What Is Ranked Choice Voting? Why Do Some Want It Banned In Oklahoma?

Over the last several elections there have been many discussions around election security and election efficiency.

Polling shows that most Oklahomans favor an automatic audit of every election, adding school board elections to general elections, and most do not support Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV). But what is Ranked-Choice Voting, and why do some say it's worth considering?

This article uses information from groups who are both for and against the method.

What is Ranked-Choice Voting?

While there are some variations, Ranked-Choice Voting, sometimes called instant-runoff voting, is a system that allows voters to rank candidates in order of their preference. Theoretically, this system would eliminate the need for a runoff if no candidate receives a full majority.

The method contains roughly three outcomes.

1) If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, he or she is the winner.

2) If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. With that person eliminated, the second-choice votes on those ballots are then added to the counts of the corresponding candidate.

3) The process then repeats until a candidate receives a majority vote.

What Is An Example of Ranked-Choice Voting?

While the system may seem confusing, the results are considered easy to obtain.

Let's look at a hypothetical race in Oklahoma. John Smith is among 10 candidates in a primary for an open House seat.

John Smith received 47 percent of the vote total while the next highest vote-getter received 18 percent. Under the current system, the two candidates would have a runoff election, which would likely be held a month or more later.

Proponents argue that the RCV system would do away with the need for a second election.

So, John Smith has 47 percent of first-place votes, but now election officials move to the ballots of the lowest vote-getter and see that Smith was their second choice, those votes are added to Smith's tally.

If that's still not enough they move on to the next to last and count the second place votes for that candidate. This continues until any candidate, but most likely Smith receives the majority of the votes. The system reflects that the majority of voters felt comfortable with Smith as their first or second choice.

Below is a sample ballot from Maine, a state that uses RCV:

In a closer race where there are fewer candidates, the outcome could go a different way.

Here is an example from real life:

In 2018, Maine was holding an election for its second Congressional seat. Bruce Poliquin led in the first round with a plurality of votes (46.3%) with four candidates in the running. While he had the most votes, he did not have the 50 percent needed to be named the winner.

7.8% of the total votes went to two candidates that weren’t viable. Those candidates were eliminated and their votes shifted to next-ranked choices, some went to Poliquin and some went to Jared Golden. Poliquin ended up with 49.5% of the vote, short of the majority needed to win and Jared Golden won with 50.5%.

Those who oppose RCV point out that Poliquin lost despite getting the most 1st place votes but proponents argue that this election shows that the majority of voters wanted Golden placing him first or preferred him over Polquin placing him second. A runoff for the election may have proven the same thing to be true.

Click Here To See Those Election Results

In RCV elections, it is common practice that if a voter leaves their second ranking blank but provides a third ranking, their third-ranking candidate will be counted as the voter’s second choice.

Those in favor of the system say it would be especially helpful in elections with several candidates like primaries and mayoral races where often the number of candidates can spread the vote out. Knowing who each voter would also consider as an acceptable alternate removes the need for them to come back to the ballot box.

Proponents like FairVote, also say the system would reduce problems like vote-splitting, so-called “spoiler” candidates, and would encourage candidates to obtain broad support instead of focusing on one demographic, topic, or area.

According to their website:

"With RCV, voters can sincerely rank candidates in order of preference. Voters know that if their first choice doesn’t win, their vote automatically counts for their next choice instead. This frees voters from worrying about how others will vote and which candidates are more or less likely to win."

Which States Use Ranked-Choice Voting?

Alaska and Maine use rank-choice voting for all federal and statewide elections, while Hawaii uses it for statewide elections. Meanwhile, 13 states have some towns and counties that use RCV for municipal elections. These states are California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington.

Virginia passed a law to authorize RCV but is not currently in use.

Members of the military including uniformed and overseas citizens use ranked ballots when voting in runoff elections in some states, like Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina,

Have Any States Banned Ranked-Choice Voting?

Florida, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, and Tennessee have passed legislation prohibiting RCV in any elections.

What are the Negatives Or Arguments Against Ranked Choice Voting?

1) It's Hard to Understand

Subjectively, many people find the system to be too complicated and say that it would be too difficult for voters to understand. This is understandable since voters could vote for one person only to find out their second choice was the winner, but in states that use RCV, results are reported to the public, so everyone can see who received what votes.

Stop RCV, a group that opposes the use of ranked-choice voting asserts that the method benefits informed voters with more time. Their site claims:

"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."

In contrast, exit surveys conducted by FairVote in states and cities that use RCV showed that a majority of voters understood and supported the method. SURVEYS HERE

2) The Unknown Cost

Many fear the system is more expensive than the way elections are held now.

Those in favor admit that installing the system would require funding to establish it, such as new a computer system or training. But they say that once the system is in place it would not take any more money to operate than single-choice voting.

When Maine certified its RCV ballot measure in 2016, some estimated a cost of $1.5 million. The actual cost to implement RCV statewide in 2018 was about $100,000 — less than 10% of the original estimate. Currently, it is unknown what the switch to RCV would cost in Oklahoma.

With that said, proponents add that the system would save government money by removing the need for runoff elections. According to FairVote, New York City saves over $10 million each election cycle by using RCV instead of primary runoff elections.

3) The Person with the Most Votes Can Lose

As illustrated above in the Maine 2nd Congressional District Race, the candidate with the most first-place votes can lose, but that would only occur in a scenario where they did not already receive 50 percent of the vote. Many say that premise alone is enough to turn them off of the idea.

The Foundation for Government Accountability argues that the system does not represent the will of the voter and that it forces them to imagine a fictitious runoff that won't happen.

They say:

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.

It's worth noting that the Foundation for Government Accountability's opposition is centered on the idea that RCV is a Democrat scheme.

Does Ranked Choice Voting Favor One Party?

In the strictest sense, RCV does not favor any one party. The method is inherently non-partisan in the same way that single-choice voting is.

In a state that leans toward one party, that party may have an advantage but they already do under the single-choice system. In an election with two candidates of similar political alignment, the system would in most cases favor that appeals to the most voters, which is the same under single-choice voting.

Consider Oklahoma, which as of 2024 is already a heavily Republican voting state with registered Republicans outnumbering registered Democrats, Independents, and Libertarians combined. It could mean that the final tally could become closer in many races, but it also could become wider.

Again this all assumes a situation where the candidate does not reach the 50 percent threshold, something that has not happened in an Oklahoma governor's race since 2002.

In that, race Gary Richardson obtained 14 percent of the vote as an Independent and garnered 146,200 votes. Democrat Brad Henry won that election with 43.3 percent of the vote, defeating Richardson and Republican Steve Largent who lost by less than 7,000 votes.

It's difficult to know, but as Richardson was a conservative-leaning candidate, it's reasonable to believe that many of his voters may have selected Largent as their secondary pick thus awarding the election to him and not Henry.

Ultimately, the system will benefit the candidate who has the broadest appeal among all voters in either general or primary elections.

Is Ranked-Choice Voting Unconstitutional?

No. The U.S. Constitution has no specified method for federal, state, or local elections. Any system that is not discriminatory and meets fundamental tests is constitutional. There have been a few legal challenges of RCV but it has been held up in federal district court several times.

FairVote provides a list of those cases.

1. Baber v. Dunlap, 376 F. Supp. 3d 125 (D.Me. 2018) (upholding RCV in Maine against claims it violated the Due Process and Equal Protection)
2. Dudum v. Arntz, 640 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2011) (upholding RCV in San Francisco against claims that RCV excludes some voters)
3. McSweeney v. City of Cambridge, 665 N.E.2d 11 (Mass. 1996) (upholding RCV in Cambridge, Massachusetts against claims that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment)
4. Minn. Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis, 766 N.W.2d 683 (Minn. 2009) (upholding RCV in Minneapolis against Equal Protection claims)
5. Stephenson v. Ann Arbor Bd. of Comm’rs, No. 75-10166 AW (Mich. Cir. Ct. Cnt’y of Jackson 1975) (Michigan district level court upholding RCV in Ann Arbor, Michigan against Equal Protection claims)

While some argue that RCV violates the idea of "one person, one vote" courts have routinely found that the system treats every vote fairly.

What is Oklahoma's Stance on Ranked-Choice Voting?

Oklahoma does not currently use RCV in elections at any level.

A bill was filed in 2023 to create the Oklahoma Rank Choice Voting Act, bringing the voting method to the state. It stalled in the House Rules Committee.

In 2024 at least four bills have been authored to prohibit RCV.

HB 3156

HB 3592

SB1610

SB1991

Will Oklahoma Add Ranked-Choice Voting?

It is unlikely at this point that Oklahoma will switch to RCV. As stated, public opinion of the system is low, and some state lawmakers have already attempted to pass legislation to prohibit its use.

On April 3rd, Governor Stitt's Task Force on Campaign Finance and Election Threats recommended banning Ranked-Choice Voting in the state among several other election security suggestions. The Task Force did not provide a reason for the recommendation in their initial statement.

"This Task Force was charged with investigating the most critical aspect of our republic: ensuring our elections are free and fair. I'm grateful for Task Force members for doing so thoroughly," said Governor Stitt. "Oklahomans can rest assured that the elections in our state are the most well-run in the nation. I encourage my colleagues in the Legislature to review and adopt these recommendations so we can continue leading the nation in election integrity."

The Task Force recommends the Legislature, Election Board, and the Ethics Commission adopt a number of actions relating to elections, ethics, and independent expenditures, summarized below:

Although the Election Board orders a post-election audit of at least one race in every county to verify accuracy of the results, the Task Force recommends amending state statute to mandate the random post-election audits.

Banning ranked-choice voting.

Ensure efficient protections by regulating the use of artificial intelligence.

Modifying contribution limits to candidates, parties, PACs, and non-corporate entities to combat spending advantages held by independent expenditures, and increasing the individual contributing reporting requirement from $50 to $200.

Banning foreign expenditures and adding additional disclosure requirements to independent expenditure filings.

Partnering with tribes to increase communication and cooperation to resolve election crimes and campaign finance violations.

There is a group in Oklahoma that advocates for RCV known as Rank the Vote Oklahoma. Similar groups exist in many other states.