Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Results for ranked-choice voting (RCV) and electoral system ballot measures, 2024
 |
| View the complete list of state ballot measure election results here. |
| Explore ballot measure trends with election results and analyses. |
| • Abortion |
| • Education |
| • Marijuana/Psychedelics |
| • RCV |
| • Voting |
| • Wages/Labor |
| Choose a state from the menu below to view its results. |
On November 5, 2024, voters decided on 10 ballot measures related to electoral systems. Nine of the ballot measures aimed to change existing electoral systems, and voters rejected each proposal. One, in Missouri, which banned ranked-choice voting (RCV), was approved.
Voters rejected ballot measures to enact ranked-choice voting and other electoral system changes in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon, as well as in Montana and South Dakota.
In Alaska, voters rejected a ballot initiative 50.1% to 49.9% to repeal the state's top-four primaries and ranked-choice voting general elections, a system that was adopted via ballot measure in 2020.
In Arizona, voters also rejected a ballot measure to add the existing system of partisan primaries to the state constitution.
This page provides election results for the electoral system ballot measures, as well as reactions, campaign finance, and historical ballot measure context. Click on the links below to find the following:
- Summaries for measures to watch
- Results for Nov. 5, 2024
- Reactions to election results
- Campaign finance for ballot measures
- Historical context
Watchlist
Ballotpedia compiled a list of 15 ballot measures and trends to watch on November 5, 2024. The following measures were included because of their unique contexts: the first state ballot measure to repeal ranked-choice voting (RCV), proposals for top-four and top-five primaries combined with RCV, competing ballot measures in Arizona, and a ranked-choice voting proposal for the nation's capital.
- Alaska Ballot Measure 2: While other citizen-initiated ballot measures would enact RCV, Ballot Measure 2 would have repealed the state's top-four ranked-choice voting system, which was approved in 2020. Alaska was the first state to vote on repealing RCV, although several localities had adopted and then later voted on repealing the system. Ballot Measure 2 would have reverted the state's electoral system to partisan primaries and general elections in which the candidate who receives the most votes wins the election. Measure 2 was defeated, with 743 vote separating 'No' and 'Yes,' after a recount.
- Colorado Proposition 131, Idaho Proposition 1, and Nevada Question 3: Voters in Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada rejected ballot initiatives combining top-four or top-five primaries and ranked-choice voting general elections. Primaries would have looked similar in the three states but differed in the number of candidates that advance to the general elections. Candidates would have been listed on the same ballot regardless of the candidate's partisan affiliation. Voters would have selected one candidate. In Colorado and Idaho, the four candidates who received the most votes would have advanced to the general election. In Nevada, the five candidates who received the most votes would have advanced to the general election. Voters would then have used ranked-choice voting in general elections to rank the four or five candidates that advanced from the primaries. The system that combines top-five primaries and RCV general elections, such as what is proposed in Nevada, is sometimes called final-five voting.
- Arizona Proposition 133 and Proposition 140: Voters in Arizona rejected two constitutional amendments related to electoral systems—Proposition 133 and Proposition 140. Proposition 133 would have added the existing system of partisan primaries to the Arizona Constitution. Proposition 140 would have required primaries in which candidates, regardless of partisan affiliation, appear on a single ballot and a certain number advance to the general election, such as top-two or top-four primaries.[1] These two systems would have contradicted. In Arizona, when two ballot measures of the same type (both were constitutional amendments) contradict and both pass, the measure that receives the most votes supersedes the other at points of conflict. However, determining those points of conflict can require the courts.
- Washington, D.C. Initiative 83: Voters approved Initiative 83, establishing ranked-choice voting for elections in Washington, D.C., beginning in 2026. Voters will be permitted to rank up to 5 candidates, including a write-in candidate. RCV will be used in federal elections, including the presidential election, and municipal elections. In 2024, voters in five cities decided on RCV.
Results
- See also: 2024 ballot measure election results
Summary
The following table summarizes the ballot measure outcomes:
- Note: 'Adopt RCV (State)' includes Arizona Proposition 140, which could require ranked-choice voting (RCV) for general elections, though the state could also choose to implement top-two primaries instead.
| Outcome of RCV and electoral system state and local ballot measures, 2024 | |||||
| Topic | Approved | Defeated | TBD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adopt RCV (State) | 0 | 5 | 0 | ||
| Repeal RCV (State) | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
| Prohibit RCV (State) | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Adopt RCV (Local) | 4[2] | 0 | 0 | ||
| Repeal RCV (Local) | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
| Adopt STAR Voting (Local) | 0 | 2 | 0 | ||
State
The following table lists the 11 ballot measures related to electoral systems and their election results.
| State | Type | Title | Description | Result | Yes Votes | No Votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AK | Ballot Measure 2 | Repeal the top-four ranked-choice voting (RCV) system that was adopted in 2020 |
|
160,230 (50%) |
160,973 (50%) |
|
| AZ | Proposition 133 | Require partisan primary elections for partisan offices and prohibit primary elections where all candidates, regardless of political party affiliation, run in the same primary election, such as top-two, top-four, and top-five primaries |
|
1,286,640 (42%) |
1,763,711 (58%) |
|
| AZ | Proposition 140 | Require primaries in which candidates, regardless of partisan affiliation, appear on a single ballot and a certain number advance to the general election, and require general election candidates to receive a majority of votes |
|
1,284,176 (41%) |
1,823,445 (59%) |
|
| CO | Proposition 131 | Establish top-four primaries and ranked-choice voting (RCV) for federal and state offices in Colorado |
|
1,385,060 (46%) |
1,595,256 (54%) |
|
| ID | Proposition 1 | Establish top-four primaries and ranked-choice voting (RCV) for federal, state, and certain local offices in Idaho |
|
269,960 (30%) |
618,753 (70%) |
|
| MO | Amendment 7 | Prohibit ranked-choice voting (RCV) and the state local and governments from allowing noncitizens to vote |
|
1,966,852 (68%) |
906,851 (32%) |
|
| MT | CI-126 | Establish top-four primaries for federal and state offices in Montana |
|
287,837 (49%) |
300,664 (51%) |
|
| MT | CI-127 | Require an electoral system in which candidates for certain offices must win a majority of the vote, rather than a plurality, to win the election |
|
228,908 (40%) |
348,805 (60%) |
|
| NV | Question 3 | Establish top-five primaries and ranked-choice voting (RCV) for federal and state offices in Nevada |
|
664,011 (47%) |
747,719 (53%) |
|
| OR | Measure 117 | Establish ranked-choice voting (RCV) for federal and state offices in Oregon |
|
893,668 (42%) |
1,219,013 (58%) |
|
| SD | Constitutional Amendment H | Establish top-two primaries for federal, state, and certain local offices in South Dakota |
|
141,570 (34%) |
270,048 (66%) |
Local
The following tables list local ballot measures related to electoral systems, including ranked-choice voting and STAR voting, and their election results.
November 5
Note: Richmond, California, Measure L would have enacted RCV. Although Measure L was approved with a majority of votes, there was a conflicting initiative, Measure J, which received more votes. Therefore, Measure J was enacted; Measure L was not.
| Jurisdiction | State | Type | Title | Description | Result | Yes Votes | No Votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Richmond | CA | Measure J | Adopt top-two primaries for mayoral and city council elections |
|
20,645 (58%) |
14,879 (42%) |
|
| Richmond | CA | Measure L | Adopt ranked-choice voting for mayoral and city council elections |
|
19,284 (54%) |
16,168 (46%) |
|
| District of Columbia | DC | Initiative 83 | Establish ranked-choice voting for elections in Washington, D.C. |
|
212,332 (73%) |
78,961 (27%) |
|
| Oak Park | IL | Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative | Adopt ranked-choice voting to elect the Oak Park President and Village Board of Trustees |
|
22,570 (80%) |
5,796 (20%) |
|
| Peoria | IL | Ranked-Choice Voting Advisory Question | Advise the government to adopt ranked-choice voting |
|
23,027 (67%) |
11,277 (33%) |
|
| Bloomington | MN | Question 1 | Repeal ranked-choice voting for mayoral and city council elections |
|
23,360 (49%) |
24,596 (51%) |
|
| Oakridge | OR | Measure 20-364 | Enact STAR Voting for municipal elections for three election cycles |
|
653 (46%) |
753 (54%) |
May 21
| Jurisdiction | State | Type | Title | Description | Result | Yes Votes | No Votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eugene | OR | Measure 20-349 | Enact STAR Voting for mayoral and city council elections |
|
15,871 (36%) |
28,818 (64%) |
Reactions
Reactions to the election results from national political figures and organizations will be posted here. Note: You can share reactions from national figures and organizations, along with source URLs for this information, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
Pro-RCV
- Meredith Sumpter, CEO of FairVote: "Changing the status quo is never easy. Entrenched interests – including several state parties and an increasingly well-organized national opposition – pushed back hard on this year’s statewide ballot measures. But make no mistake: The future remains bright for ranked choice voting."[3]
- Deb Otis, Director of Research and Policy for FairVote: "In retrospect, it looks like it was always going to be a tough year for these pro-democracy ballot measures. The presidential election was looming heavily over voters and with a large number of ballot measures in some of these states. I think maybe voters defaulted to a no position on new concepts. ... The path to reform is not a straight line. As the dust settles here, one of the lessons we can take away is doing a better job of communicating the benefits for voters and for elected officials to help neutralize some of that opposition."[4]
- Nick Troiano, Executive Director of Unite America: "Although we knew that passing these initiatives would be an uphill battle, the results so far are not what we’d hoped. While plenty of Democrats and Republicans support our reforms, the political establishment and its aligned special interests do not. Party elites fought tooth and nail to defeat these initiatives and defend the status quo, from misleading ballot language in Ohio to millions of dollars in opposition spending in Nevada and Montana."[5]
Anti-RCV
- The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board: "Perhaps RCV’s advocates will try again, but given that these measures fell short in some cases by double digits, they’ll have to ask themselves how many more millions they’re prepared to burn. That leaves Washington, D.C., which will begin using RCV in 2026, joining a few other big cities, including New York and San Francisco. Maybe the system works better in smaller environments or these kinds of one-party strongholds, where most of the political debate under the old system was taking place inside the Democratic Party anyway. In any case, it’s hard to blame voters elsewhere for deciding that they didn’t want to join the guinea pigs."[6]
- Trent England, Executive Director of Save Our States: "The second theme is that voters do not want ranked-choice voting or to kick parties out of primary elections. This is a major loss for the far-left, dark-money machine that pumped millions of dollars into these ballot campaigns and came up empty-handed. Voters don’t want these out-of-state elites manipulating their election rules and state constitutions."[7]
- Jason Snead, Executive Director of Honest Elections Project Action: "Alaska repealed ranked-choice voting after using it just one time. Voters across the country overwhelmingly defeated ranked-choice voting ballot measures, and in Missouri, they voted decisively to ban it once and for all. Liberal billionaires thought they could buy a new form of democracy that would cater to them, but the American people said no."[7]
Campaign finance
- See also: Ballot measure campaign finance, 2024
The following table provides details on statewide ballot measures, including Washington, D.C. Initiative 83, support and opposition contributions for each measure, and the post-election outcome of each measure.
Historical context
State
From 1965 through 2023, there were six statewide ballot measures in four states. Voters approved four (66.7%) and rejected two (33.3%). The first state ballot measure was in 2002 in Alaska, where the proposal was defeated. In 2016, voters in Maine approved a ballot measure for RCV. In 2020, voters in Alaska approved a system combining top-four primaries and ranked-choice general elections, while voters in Massachusetts rejected a ballot initiative. Nevada is also unique amongst the initiative-and-referendum states in that citizen-initiated constitutional amendments must be approved twice. Voters approved Question 3 in 2022, with 52.94% voting to approve the initiative. Question 3 is on the ballot again in 2024.
The following table provides a list of state ranked-choice voting (RCV) ballot measures:
| State | Year | Type | Measure | Yes | No | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nevada | 2022 | Initiative | Question 3: Top-Five Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative | 52.94% | 47.06% |  |
| Alaska | 2020 | Initiative | Ballot Measure 2: Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative | 50.55% | 49.45% | |
| Massachusetts | 2020 | Initiative | Question 2: Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative | 45.22% | 54.78% |  |
| Maine | 2018 | Initiative | Question 1: Ranked-Choice Voting Delayed Enactment and Automatic Repeal Referendum | 53.88% | 46.12% | |
| Maine | 2016 | Initiative | Question 5: Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative | 52.12% | 47.88% | |
| Alaska | 2002 | Initiative | Ballot Measure 1: Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative | 36.27% | 63.73% | |
Local
Since 1915, there have been more than 150 ballot measures to adopt or repeal ranked-choice voting systems. Ashtabula, Ohio, was the first jurisdiction to approve a ranked-choice voting measure in 1915. From 1965 to 2023, there were at least 74 local ballot measures related to RCV.
| Local ranked-choice vote measures by topic and outcome, 1965 - 2023 | |||||
| Topic | Total | Approved | Approved (%) | Defeated | Defeated (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adopt RCV | 67 | 52 | 77.61% | 15 | 22.39% |
| Repeal RCV | 7 | 4 | 57.14% | 3 | 42.86% |
| Total | 74 | 56 | 75.68% | 18 | 24.32% |
From 1965 through 1997, seven local jurisdictions decided on six ballot measures to adopt or repeal ranked-choice voting (RCV). Four of those measures were to adopt RCV, and two of them were to repeal RCV. Between 1998 and 2011, voters decided on 32 measures in 28 jurisdictions—approving 25 (78.13%) and rejecting seven (21.87%). There were no local measures on ballots again until 2015. Between 2015 and November 2023, voters decided on 36 measures in 30 jurisdictions. Voters approved 29 (80.56%) and rejected seven (19.44%). The year with the greatest number of local ranked-choice voting (RCV) measures on the ballot was 2022, when there were nine. You can view a list of historical RCV-related local ballot measures here.
The following chart shows the number of ranked-choice voting ballot measures per year since 1965:
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ The Arizona State Legislature would have needed to pass a bill to determine the number of candidates that advance from primaries to general elections. Legislators would have had until November 1, 2025, to pass the legislation. Should that not have occurred before the deadline, the Arizona Secretary of State would have determined the number. Legislators could have changed the number after that, but not for six years.
- ↑ Note: Richmond, California, Measure L would have enacted RCV. Although Measure L was approved with a majority of votes, there was a conflicting initiative, Measure J, which received more votes. Therefore, Measure J was enacted, and Measure L was not.
- ↑ FairVote, "Statement: Ranked Choice Voting on Election Day 2024," November 6, 2024
- ↑ The Guardian, "Electoral reform was on the ballot in several states this election. Why did these measures fail?" November 15, 2024
- ↑ Unite America, "Unite America Statement On Initial Results Of Election Reform Ballot Initiatives," November 6, 2024
- ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Ranked-Choice Voting Rejection," November 6, 2024
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 National Review, "Election-Integrity Advocates Celebrate Wins against Ranked-Choice Voting, Ohio Redistricting," November 6, 2024
