Disclaimer: The opinions expressed on this page belong solely to the writers and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or endorsement of the leadership or the MI2CD membership.
John M. Helge, Manistee County To my friends and supporters in the Michigan Democratic Party Second Congressional District (MI2CD): This information I am providing represents my personal position and should not be interpreted as an endorsement from the MI2CD Committee.
I have reviewed the information provided by the organization (RankMIVote.org) that is supporting and circulating the petition to change the Michigan state constitution to allow ranked choice voting in the state of Michigan. I have also done some basic research using on-line resources to gain additional perspective from other organizations that are not directly tied to this specific Michigan ballot initiative.
I am in favor of the ranked choice voting process being utilized in any election in the state of Michigan. I have signed the petition. Here are some of my reasons:
1. It Ensures Majority Support In our current system, candidates can win even if most voters don’t want them — if the opposition is split.
With Ranked Choice Voting, the winner must earn over 50% of the vote after second and third choices are counted. That means the candidate who wins represents the majority’s will, not just a passionate minority.
2. It Reduces Negative Campaigning When candidates want to earn not just first-place votes, but also second or third choices, they have an incentive to appeal to a wider audience. That means less mudslinging, more focus on issues, and more respectful debates — because alienating voters from other camps can cost you the election.
3. It Opens the Door for More Choices RCV breaks the “spoiler effect.” Voters no longer must worry that voting their conscience will “help the other side.” They can rank their favorite candidate first and still have their vote count in the final round. That gives space for independents, progressives, and new voices to run without splitting the vote.
4. It Strengthens Local Democracy Cities and states that use RCV (like Maine, Alaska, and dozens of municipalities) have reported higher voter satisfaction, more diverse candidates, and greater confidence in election outcomes. It makes local politics more accessible, representative, and less partisan.
5. It Reflects Real Consensus Ranked Choice Voting rewards candidates who can build bridges — those who appeal across communities, ideologies, and demographics. That’s what democracy should do: reward consensus, not division.
In Short Ranked Choice Voting gives us: Majority winners More civil campaigns Real voter choice Broader representation Healthier democracy
It’s not a partisan idea — it’s a people-first reform. Because when more voices are heard, democracy works better for everyone.
Listed below are links to some of the independent resources that I have read and reviewed about ranked choice voting. I will not take up space in this essay relating to my personal take on these resources, but I do strongly recommend that everyone take the time to review, compare this information to any other publications that may show a different take on this subject. I want to recognize and thank Michelle Van Slambrouck for helping me find these on-line resources.
1. American Bar Association (2025). “What We Know About Ranked Choice Voting, Updated for 2025.” A comprehensive review of RCV’s implementation across U.S. jurisdictions. The ABA finds that RCV improves majority representation, encourages positive campaigning, and has strong constitutional grounding. americanbar.org
2. FairVote. “Research and Data on Ranked Choice Voting.” (Ongoing) FairVote compiles real-world election data, showing RCV increases voter satisfaction, reduces the “spoiler effect,” and improves representation for women and candidates of color. fairvote.org
3. Electoral Studies (2024). “Does Ranked Choice Voting Increase Voter Turnout and Mobilization?” Peer-reviewed research examining voter behavior under RCV systems. Results show modest but consistent increases in turnout and a stronger sense of voter empowerment and efficacy. sciencedirect.com
4. Drutman, L. & Strano, M. (2023). Evaluating the Effects of Ranked Choice Voting. New America Foundation. Policy-focused analysis of cities using RCV. Concludes that RCV promotes coalition-building and moderates extreme partisanship, fostering more consensus-driven governance. newamerica.org
5. National Conference of State Legislatures (2023). “Ranked Choice Voting in Practice: Implementation Considerations for Policymakers.” A neutral guide outlining the logistical and legal aspects of adopting RCV. NCSL highlights voter education and ballot design as key factors in successful implementation. ncsl.org
6. Donovan, T. & Bowler, S. (2023). “Civility in Ranked Choice Voting Elections: Does Evidence Fit the Normative Narrative?” Representation Journal. Empirical study testing the claim that RCV reduces negative campaigning. Data supports that RCV candidates engage in fewer personal attacks and focus more on issue-based appeals. tandfonline.com
7. FairVote & Minnesota Senate Committee on Elections (2024). “Ranked Choice Voting Elections Benefit Candidates of Color.” Report demonstrating that RCV elections lead to more equitable outcomes for communities of color, especially in multi-candidate local races. senate.mn
8. CUNY Center for Urban Research (2022). “Assessing the Impact of Ranked Choice Voting — New York City.” Finds that 95% of NYC voters understood RCV and rated their experience positively. RCV allowed more voters to express their preferences and reduced strategic voting. gc.cuny.edu
9. ArXiv (2023). “An Examination of Ranked Choice Voting in the United States, 2004–2022.” Data-driven review of RCV’s real-world performance across two decades. Finds that ballot exhaustion and voter confusion are minimal when paired with effective public education. arxiv.org
Why Ranked Choice Voting May Be Adverse to the Democratic Party: An Examination of Opposition Arguments The Critiques and Party Implications of Ranked Choice Voting By Kathy Pelleran-Mahoney, ABD, MPA
Introduction Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), also known as instant-runoff voting, has gained popularity among election reform advocates. Proponents argue it leads to more representative outcomes and reduces negative campaigning. However, a growing chorus of critics, including some members of the Democratic Party, contend that RCV could undermine Democratic interests and create electoral uncertainties. This paper reviews available scholarly, journalistic, and institutional sources as it explores the arguments against RCV with a focus on why it may be adverse to the Democratic Party.
Understanding Ranked Choice Voting In RCV, voters rank candidates in order of preference rather than voting for just one. If a candidate secures a majority of first-choice votes, they win. If not, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and ballots for that candidate are redistributed to voters’ next choices. This process continues until a candidate achieves a majority. While RCV is designed to better capture voter preferences, opponents argue that its real-world effects are more complicated and sometimes detrimental, especially to major parties. Complexity and Voter Disenfranchisement One of the most common criticisms of RCV is its procedural complexity. Detractors argue that the process can confuse voters, leading to a higher rate of ballot errors and invalidations. A study by Burnett and Kogan (2015) found that RCV elections have a higher rate of “exhausted ballots”—ballots that do not count toward the final tally because voters did not rank enough candidates or made mistakes. These exhausted ballots can disproportionately affect communities with lower levels of education or English proficiency, which are significant constituencies of the Democratic Party (McElwee, 2016). If Democratic-leaning voters are more likely to cast invalid or incomplete ballots, RCV could unintentionally suppress Democratic turnout and cost the party crucial votes (Burnett & Kogan, 2015).
Voter Drop-off and Turnout Concerns Another challenge associated with RCV is the phenomenon of voter drop-off. According to Kimball and Anthony (2016), some voters only select a first-choice candidate and ignore the rest, resulting in discarded ballots if their first-choice candidate is eliminated early. This is particularly relevant in communities with less experience or education regarding the RCV process. The Democratic Party often relies on turnout from these very constituencies—urban voters, younger voters, and racial minorities—who may be more vulnerable to these drop-off effects. In New York City's first citywide RCV election in 2021, more than 140,000 ballots (about 15% of those cast) were exhausted and did not count toward the final mayoral tally. Democrats dominate New York City politics, so a system that risks higher ballot exhaustion among their base could have adverse consequences (NYC Board of Elections, 2021).
Risk of Splitting the Progressive Vote While RCV is intended to reduce the “spoiler effect,” in practice, it can encourage a proliferation of candidates, especially in crowded primaries. In cities and states where the Democratic Party is dominant, RCV may incentivize more left-leaning or progressive candidates to run, potentially splitting the Democratic base. Rather than unifying around a single candidate, progressives and centrists may divide their votes. This was a concern in the 2021 New York City Democratic mayoral primary, where a fractured field led to complex vote transfers and, ultimately, a less predictable outcome (NYC Campaign Finance Board, 2021). Political scientist Jack Santucci (2021) notes that when a party’s coalition is ideologically diverse, RCV can expose internal divisions and permit fringe candidates to influence the outcome or even win. Unintended Consequences: Empowerment of Opponents RCV can sometimes create opportunities for opposition parties, even in regions dominated by Democrats. In Maine’s 2nd Congressional District in 2018, RCV was used in a general election that saw the Republican incumbent lose after the redistribution of third-party votes, but critics warn that such reversals are unpredictable and could one day work against Democrats. For instance, if a Democratic incumbent faces multiple challengers from the left and center, conservative candidates may benefit from transferred votes in later rounds, disrupting a previously safe seat (Santucci, 2021; McElwee, 2016).
Resource Disparities and Campaign Challenges RCV elections often require new strategies and greater voter education. This places added burdens on campaigns, particularly those representing under-resourced communities. Democrats often campaign in diverse, multilingual, and lower-income districts, requiring substantial outreach to ensure voters understand RCV. Republicans, who tend to have an older and more affluent base, may face fewer hurdles in this regard (Kimball & Anthony, 2016). The need for extensive voter education can drain Democratic resources and may result in uneven participation.
Delayed Results and Public Trust RCV commonly results in slower vote tabulation, which can foster public confusion and suspicion. In the 2021 New York City mayoral race, it took weeks to determine the winner, fueling allegations of incompetence and even conspiracy. Delays can be particularly problematic for the Democratic Party, which has recently faced unfounded accusations of election impropriety. Any system that complicates or delays results may jeopardize public trust in elections, with Democrats bearing the brunt of fallout in their own primaries or in general elections where they are the incumbent party.
Case Studies and Evidence from Elections New York City, 2021: The introduction of RCV led to a surge in candidates and a highly fragmented Democratic primary. Ballot exhaustion rates were significant, and final results took weeks to certify (NYC Board of Elections, 2021). San Francisco, 2004–present: Studies found RCV did not increase turnout among marginalized communities as intended and may have confused voters (Kimball & Anthony, 2016). Maine, 2018: The use of RCV in congressional elections produced unexpected outcomes and controversy, with party strategists warning of the risk of unpredictable results in close races (Santucci, 2021). Conclusion Despite its intentions to broaden democratic participation, Ranked Choice Voting presents challenges that may disproportionately affect the Democratic Party. Higher rates of ballot errors and exhaustion, increased demands on campaign resources, potential for internal party divisions, and delayed results all introduce risks that could harm Democrats in both primary and general elections. While some continue to advocate for RCV as a path to fairer elections, critics urge caution and further study before widespread adoption.
References: Burnett, C. M., & Kogan, V. (2015). Ballot (and voter) “exhaustion” under Instant Runoff Voting: An examination of four ranked-choice elections. Electoral Studies, 37, 41-49. Kimball, D. C., & Anthony, J. (2016). Voter participation with ranked choice voting in the United States. Representation, 52(1), 13-27. McElwee, S. (2016). The problems with ranked-choice voting. Vox. NYC Board of Elections. (2021). Ranked Choice Voting in NYC. NYC Campaign Finance Board. (2021). The 2021 New York City elections by the numbers. Santucci, J. (2021). The Rank Choice Voting Debate. Political Science Quarterly, 136(3), 505-533.