option for the algorithm."

Resnick was officially sworn into the position of District 4 Oakland school director on January 9, 2023. His attorney initially responded to the Alameda County Registrar of Voters, saying, “We are not aware of any legal authority... which allows the registrar’s office to retabulate election results or take any other actions vis-a-vis the results of an election after it completes the official canvass and the results are certified by the local governing body.”

Hutchinson filed a petition in Alameda County Superior Court on December 29, 2022, asking a judge to overrule the prior certification and name him the official winner. Resnick resigned from office on February 21, 2023, saying in a statement on his website that a prolonged legal fight was not “what’s best for this community and I don’t think that’s going to help get our schools where they need to go.”

New York Democratic mayoral primary is largest RCV election in the Unites States to date (2021)

Eric Adams (D) defeated 12 other candidates in the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City on June 22, 2021. The primary election was the first use of ranked-choice voting for a mayoral primary in the city's history.

After the first-round of tabulation, Adams won 30.8% of first-choice votes while three other candidates received more than 10% of first-choice votes, Maya Wiley, Kathryn Garcia, and Andrew Yang. Despite a strong lead after the first round, Adams did not reach 40% of first-choice votes until round seven when 10 candidates had been eliminated. Three candidates remained in round seven, Adams, Wiley, and Garcia. Wiley was eliminate after the round, and of her 254,728 first-choice votes, 49,856 went to Adams while 130,384 went to Garcia. Despite a nearly three-to-one preference for Garcia over Adams among remaining eligible ballots, the share of transferred votes was sufficient to secure Adams the majority, and nomination. In the final round, 14.9% of ballots were exhausted, or no longer countable in a tally as all of the candidates marked on the ballot are no longer in the contest.

In addition to the mayoral primaries, primary elections for 63 separate offices in New York City used ranked-choice for the first time in 2021. In all but three of these elections the candidate that won the most first-choice votes in the first round ultimately won the election. In 21 of these primaries a candidate won a majority in the first round and the election.

Because New York City has a larger population than any of the states that used ranked-choice voting statewide at the time, this election made the city the largest electoral jurisdiction in the country to use ranked-choice voting. New York City previously used a type of ranked-choice voting called single-transferable vote (STV) for city council elections between 1936-1947.

Maine becomes first state to use RCV for congressional elections (2018)

State Rep. Jared Golden (D) defeated Rep. Bruce Poliquin (R), Tiffany Bond (I) and Will Hoar (I) in the November 6, 2018, ranked-choice general election to represent Maine's 2nd Congressional District.

Golden trailed incumbent Poliquin in first-choice votes, 45.6% to 46.3%, after the first round of tabulation. Both independent candidates were eliminated after the first round; Golden was transferred 44.5% of their ballots while Poliquin received 20.3% and the remaining portion of ballots were exhausted. Golden's share of first-choice voted after the second round of tabulation was 50.6%, overtaking Poliquin's first round advantage and winning the election. In the final round, 2.8% of ballots were exhausted and not counted for either remaining candidate.

This was the first general election in Maine for which ranked-choice voting was law, and this race was the first in U.S. history where the process was used to decide a congressional election.

After the first round of tabulation in which he led, Poliquin sued the Maine secretary of state to stop tabulation of transferred votes. Poliquin dropped the lawsuit in December 2018.

To read more about ranked-choice voting in Maine, see here.

Explore election legislation with Ballotpedia

• 
  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

  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

  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.

Choose your state...AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWashington, D.C.West VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

http://ballotpedia.org/Electoral_systems_in_STATE

• Electoral systems legislation in the United States, 2025
• Primary systems legislation in the United States, 2025
• Electoral system
• Ballot exhaustion
• Academic studies on ranked-choice voting (RCV)

External links

• ACE: The Electoral Knowledge Network
• Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center
• Electology.org (The Center for Election Science)
• Protect My Ballot
• RankedVote: Create Ranked-Choice Contests & Elections

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox