Why we need ranked-choice voting
Politics in America is toxic and the bonds of friendship and political discourse are frayed to the breaking point, particularly in our presidential elections. Connecticut is only one state, but we can help by enabling our political parties to use ranked-choice voting, or RCV, in their presidential preference primaries and lead other states to follow our example.
Bipartisan legislation to do just that — pilot RCV in the presidential primaries that take place every four years — has been introduced by state Sens. Catherine Osten and Tony Hwang, a Democrat and a Republican. Calling their bill,
S.B. 389, “a well thought-out path forward for implementation of ranked-choice voting,” Gov. Ned Lamont is advocating for the bill’s passage, correctly observing that RCV is increasingly used across the nation and that, true to its promise, “it appears that RCV promotes consensus and ensures outcomes that reflect the will of the voters.”
The presidential preference primaries are how Connecticut voters (including unaffiliated voters if the political parties allow it) help choose who the two major party presidential candidates will be in November 2024. RCV (sometimes called “instant run-off ”) is simply a method of voting that allows a voter to rank more than one potential nominee in order of preference on the ballot (first choice, second choice, etc.), providing the means to identify which potential nominee has the support of the majority without conducting separate run-off elections. RCV is used in presidential
preference primaries in six states already and the case for using RCV in these primaries is strong.
To start with a point of particular significance for voters serving in the military, early and absentee ballot voters, RCV avoids the risk of complete disenfranchisement that exists for these voters in the current system. Candidates in presidential primaries frequently drop out at the last minute. In the current system, these voters can find themselves having voted for a candidate who is, literally, no longer a candidate. RCV solves this problem completely. If a voter’s first choice drops out before the
actual primary, the vote is counted for the voter’s next choice instead of being thrown out as is the case now.
RCV also avoids the serious problem of vote splintering, which can produce presidential nominees who have the support of only a narrow base of party loyalists. Under the current system, if there are four candidates, a candidate needs only 26 percent of the votes, producing a “winner” who was not the choice of three out of every four voters. This problem is especially acute in presidential primaries. The 2020 presidential race saw more than 16 candidates from the Democratic Party, and six from the Republican Party.
RCV solves this problem, too. For the Republican Party where the “winner” is the person with the most votes even if that is significantly less than a majority, RCV would protect against nominating an individual who was rejected by the majority of voters. For the Democrats who determine how the Connecticut delegation will vote at their party’s national nominating convention by calculating what proportion of the primary vote a candidate received, RCV can produce results that more accurately reflect the will of the voters.
Finally, RCV helps produce consensus candidates. It forces candidates to appeal across partisan divides because they must seek second- and third-place rankings in order to win. Used by the Virginia Republican Party in their regular party primaries starting in 2021, use of RCV produced a dramatic reduction in internal party strife, the nomination of consensus candidates, improved performance for the party’s candidates in the general election and better choices for all voters on Election Day.
No one reform is going to cure what divides us. But RCV can help change the incentives that now reward elected officials who appeal to the extremes to producing decisions that more closely reflect the will of the majority, and to policy made in the best interests of the country as a whole rather than on the basis of narrow partisan interest that changes dramatically when the political parties swap places.
Connecticut is in a position to lead the country toward meaningful reform that can help restore our democracy. In his written testimony in support of S.B. 389, Gov. Lamont said: “Connecticut’s time is now to begin work on this important reform,” and I agree. Connecticut cannot afford to wait.
Monte Frank ran for lieutenant governor in 2018. He is a past president of the Connecticut Bar Association, former chair of the Griebel-frank for CT party, and an advocate for democracy reform. He currently serves on the Board of Advisors of Ctvotersfirst.