Ranked-choice voting in the United States

History

Most elections in the United States use the first past the post system, often with primary elections. Other systems that have been used entailed ranked votes. IRV, STV and Contingent vote (AKA supplementary voting) use secondary rankings on ranked votes as contingency votes; Nanson's method and Bucklin voting, which have also been used, consider secondary rankings as pertinent alongside first preferences.

The preferential voting system used in the primary elections of Wisconsin and Minnesota in the 1910s was a form of supplementary voting. Between 1912 and 1930, supplementary voting, typically with only two rankings allowed and only two rounds of voting, was implemented in some election systems used in the U.S. The reform was later repealed.

Proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote (PR-STV) was used in about 24 U.S. cities prior to 1940. PR-STV was first used in North America in Ashtabula, Ohio, in 1915. PR-STV was also used for the election of the nine-member city council of Cincinnati, Ohio, from 1924 to 1957, and in Cleveland, Ohio and Sacramento, California. New York City adopted STV in 1936 as a method for breaking the corrupt political machine of Tammany Hall dominating the city and used it for five elections from 1937 to 1945. Cambridge, Massachusetts started using proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote in 1941 for its city council and school committee elections, and have continued to use it until the present.

Starting in the early 2000s, instant-runoff voting was adopted in the San Francisco Bay Area and throughout Minnesota. The city of Minneapolis, Minnesota adopted the usage of PR-STV for its Board of Estimate and Taxation and a combination of instant-runoff voting for district elections and PR-STV for at-large elections of its Park and Recreation Board.

Instant-runoff voting was also adopted in the cities of Aspen and Burlington during the early 2000s. They were repealed within a decade of their adoption. Burlington re-adopted instant-runoff voting in 2021.

Both Portland, Maine and Portland, Oregon adopted STV around 2022. The Oregon city's implementation only applied to its new city council system, whose members are to be elected in three-seat wards, whereas Portland, Maine's implementation applies to all of the city's bodies where elected in multi-winner contests. (However in the 2024 election no members were elected in multi-member contests.)

The proposed Fair Representation Act would require multi-member districts for elections to the US House of Representatives which would then be elected by STV. States with only one representative would instead have elections by instant-runoff voting.

Use of instant-runoff voting at state and federal levels

Maine, 2018–present

State and congressional elections

In 2018, Maine began using instant-runoff voting for primary and general elections for the U.S. Senate and House, and for primary elections for governor and the state legislature. Maine was the first state to use instant-runoff voting for all these elections.

In 2016, Maine voters approved Maine Question 5 with 52% of the vote, approving instant-runoff voting for primary and general elections for governor, U.S. Senate, U.S. House and the state legislature, starting in 2018. However, in May 2017, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court stated that instant-runoff voting can be used only for federal offices and primary elections for state offices because the state constitution specifies that a plurality suffices to win general elections for state offices.

In October 2017, the state legislature voted to delay implementation of Question 5 until 2021, at which time the entire Question would be considered repealed unless a constitutional amendment had been passed permitting instant-runoff voting for general elections for state offices. Maine voters then collected enough signatures to put a Question on the June 2018 ballot to veto the October 2017 law. The people's veto, Question 1, passed in the June 2018 election. This election also initiated the use of instant-runoff voting for state and federal primaries because the presence of Question 1 on the ballot suspended the October 2017 law.

In the 2018 United States House of Representatives elections in Maine, though Republican incumbent Bruce Poliquin led by 2,171 votes in the first round of vote tabulation in the 2nd Congressional District, he did not have a majority of the votes, initiating the instant runoff tabulation process. Poliquin filed a lawsuit in federal court on November 13, seeking an order to halt the second-round tabulation of ballots and declare RCV unconstitutional, but his request for an injunction to halt the counting was denied. On November 15, the Maine Secretary of State announced Democratic candidate Jared Golden as the winner by 3,509 votes, after votes for independent candidates Tiffany Bond and Will Hoar were eliminated and ballots with these votes had their second- or third-choice votes counted.

Poliquin requested a recount of the ballots just before the deadline of November 26. On December 14, with almost half of the votes recounted and with the result not being significantly changed, Poliquin ended the recount after incurring $15,000 in fees. and asked the judge, Lance Walker, to order a new election be held should he decline to hold instant runoff unconstitutional. Judge Walker ruled against Poliquin on December 13, rejecting all of his arguments.

Poliquin appealed to the Court of Appeals in Boston and requested an order to prevent Golden from being certified as the winner, but that request was also rejected. On December 24, Poliquin dropped his lawsuit, allowing Golden to take the seat.

Instant-runoff voting was retained for the 2020 U.S. Senate and U.S. House elections.

Presidential elections

On August 26, 2019, the Maine Legislature passed a bill adopting instant-runoff voting for both presidential primaries and the general election. On September 6, 2019, Governor Janet Mills allowed the bill to become law without her signature, which delayed it from taking effect until after the 2020 presidential primaries in March. It was used in the general election, making Maine the first state to use instant runoff for a presidential general election.

In June 2020, the Maine Republican Party filed signatures for a veto referendum to ask voters if they want the law repealed and preclude the use of instant runoff for the 2020 election. Matthew Dunlap, Maine's secretary of state, rejected a number of signatures that had not been collected by a registered voter as required under the state constitution, resulting in there being insufficient signatures for the veto referendum to qualify for the ballot. A challenge to Dunlap's decision in Maine Superior Court was successful for the Maine Republican Party, but the case was appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. On September 8, the court issued a stay of the Superior Court ruling pending appeal on the merits, causing confusion and uncertainty regarding the 2020 election. Nevertheless, ballots began being printed later that day without the veto referendum and including instant runoff for the presidential election. The court ruled in favor of the secretary of state on September 22, allowing instant runoff to be used. An emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court claiming a First Amendment violation was denied by Justice Stephen Breyer (the circuit justice for the First Circuit) on October 6.

It was predicted that implementation of instant runoff could potentially delay the projection of the winner(s) of Maine's electoral votes for days after election day, and could also complicate interpretation of the national popular vote. However, the 2020 United States presidential election in Maine was won statewide and in the 1st congressional district by Joe Biden and in the 2nd congressional district by Donald Trump with majorities, so instant runoff vote transfers did not need to be conducted, and did not impact the determination of the winners or the national popular vote tally.

Alaska, 2022–present

In the 2020 Alaska elections, voters approved Measure 2, which replaced party primaries with a nonpartisan jungle primary, in which the top 4 candidates advance to a general election that uses instant-runoff voting. This system is now used for all state, federal, and presidential elections (except presidential primaries, which continue to be partisan). The first election using the system was held on August 16, 2022, and elected Democrat Mary Peltola to Congress over Republicans Sarah Palin and Nick Begich.

In 2024, Alaskans voted on a measure to repeal the ranked-choice voting system and return to partisan primaries. Following an extended vote count, the measure narrowly failed by a margin of 737 votes, keeping the ranked-choice voting system in place. Another measure seeking to repeal the ranked-choice voting system gathered enough signatures to appear on Alaska ballots in 2026.

Hawaii, 2023–present

On June 17, 2022, Hawaii Governor David Ige signed Senate Bill 2162 into law allowing for the use of instant-runoff voting for the special election of federal and county council offices. Special elections in Hawaii have candidates of all parties appear on the same ballot. Before the change to instant-runoff voting, the winner was whoever received a plurality of votes, unique among states. The bill's author, State Senator Karl Rhoads, expressed support for the usage of instant-runoff voting in special elections stating: "You often get a long list of people who are running and what it results in if it's just the plurality winner, you can get a winner with 10% of the vote, and that doesn't really truly reflect the will of the people [in] that district".

District of Columbia, 2024–present

In November 2024, the District of Columbia voted for Initiative 83 or the Make All Votes Count Act of 2024, which will allow registered independents to participate in party primaries and implement ranked choice voting in all presidential, federal, and district elections by 2026.

Use of instant-runoff voting at local levels

According to Deb Otis, director of research and policy at FairVote, the use of instant-runoff voting by one or two cities can lead to other cities in the region adopting the system. Examples of this include the San Francisco Bay Area and Minnesota.

California

Colorado

Illinois

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

New Mexico

New York

Oregon

Utah

In 2018, Utah passed a law allowing municipalities to opt in to a temporary instant runoff trial, the Municipal Alternative Voting Methods Pilot Project, starting with the 2019 municipal elections and ending with the 2025 elections.

Vermont

Virginia

The Virginia legislature passed a bill in 2020 providing a local option for municipalities to use the single transferable vote through 2031.

Washington

Seattle's adoption of RCV is notable in two distinct ways. The voters were first asked if they wanted to change the voting system at all, and then were asked to choose between RCV and approval voting. Additionally, RCV will be used for the primary, while use in the general is more typical.

Use in party-run primaries, caucuses, and conventions

Democratic presidential primaries, 2020

Five states used RCV in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, some in response to COVID-19 making an in-person caucus too risky. Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, and Wyoming used it for all voters and Nevada used it for absentee caucus voters. Rather than eliminating candidates until a single winner is chosen, voters' choices were reallocated until all remaining candidates had at least 15%, the threshold to receive delegates to the convention. While all candidates but one had dropped out by the time of the four primaries, use of RCV ensured that voters who selected non-competing candidates as their first choice would not have their votes wasted, but rather used toward determining delegate allocation among the remaining candidates.

Utah Republican Party

After voting to authorize its use, the Utah Republican Party used RCV in 2002, 2003 and 2004 at its statewide convention, including in a contested race to nominate a governor in 2004. In 2005, Republicans used repeated balloting for its statewide convention and has done so in subsequent years. Some county Republican parties like Cache County continue to use instant-runoff voting at their conventions.

Democratic Party of Virginia

RCV was used in 2014 by leaders of the Henrico County Democrats in a three-candidate special election nomination contest for the House of Delegates in December 2014.

Republican Party of Virginia

In 2021, the Republican Party of Virginia nominated candidates for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general in a party convention that used ranked-choice voting.

Indiana Republican Party

In 2020, the Indiana Republican Party used ranked choice voting to nominate its candidate for attorney general.

Absentee use

Several states jurisdictions that hold runoff elections allow certain categories of absentee voters to submit ranked-choice ballots, because the interval between votes is too short for a second round of absentee voting. Ranked-choice ballots enable long-distance absentee votes to count in the runoff election if their first choice does not make the runoff. Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana,{{Citation | access-date=June 16, 2013}} Georgia, and South Carolina all use ranked-choice ballots for overseas and military voters in federal elections that might go to a runoff. Springfield, Illinois follows the same practice for city elections after voters approved it with 91% support.

Use of single transferable vote

Several cities have adopted the single transferable vote, which is a form of proportional representation election system that uses ranked votes to elect multiple members.

Virginia

The Virginia legislature passed a bill in 2020 allowing for local governing bodies to adopt the single transferable vote through 2031.

Michigan

Eastpointe

Entered a consent decree with the US Department of Justice to implement RCV for city council elections for at least four years starting in 2019 to address claims of racial discrimination. Multi-winner RCV (single transferable vote) would have been used, with two city council members elected at each staggered election.

Stalled implementations

Texas

Austin

In 2021, Austin voters approved a ballot measure 59–41% to adopt ranked-choice voting for city elections, replacing the two-round system. However, it is not clear if the reference to "majority" in state law allows its use.

Michigan

The implementation of all ranked choice voting methods in the state of Michigan has yet to actually happen as local governments still require the approval of Michigan's state legislature in order to do so. As a result, those cities that have already passed measures adopting ranked choice voting still continue to use their previous method for elections.

Massachusetts

Amherst

Despite passing ranked choice voting in 2018, Amherst has not yet received approval from Massachusetts' state legislature, and therefore were unable to implement the reform.

Bans on use

As of June 2025, seventeen states prohibit ranked-choice voting.

On February 28, 2022, Tennessee became the first state to ban ranked choice voting state-wide. The sponsor of the bill, then Republican State Senator Brian Kelsey, said the ban was "a win for protecting election integrity and ensuring voter clarity at the ballot box." Florida quickly followed with a similar ban, when governor Ron DeSantis signed senate bill 524 into law on April 25. In spring of the following year, there was another string of bans in red states, with Idaho passing a ban on March 23, South Dakota on March 21, and Montana on April 26, 2023. Between April and June 2024, the use of RCV was banned statewide in Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. In November 2024, Missouri voters approved a ballot initiative that banned ranked choice voting. In the first half of 2025, five more states banned the practice: Arkansas, Kansas, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Repeals

Between 1912 and 1930, limited forms of ranked-choice voting were implemented and subsequently repealed in Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. In the 1970s, it was implemented in Ann Arbor, Michigan, but quickly repealed after only a single election. More recently, it was adopted and repealed in Pierce County, Washington (2006–2009); Burlington, Vermont (2005–2010); and Aspen, Colorado (2007–2010). It has since been reinstated in Burlington, and Ann Arbor residents voted to reinstate it as well, with that use likely needing approval from Michigan's state legislature.

Aspen (2007–2010)

Aspen, Colorado passed ranked-choice voting in November 2007 for the mayoral race and for at-large council races with two winners. In March 2009, the Aspen council adopted a unique variation of RCV for the council races. A block voting tally based on the first and second rank choices was used to determine first round support. Any candidate with initial majority support was elected. If there were not two first-round winners, there was a batch elimination of low-placing candidates to reduce the number of continuing candidates before the instant runoff. In the latter case, separate rounds of ranked-choice counting would be conducted for each council seat, with the winner of the first seat eliminated from the race for the second seat.

Aspen's first elections with RCV and the new city council system were on May 5, 2009. The number of voters was the highest in the history of Aspen elections.{{cite web | access-date = 2009-08-18 | access-date = 2010-05-26

The elections were close, and some Aspen observers argued that a traditional runoff system would have given more time to consider their top choices. There also was debate over how to implement audit procedures. In 2009, voters rejected an advisory measure to maintain IRV and in 2010, approved a binding amendment to return to a traditional runoff system.

Telluride (2011-2019)

On November 4, 2008, voters in the town of Telluride, Colorado, passed an ordinance with 67% of the vote to adopt RCV for the next three mayoral elections, starting in November 2011 if three candidates file for the office. The system was used for the city's 2011 mayoral election. The incumbent mayor Stu Fraser was re-elected by securing a majority of first choices. In the 2015 mayoral election, Sean Murphy handily won an open seat election for mayor after trailing in first choices.

Per the initial ballot measure, RCV could have continued after three elections with approval from the Town Council. That action was not taken so in 2023, the city returned to first-past-the-post voting.

Ann Arbor (1974–1976)

Ranked-choice voting (then called preferential voting) was adopted for mayoral races in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1974 after a successful ballot initiative sponsored by the local Human Rights Party. RCV was used in the 1975 mayoral election. Democratic Party nominee Albert H. Wheeler, the city's first African-American mayor, won after trailing the Republican incumbent 49% to 40% in the first round of counting, with remaining votes cast for the Human Rights Party nominee. The ousted incumbent Stephenson alleged in a lawsuit that RCV violated the equal protection clause, but the county circuit court upheld the voting system.

In April 1976, 62% of voters voted to repeal RCV.

North Carolina

A 2006 law established that ranked-choice voting would be used when judicial vacancies were created between a primary election and sixty days before a general election. The law also established a pilot program for RCV for up to 10 cities in 2007 and up to 10 counties for 2008; to be monitored and reported to the 2007–2008 General Assembly. In November 2010, North Carolina had three RCV elections for local-level superior court judges, each with three candidates, and a statewide IRV election for a North Carolina Court of Appeals seat (with 13 candidates). The Court of Appeals race is believed to be the first time RCV has been used in any statewide general election in the United States.

Several municipalities considered participating in the RCV pilot in 2007. Cary, Hendersonville and Kinston voted to participate; Kinston dropped out because there were not enough candidates running to use RCV. Other cities declined to participate in the pilot. No North Carolina counties volunteered to participate in RCV in the 2008 elections held in conjunction with state and federal races. In August 2008 the governor signed legislation extending the pilot program for local elections to be held in 2009–2011.

There was much debate whether RCV was successful when it was used. This debate continued in the North Carolina legislature when it debated legislation to extend the pilot program. Some "verified voting" advocates contended that the RCV tabulation procedures used were not legal. Both advocates and opponents of the provision supported amendments to the pilot program to ensure that the local governing body of any jurisdiction participating in the pilot must approve their participation; the jurisdiction must develop and implement voter education plans; and the University of North Carolina School of Government must approve procedures for conducting RCV elections by January 2009. After these amendments were adopted, the state House of Representatives, by a majority of 65-47, rejected an amendment designed to remove the pilot program from the legislation, and the legislation ultimately won approval by both houses.

In 2009, Hendersonville again used RCV. Three candidates ran for mayor in Hendersonville in November 2009; five candidates ran for two seats on the city council using a multi-seat version of RCV. All seats were filled based on first choices without the need for further counting.

In 2011, Hendersonville's city council unanimously voted to use RCV a third time, although ultimately not enough candidates filed for office to trigger the need for the system.

The RCV pilot program was repealed by the General Assembly in 2013, meaning special judicial elections with more than two candidates would once again be decided by simple plurality.

Cary (2007)

In October 2007, the city of Cary, North Carolina used RCV for municipal election for three council seats and for mayor. The mayor's race (with two candidates) and two of the council seats (with four and three candidates on the ballot) were won with a majority in the first round. The remaining council seat, with three candidates, went to a second round of counting; the plurality winner in the first round went on to win with 50.9% of the final round vote, amounting to 46.4% of first-round ballots cast, with 8.9% of the ballots offering no preference between the top two candidates.

Cary used hand or machine-marked paper ballots that are read on optical scanners manufactured by ES&S. First column choices were tallied at the precinct. The second and third column choices were counted at a central location. In 2009, the Cary Town Council voted to use a traditional runoff method.

Ohio

Ashtabula

After home rule was adopted, Ashtabula was the first American adoption of single transferable vote in 1915. It was repealed in 1929.

Cincinnati

Cincinnati adopted a single transferable vote charter in 1925. it was in use until its repeal in 1957.

Cleveland

In 1921, Cleveland amended its charter adopting proportional representation to elect city council.:116 Single transferable vote with large multi member districts was used in 5 elections until repealed in 1931.

Hamilton

Hamilton changed its charter to adopt single transferable vote in 1926. It was in use until its repeal in 1960.

Toledo

Toledo adopted a single transferable vote charter in 1935. It was in use until its repeal in 1949.

Burlington, Vermont

The city of Burlington, Vermont approved ranked-choice voting for use in mayoral elections with a 64% vote in 2005. The 2006 Burlington mayoral race was decided after two rounds of tallying, and the mayoral race in 2009 was decided in three rounds. Unlike Burlington's first RCV mayoral election in 2006, the RCV winner in 2009 (VT Progressive candidate Bob Kiss) was neither the same as the plurality winner (Republican Kurt Wright) nor the majority-preferred candidate (Democrat Andy Montroll).

The results caused a post-election controversy regarding the RCV method. In late 2009, a group of several Democrats (who supported Republican Kurt Wright) led a signature drive to force a referendum on RCV. RCV was repealed in March 2010 by a vote of 52% to 48%.

Washington

Pierce County (2006–2009)

Pierce County, Washington, passed (53%) ranked-choice voting in November 2006 for most of its county offices. Voters upheld the 2008 implementation timing with a vote of 67% in 2007 and made minor adjustments to the charter language involving ballot access and numbers of rankings. Seven RCV elections took place on November 4, 2008 and one on November 3, 2009. The introduction of RCV was marked by controversies about costs and voter confusion. On November 3, 2009, voters repealed RCV.

Rejected implementations

The city of Vancouver, Washington voted in 1999 to adopt RCV and the state legislature enacted enabling legislation in 2004, but the city in 2006 chose not to exercise its option. In Washington, an initiative seeking to adopt RCV in 2005 failed to garner enough signatures. In 2008, Vermont governor Jim Douglas vetoed legislation which would have established RCV for that state's congressional elections starting that year.

San Juan County, Washington put RCV to a vote in November 2022 and rejected the proposal, with 57% voting against. Voters in Clark County, Washington rejected RCV that same day, with 58% electing to keep their system unchanged.

State ballot initiatives

Massachusetts (2020)

Massachusetts rejected Ballot Question 2 in the 2020 general election, which would have authorized ranked-choice voting for "primary and general elections for all Massachusetts statewide offices, state legislative offices, federal congressional offices, and certain other offices beginning in 2022," but not "for President of the United States, county commissioner, or regional district school committee members."

Arizona (2024)

Arizona Proposition 140 was rejected by voters in 2024. It would have implemented a nonpartisan jungle primary, with the Arizona Legislature deciding how many candidates advance to the general election. Depending on how many candidates advanced, the Legislature would have been authorized to implement ranked choice voting.

Colorado (2024)

Colorado voters rejected Proposition 131 in 2024, which if passed would have implemented a nonpartisan jungle primary where the top four candidates advance to a ranked-choice voting general election.

Idaho (2024)

Idaho voters broadly rejected a top-four jungle primary ballot measure in November 2024 by nearly 70% voting "No" (opposed). If it had passed it would have implemented a nonpartisan jungle primary where the top four candidates advance to a ranked-choice voting general election.

Nevada (2022/2024)

In the 2022 Nevada elections, voters narrowly approved Question 3, which proposed replacing party primaries with a single nonpartisan jungle primary where the top 5 candidates would advance to a general election that uses ranked-choice voting. Because the proposal would have modified the Nevada constitution, it had to be reapproved by Nevada voters in 2024 before it could take effect. In 2024, voters rejected the initiative by double digits. If reapproved, the system would have taken effect for the 2026 election cycle and been used for all state and federal elections in Nevada except President and Vice President.

Montana (2024)

Two rejected initiatives on the 2024 ballot in Montana, CI-126 and CI-127, may potentially have caused ranked choice voting to be implemented. CI-126 would have created a nonpartisan jungle primary where the top four candidates advance to the general election. CI-127 would have mandated that the winning candidate receive 50% of the vote, but the Montana Legislature would have decided whether this is accomplished by ranked choice voting or a runoff election.

Oregon (2024)

Oregon rejected a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment in 2024 which, if passed, would have adopted ranked-choice voting for subsequent elections for both federal offices (U.S. president, senator and representative) and state constitutional officers (governor, secretary of state, attorney general, state treasurer, and commissioner of labor and industries), as well as allowed local government bodies to adopt ranked-choice voting unless prohibited by local charter.

Proposed laws

The proposed Fair Representation Act would amend several laws including the Help America Vote Act and the Reapportionment Act of 1929 to mandate the conversion of all congressional districts from single- to multi-member districts elected by RCV as well as the creation of state-level nonpartisan redistricting commissions for congressional redistricting. Originally introduced in 2017 during the 115th Congress by Don Beyer (D–VA), it was reintroduced by Beyer in 2019, 2021, and 2024. For Beyer the goal of the bill is to reduce polarization and partisanship by incentivizing elected representatives to appeal to a broader range of voters. According to proponents, ranked choice voting and multi-seat districts would reduce the number of safe-seat districts and encourage more political competition.

Other uses

The Academy Awards used single transferable voting. Many student government elections also use ranked-vote election systems.

Discussion

Main article: Instant-runoff voting#Properties, advantages, and disadvantages, Single transferable vote#Benefits

Ranked-choice voting has been advocated for as expanding choice by encouraging more candidates to run. Proponents have argued that ranked choice voting can reduce the spoiler effect from minor and third-party candidates. Ranked-choice advocates often emphasize that instant-runoff voting usually produces clear majority winners where plurality rules would not. Single transferable voting ensures that both the majority party, if any, plus minority parties, each receive their due share of representation.

Advocates of ranked choice voting have framed the voting system as a potential solution to polarization as it improves voter attitudes toward democracy. These attitudinal improvements are evidenced by the voting system's positive impact on turnout and the ways that campaigns are more likely to engage in direct voter-contact mobilization strategies under ranked choice voting. However, research suggests that ranked choice voting performs better under only moderately polarized conditions in selecting the Condorcet winner and that polarization between racial groups may increase in ranked choice competitions. While the candidate pool increases shortly after implementing ranked choice voting, expanding choice for voters, the diversity of the candidate pool is not impacted and the base increase in candidates does not last in the long term.  Additionally, research suggests that ranked choice voting does not produce fiscal, ideological, or representative reforms that govern in closer alignment with public opinion as proponents suggest it might.

Opponents have argued that ranked choice voting is confusing and causes more ballot errors, and that it could disenfranchise poorer, minority and less educated voters. Survey research has shown that voters are less comfortable with ranked choice voting than the simpler runoff or plurality methods, and that come-from-behind victories resulting from ranked choice voting reduces voter satisfaction. Opponents have also noted that ranked-choice voting does not fully prevent vote splitting. In a nonpartisan primary followed by ranked choice voting, as used in Alaska, vote splitting can occur between multiple candidates of the same party.

Notes

References

References

1. . ["WHERE IS RCV USED?"](https://www.rcvresources.org/where-is-rcv-used). *Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center*.
2. "A wave of cities across the U.S. switch to fair voting systems" https://electoral-reform.org.uk/a-wave-of-cities-across-the-united-states-switch-to-fair-voting-systems/ accessed June 11, 2025
3. "Cambridge STV rules" https://opavote.com/methods/cambridge-stv-rules accessed June 11, 2025
4. "Where is Ranked Choice Voting Used?". FairVote.
5. (2021-11-05). "Perspective {{!}} How ranked-choice voting saved the Virginia GOP from itself". Washington Post.
6. "Ranked Choice Voting in Utah".
7. (2020-05-20). "2020 State Convention".
8. (2025-06-05). "Iowa becomes the sixth state to ban ranked-choice voting this year".
9. (2023-06-16). "Ranked-choice voting is an elections-administration nightmare".
10. (2024-04-26). "The ranked-choice voting fad is finally ending".
11. (2023-04-13). "Votes Can Be Confidently Bought in Some Ranked Ballot Elections, and What to Do about It".
12. Hoag, Clarence Gilbert. (1914). "Effective Voting: An Article on Preferential Voting and Proportional Representation". U.S. Government Printing Office.
13. (18 December 2017). "New York's proportional representation experiment demonstrates potential of fair representation".
14. "Ranked choice voting history".
15. Wackerle, Curtis. (November 3, 2010). "City voters repeal IRV". Aspen Daily News.
16. McCrea, Lynne. (2010-03-03). "Burlington Voters Repeal Instant Runoff Voting".
17. https://www.portlandmaine.gov/178/Ranked-Choice-Voting-FAQ assessed March 5, 2025
18. "City of Portland Maine" https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/92685cc4-f29e-4ac4-b388-3cee9494182a?cache=1800 accessed June 11, 2025
19. (2019-08-28). "All Info - H.R.4000 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Fair Representation Act".
20. (November 10, 2018). "A Congress for Every American: One way to improve the "People's House": elect multiple members per district". The New York Times.
21. (November 10, 2016). "Maine became the first state in the country Tuesday to pass ranked choice voting".
22. (23 May 2017). "Opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court".
23. (October 24, 2017). "Legislature delays and potentially repeals ranked-choice voting". Portland Press Herald.
24. Russell, Eric. (June 12, 2018). "Mainers vote to keep ranked-choice voting, with supporters holding commanding lead". Portland Press Herald.
25. (November 13, 2018). "In Tight Race, Maine Republican Sues To Block State's Ranked-Choice Voting Law". [[NPR]].
26. (November 15, 2018). "Poliquin vows to push forward with his legal challenge to ranked-choice voting after loss".
27. (November 15, 2018). "Ranked-Choice Voting Delivers Democrats A House Seat". [[NPR]].
28. (November 26, 2018). "Poliquin campaign asks for CD2 recount". WCSH.
29. (December 17, 2018). "Poliquin Decides To End Recount In Maine's 2nd District Race".
30. (November 15, 2018). "Judge denies Polquin's request to stop rank-choice voting process".
31. (November 28, 2018). "RCV Fight: Poliquin calls for 'new election' if judge does not rule against ranked-choice".
32. (2018-12-13). "Federal court rules against Bruce Poliquin's challenge of ranked-choice voting".
33. Mistler, Steve. (December 21, 2018). "Poliquin's Request To Block Certification Of 2nd District Election".
34. Murphy, Edward. (2018-12-24). "Poliquin drops challenge to ranked-choice voting, clearing way for Golden to take seat in Congress". [[The Portland Press Herald]].
35. (2018-12-24). "Poliquin ends ranked-choice voting lawsuit". WMTW News 8.
36. Chaitin, Daniel. (2018-12-24). "GOP lawmaker drops challenge to Maine's ranked-choice voting". [[The Washington Examiner]].
37. Burke, Michael. (2018-12-24). "GOP lawmaker to drop challenge to Maine's new voting system". [[The Hill (newspaper).
38. Miller, Kevin. (August 26, 2019). "Maine Senate passes ranked-choice voting for March presidential primaries". [[Portland Press Herald]].
39. Shepherd, Michael. (August 28, 2019). "Maine might switch to a ranked-choice presidential election. Here's how it would look.". [[CBS]] 13.
40. Shepherd, Michael. (September 6, 2019). "Maine will use ranked-choice voting in next year's presidential election — but not the 2020 primaries". [[Bangor Daily News]].
41. Piper, Jessica. (2020-08-28). "Maine secretary of state appeals decision putting ranked-choice voting challenge on ballot".
42. Leary, Mal. (August 28, 2020). "Maine Secretary Of State Will Appeal Ruling On Ranked-Choice Voting Citizen Initiative".
43. (August 26, 2020). "Judge: Ranked-Choice Voting Repeal Qualifies For Maine November Ballot".
44. (September 8, 2020). "Ranked choice voting for president still uncertain following court ruling".
45. (September 9, 2020). "Maine ballots sent to printer with ranked-choice voting for president, no people's veto".
46. (September 8, 2020). "Maine Will Be The First-Ever State To Use Ranked-Choice Voting For A Presidential Election".
47. (September 22, 2020). "Court rules in favor of Sec. of State clearing way for RCV in presidential election".
48. (October 6, 2020). "Breyer rejects Republicans' plea to stop ranked-choice voting in Maine".
49. (September 20, 2019). "A Step Toward Blowing Up the Presidential-Voting System".
50. (July 10, 2019). "Maine, ranked choice voting, and the National Popular Vote Compact".
51. "Alaska Ballot Measure 2, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative (2020)".
52. (2022-09-01). "Sarah Palin loses comeback bid in Alaska vote to Democrat". BBC News.
53. Brooks, James. (2024-08-23). "Alaska Supreme Court upholds ranked choice repeal initiative, now bound for November vote".
54. (November 20, 2024). "Alaska chooses to keep ranked choice voting, Begich defeats Peltola, unofficial results show".
55. (November 21, 2024). "Alaska Keeps Ranked Choice Voting by Razor-Thin Margin".
56. Samuels, Iris. (December 31, 2025). "Another initiative to repeal open primaries and ranked choice voting set to appear on Alaska's 2026 ballot". [[Anchorage Daily News]].
57. Jungworth, Haly. (July 21, 2022). "HAWAII PASSES RANKED CHOICE VOTING LEGISLATION".
58. Blair, Chad. (May 1, 2022). "Here Are Some Good Ideas That Are Poised To Make It Through The Legislature".
59. Kraushaar, Josh. (2009-12-21). "GOP sets sights on blue Hawaii".
60. Spangler, Sam. (October 24, 2022). "Ranked choice elections coming to Hawaii".
61. Flynn, Megan. (July 21, 2023). "D.C. ranked-choice voting ballot initiative clears first hurdle". Washington Post.
62. Robertson, Thomas. (2024-11-06). "DC voters pass Initiative 83, vote to keep indicted Council member White in office".
63. Parks, Miles. (December 13, 2023). "Ranked choice is 'the hot reform' in democracy. Here's what you should know about it". NPR.
64. "Measure I: Election Consolidation Charter Amendment - Alameda County, CA".
65. "California Local Government News". PublicCEO.
66. . (2010-11-02). ["Ranked Choice Voting Results Table"](https://www.acvote.org/acvote-assets/pdf/elections/2010/11022010/results/rcv/berkeley/city_auditor/november-2-2010-comprehensive-results-report-berkeley-city-auditor.pdf). *Alameda County Registrar of Voters*.
67. Knight, Heather. (2006-11-08). "Offbeat and practical issues taken up around Bay Area". San Francisco Chronicle.
68. (December 9, 2022). "Ojai City Council election results finalized for 3 seats, 2 measures". [[Ventura County Star]].
69. . (2022-12-09). ["Ojai City Council election results finalized for 3 seats, 2 measures"](https://www.vcstar.com/story/news/local/communities/ojai/2022/11/09/ojai-city-council-election-results-nov-8/10620040002/). *VC Star*.
70. . (2022-12-07). ["OFFICIAL FINAL RESULTS"](https://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CA/Ventura/115748/web.303253/#/summary). *Ventura County Clerk-Recorder, Registrar of Voters*.
71. "And It's 1, 2, 3: That's What We're Fighting For | Scoop News".
72. (2000-11-07). "Center for Voting and Democracy".
73. Holmes, Tim. (2010-01-20). "City Council Approves Ranked Choice Voting - Election is Nov. 2, 2010". San Leandro Bytes.
74. "Palm Desert finalizes voting district map, delays ranked-choice voting for two years".
75. . (2020-05-14). ["PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETINGS - Virtual Meeting"](https://pub-palmdesert.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=0008b2d3-b4b4-4933-a44c-2d684021eb66&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English#). *E Scribe Meetings*.
76. Steven, Hill. (2022-11-04). "Ranked choice voting's Big Adventure on November 8". Democracy SOS.
77. (2020-11-04). "2020's Elections Show Mixed Results for Democracy Reform".
78. "Ranked Choice Voting {{!}} Eureka, CA".
79. Hatfield, Sonia. (2021-12-21). "Ranked Choice Voting". Legislative Council Staff.
80. "It's six (and one) for Basalt town election".
81. . (2020-11-24). ["2020 General Election November 3, 2020"](https://electionresults.bouldercounty.gov/ElectionResults2020G/index.html). *Boulder County*.
82. . (2023-12-06). ["2023 Coordinated Election November 7, 2023"](https://electionresults.bouldercounty.gov/ElectionResults2023C/). *Boulder County*.
83. . (2021-11-21). ["November 2, 2021 Coordinated Election"](https://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CO/Broomfield/111065/web.278093/#/summary). *Clerk and Recorder City and County of Broomfield*.
84. . (2003-04-30). ["Town of Carbondale Abstract of Votes Cast at a Special Municipal Election Held in Carbondale, CO 81623"](https://ballotpedia.s3.amazonaws.com/images/a/a2/Carbondale%2C_CO%2C_April_29%2C_2003_Results.pdf). *Carbondale*.
85. Vo, Thy. (March 12, 2021). "Just four Colorado cities use ranked-choice voting. Democratic lawmakers want to make it easier for others to adopt.". [[The Colorado Sun]].
86. Zialcita, Paolo. (November 16, 2022). "Fort Collins appears on track to approve ranked choice voting starting in 2025". [[Colorado Public Radio]].
87. . (2023-12-05). ["Election-related measures being considered in Colorado - CBS Colorado"](https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/election-related-measures-being-considered-in-colorado/).
88. Agnew, Duncan. (2022-11-08). "Evanston endorses ranked choice voting in a landslide".
89. Agnew, Duncan. (2024-11-15). "Court strikes down Evanston's ranked choice voting effort".
90. Draughon, Luzane. (2024-11-06). "Ranked choice voting approved in Oak Park".
91. (2025-04-02). "Skokie Is the Latest Illinois City to Embrace Ranked Choice Voting".
92. (2010-11-03). "Portland returns to electing its mayor - The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram".
93. Koenig, Seth. (2011-11-09). "Brennan to become Portland's first popularly elected mayor in 88 years — Portland — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine".
94. (2019-11-19). "Portland voters to decide expansion of ranked-choice voting".
95. "Westbrook, Maine, Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (November 2021)".
96. (March 28, 2007). "Assessing Instant Runoff Voting in Takoma Park (MD)". FairVote.org.
97. (2019-11-06). "Easthampton residents vote "yes" for ranked-choice voting for mayor, council".
98. "Historic:Easthampton, MA used #RankedChoiceVoting for the first time". Voter Choice Massachusetts.
99. "Ranked-Choice Voting Commission". Town of Amherst.
100. "Amherst Home Rule Charter". Town of Amherst.
101. Russell, Jim. (2021-07-27). "No ranked choice voting in Amherst this year".
102. (2021-11-03). "Ann Arbor voters say yes to significantly reforming city elections".
103. (2023-11-08). "Ranked-choice voting passed in three cities, but Michigan law prohibits it".
104. (2023-11-07). "East Lansing, Michigan, Ballot Question 3, Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative".
105. (November 3, 2004). "Results at a glance". Daily Tribune.
106. (2023-08-07). "Kalamazoo approves Ranked Choice Voting for mayor, city commissioner elections".
107. (2023-11-07). "Royal Oak, Michigan, Proposal B, Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative".
108. Collins, Terry. (2006-11-08). "Measure to overhaul municipal races passes". Star Tribune.
109. Brandt, Steve. (2009-07-22). "List of filers for Minneapolis city offices now complete".
110. (2018-04-16). "Saint Louis Park Becomes Latest U.S. City to Adopt Ranked Choice Voting".
111. "Saint Paul Adopts Instant Runoff Voting | St. Paul Better Ballot Campaign".
112. "St. Paul shapes new voting system | StarTribune.com".
113. . ["Ranked Choice Voting History"](https://www.minnetonkamn.gov/government/elections/ranked-choice-voting-history). *City of Minnetonka*.
114. . (May 8, 2020). ["Ranked Choice Voting"](https://www.bloomingtonmn.gov/cl/ranked-choice-voting). *City of Bloomington*.
115. . (2021-11-10). ["Declaration of the Results of the City General Election Held November 2, 2021"](https://www.bloomingtonmn.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/Election%20Results%20Declaration.pdf). *City of Bloomington*.
116. [https://www.santafenm.gov/media/files/city_clerk/March_4_2008_ELECTION_RESULTS.pdf "Regular Municipal Election – March 4, 2008"], City of Santa Fe.
117. (January 9, 2018). "Supreme Court clears way for ranked-choice voting in Santa Fe". Albuquerque Journal.
118. Stelnicki, Tripp. (2018-06-04). "Second city in New Mexico opts for ranked-choice". The Santa Fe New Mexican.
119. "New York City Ballot Question 1, Elections Charter Amendment: Ranked-Choice Voting, Vacancies, and City Council Redistricting Timeline (November 2019)".
120. (August 2, 2019). "Final Report". 2019 New York City Charter Revision Commission.
121. (January 6, 2021). "Ranked-Choice Voting: What It Is And What We Need To Do As A Community". Queens Jewish Link.
122. (November 22, 2016). "Benton County Elections, Oregon - General Election November 8, 2016".
123. "Better Ballots for Benton".
124. . ["Ranked Choice Voting"](https://www.corvallisoregon.gov/cm/page/ranked-choice-voting). *City of Corvallis*.
125. . (2022-01-18). ["CITY OF CORVALLIS COUNCIL ACTION MINUTES"](https://archives.corvallisoregon.gov/public/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=2594282&dbid=0). *City of Corvallis*.
126. Mann, Cody. (January 22, 2023). "A closer look at ranked choice voting in Corvallis". [[Corvallis Gazette-Times]].
127. Hayden, Nicole. (November 9, 2022). "Ranked choice voting on the way for Multnomah County elections". [[The Oregonian/OregonLive]].
128. Rush, Claire. (November 15, 2022). "Portland, Ore., voters OK drastic overhaul of city government". [[Los Angeles Times]].
129. (October 12, 2022). "A Guide to Portland's Charter Change".
130. Stenquist, Jeffrey. (2021-02-23). "Municipal Alternative Voting Methods Pilot Project Amendments".
131. (2021-04-21). "SLC to move to ranked choice voting".
132. . ["Ranked Choice Voting"](https://betterutahinstitute.org/ranked-choice-voting/).
133. (April 22, 2021). "7 Utah County cities plan to use ranked-choice voting".
134. . (2021-11-02). ["Newton Town Council"](https://rcvis.com/v/2021-09-29_07-42-56_summary_1).
135. . (2021-11-16). ["Election Report for the City of Heber"](https://www.heberut.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/335). *Heber City*.
136. Hufham, Anastasia. (April 29, 2021). "Ranked-choice voting heads to Moab".
137. . (2021-11-16). ["Official Tabulation of Election Returns"](https://moabcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/3388/Final-Moab-Election-Results-2021). *Moab City Council*.
138. . (2021-11-02). ["Nibley Mayor"](https://rcvis.com/v/2021-09-29_07-36-31_summary_1).
139. . (2021-11-02). ["Nibley city council"](https://rcvis.com/v/2021-09-29_07-41-16_summary_1).
140. . (2021-11-02). ["River Heights City Council"](https://rcvis.com/v/2021-09-29_07-38-50_summary_1).
141. Lamdin, Courtney. (February 24, 2021). "Can Once-Maligned Ranked-Choice Voting Make a Comeback in Burlington?".
142. (March 3, 2021). "Voters approve all Burlington ballot issues".
143. "Burlington, Vermont, Question 4, Ranked-Choice Voting Amendment (March 2021)".
144. "Ranked Choice voting". City of Burlington.
145. "Emma Mulvaney-Stanak elected mayor of Burlington, 1st woman to lead the city | News From The States".
146. "HB 1103".
147. Blankship, Donna Gordon. (November 23, 2022). "Seattle narrowly approves ranked-choice voting". [[Crosscut.com.
148. . ["Ranked Choice Voting in Seattle"](https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/elections/governance-and-leadership/elections-results/ranked-choice-voting-in-seattle).
149. Carpenter, Tim. (2023-03-20). "Proposal for 2024 presidential primary in Kansas draws bipartisan support in Senate". Kansas Reflector.
150. . (2020-03-23). ["Wyoming Democratic Caucus moves to only mail-in voting"](https://www.wyomingnews.com/news/local_news/wyoming-democratic-caucus-moves-to-only-mail-in-voting/article_335d176b-f3d2-5ffd-9b38-7d50940cb523.html). *Wyoming Tribune Eagle*.
151. Daley, David. (2019-07-09). "Ranked Choice Voting Is On a Roll: 6 States Have Opted In for the 2020 Democratic Primary". In These Times.
152. "How ranked choice voting will affect Democratic presidential primary".
153. (2020-04-20). "Biden awarded 10 national delegates in Wyoming primary".
154. (2020-04-04). "Wisconsin's primary is in chaos — but Wyoming's isn't: A lesson in democracy".
155. "Center for Voting and Democracy".
156. "May 8".
157. (March 20, 2007). "Cache County Republican Party By-Laws".
158. Schmidt, Markus. (December 24, 2014). "Kevin Sullivan defends firehouse primary for Morrissey's seat - Roanoke Times: Politics".
159. (2020-05-14). "Indiana GOP to Use Ranked Choice Voting in Virtual Convention".
160. Penrose, Drew Spencer. "Proven Innovations to Uphold Voting Rights for Overseas Voters". FairVote.org.
161. "Where is Ranked Choice Voting Used". FairVote.org.
162. "Initiatives – Pew Center on the States". Electionline.org.
163. Proportional Representation League. (1915). "Adoption of P. R. by Ashtabula, Ohio". Proportional Representation Review.
164. (2021-06-15). "Variants of Ranked-Choice Voting from a Strategic Perspective". Politics and Governance.
165. Jessie Scanlon. (17 Oct 2018). "Could Maine's new ranked-choice voting change American elections?". Boston Globe Magazine.
166. FairVote.org. (June 6, 2019). "Eastpointe, Michigan to become first in state to implement ranked choice voting".
167. (2019-06-05). "Justice Department Reaches Agreement with City of Eastpointe, Michigan, Under the Voting Rights Act".
168. . (2020-12-01). ["General Election - 11/03/2020"](https://www.acgov.org/rovresults/241/indexA.htm). *Alameda Registrar of Voters*.
169. City Clerk. (2022-11-10). "City of Portland, Maine General Municipal Election on 11/8/2022". Charter Commission.
170. . ["Portland Charter Commission – Final Report"](https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/7bdbe46f-ad04-43ff-a8bf-6b363f81d147?cache=1800). *Portland Charter Commission*.
171. . ["Ranked Choice Voting"](https://vote.arlingtonva.gov/Elections/Ranked-Choice-Voting). *Arlington County*.
172. Hackett, Dennis. (2023-11-13). "New School Committee, city councilors elected in Easthampton".
173. Fabian, Maddie. (2023-11-08). "Easthampton voters back multi-winner ranked choice voting". Daily Hampshire Gazette.
174. FairVote.org. (June 6, 2019). "Eastpointe, Michigan to become first in state to implement ranked choice voting".
175. (2019-06-05). "Justice Department Reaches Agreement with City of Eastpointe, Michigan, Under the Voting Rights Act".
176. "Austin, Texas, Proposition E, Ranked Choice Voting Initiative (May 2021)".
177. Neely, Christopher. (2021-01-15). "Legality of ranked-choice voting prompts disagreement between supporters, Austin city attorneys".
178. McGlinchy, Audrey. (2021-05-03). "Austin Voters Approved Ranked-Choice Voting. But Whether They'll Get To Use It Is Another Matter.". [[KUT]].
179. Kim, Dave. (2023-11-06). "Michigan General Election 2023 Results: Eastpointe".
180. McCue, Dan. (2022-03-02). "Tennessee Bans Ranked-Choice Voting in State, Local Elections". The Well News.
181. . (2022-04-26). ["CS/CS/SB 524: Election Administration"](https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/524). *Florida State Government*.
182. . (2023-03-28). ["HOUSE BILL 179"](https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2023/legislation/H0179/). *The State of Idaho*.
183. (2023-03-27). "prohibit ranked-choice voting". SD Legislative Research Council.
184. . (2023-04-27). ["Prohibit use of ranked-choice voting methods"](http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0203W$BSRV.ActionQuery?P_SESS=20231&P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=HB&P_BILL_NO=598&P_BILL_DFT_NO=&P_CHPT_NO=&Z_ACTION=Find&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ2=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ=). *The State of Montana*.
185. Rosenbaum, Jason. (2024-06-05). "Missouri joins other red states in trying to stamp out ranked choice voting". STLPR.
186. Mueller, Julia. (2024-11-07). "Missouri approves measure to ban ranked-choice voting".
187. "Ann Arbor, Michigan, Proposal B, Repeal of Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (April 1976)".
188. (November 10, 2009). "Pierce voters nix 'ranked-choice voting' – From Our Corner".
189. "Ranked Choice Voting {{!}} City of Burlington, Vermont".
190. Stanton, Ryan. (2021-11-03). "Ann Arbor voters say yes to significantly reforming city elections".
191. "Voters approve instant runoff voting".
192. "Aspen council adopts instant runoff voting method". AspenTimes.com.
193. (April 2016)
194. "Aspen's May election under review". AspenTimes.com.
195. "Aspen voters to vote on how they vote — again". AspenTimes.com.
196. (2009-11-04). "Instant runoff voting loses by razor-thin margin | Aspen Daily News Online".
197. (2010-11-03). "City voters repeal IRV | Aspen Daily News Online".
198. "Archived copy".
199. Klingsporn, Katie. (2011-11-09). "Stu Fraser wins mayoral race - Telluride Daily Planet: News".
200. (2015-11-04). "Sean Murphy elected new mayor of Telluride - Telluride Daily Planet: News".
201. . (2023-11-08). ["Mayoral Race Too Close to Call, Ashley Story and Elena Levin to serve on Telluride Town Council"](https://www.telluride-co.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=243). *Town of Telluride*.
202. Jonathan Marwil, ''A History of Ann Arbor'' (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990), 164–165.
203. "''Dudum v. Arntz'', 640 F. 3d 1098 (2011)". United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
204. [http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2005/Bills/House/HTML/H1024v7.html House Bill 1024], [[General Assembly of North Carolina]], Session 2005.
205. "Tuesday, August 10, 2010 « Democracy North Carolina Blog".
206. "North Carolina Bar Association News & Events | NCBA News".
207. "CITIZEN-TIMES: Capital Letters - Post details: No instant-runoff this year".
208. (August 2009)
209. Arnold, Adam. (Jan 22, 2008). "Opinion mixed on Cary's instant-runoff trial".
210. (2008-05-18). "Critics Take Runoff Concerns To Elections Board - Search - NBC 17".
211. (2010-07-17). "Instant Runoff Voting in the United States: Don Frantz, the only person elected by instant runoff voting in NC speaks out".
212. [http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=S1263 Senate Bill 1263], [[General Assembly of North Carolina]], Session 2007-8
213. (2016-04-30). "Instant Runoff Voting".
214. (2016-08-29). "Instant Runoff Voting Regrets in NC".
215. Mccloy, Joyce. (2008-08-17). "Instant Runoff: Messing Up North Carolina Elections and Efforts to Reduce the Damage ~ Protect North Carolina Elections - Stop Instant Runoff Voting".
216. "North Carolina General Assembly - Senate Bill 1263 Information/History (2007-2008 Session)".
217. (May 8, 2009). "'Patient's bill' also boon to chiropractors, therapists". The News & Observer.
218. "11/03/2009 official municipal election results - Henderson".
219. "Article 404 - Hendersonville Times-News - Hendersonville, NC".
220. Harbin, John. (2011-04-08). "Hendersonville votes to keep instant runoff ballots".
221. Binker, Mark. (2013-08-12). "Q&A: Changes to NC election laws".
222. "GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA : SESSION 2013 : SESSION LAW 2013-381 : HOUSE BILL 589".
223. WRAL. (2007-10-09). "Polls Close; Turnout Light in Local Elections".
224. "WakeGOV.com - Election Results".
225. (2009-04-30). "Cary votes to keep current election method".
226. Barber, Kathleen L.. (1995). "Proportional Representation and Election Reform in Ohio".
227. {{usurped
228. "Vermont Daily Briefing » Point/Counterpoint: Terry Bouricious Attempts to Rip Professor Gierzynski a New One over Instant Runoff Voting Controversy (Now with All New Gierzynski Update!)".
229. Baruth, Philip. (March 12, 2009). "Voting Paradoxes and Perverse Outcomes: Political Scientist Tony Gierzynski Lays Out a Case Against Instant Runoff Voting". Vermont Daily Briefing.
230. (2009-12-29). "One Person, One Vote Press Conference".
231. (March 2, 2010). "Burlington voters repeal IRV". [[WCAX-TV.
232. (2010-04-27). "Instant run-off voting experiment ends in Burlington : Rutland Herald Online".
233. Briggs, John. (March 3, 2010). "Instant runoff rejected". The Burlington Free Press.
234. "Ranked Choice Voting".
235. "November 6, 2007 General Election - Official Results".
236. "Ranked Choice Voting Results".
237. (2024-05-02). "Tacoma is considering ranked-choice voting. Have people forgotten Dale Washam?". Tacoma News Tribune.
238. Kinzel, Bob. (2008-04-04). "Douglas vetoes two election bills". Vermont Public Radio.
239. Devaux, Nancy. (2022-11-10). "San Juan County voters reject ranked choice voting, spending measures". Salish Current.
240. Wolf, Sarah. (2022-11-08). "3 of 6 Clark County charter amendments leading". The Columbian.
241. "Massachusetts Information for Voters - 2020 Ballot Questions - State Election, November 3, 2020". Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
242. Sievers, Caitlin. (2024-11-06). "Arizonans reject measure that would open primary elections".
243. MacDonald-Evoy, Jerod. (2024-08-28). "Supreme Court lets legislature's description of 'open primaries' measure stand".
244. (2024-08-29). "Colorado to vote on ranked-choice voting, eliminating partisan primaries".
245. Paul, Jesse. (2024-11-06). "Colorado voters reject Proposition 131, the all-candidate primary and ranked choice election ballot measure".
246. (2024-03-19). "Idaho open primaries supporters say they are on the brink of qualifying ballot initiative".
247. Corbin, Clark. (2024-11-06). "Idaho voters reject Prop 1, the open primaries and ranked-choice voting ballot initiative".
248. Golonka, Sean. (25 October 2022). "Question 3 backers promote ranked-choice voting with major out-of-state money". Nevadan Independent.
249. Richardson, Katelynn. (10 November 2022). "All three Nevada ballot questions seem to have majority support as vote count continues". [[The Center Square]].
250. Meyers, David. (9 November 2022). "Ballot measures will change how democracy is practiced in many states". The Fulcrum.
251. "Nevada Question 3, Top-Five Ranked Choice Voting Initiative (2022)".
252. Mueller, Tabitha. (2024-11-06). "Nevadans reject open primary, ranked-choice voting ballot measure".
253. Girnus, April. (11 November 2022). "Question 3: Election reform proposal ekes out victory, will return in 2024". [[Nevada Current]].
254. (9 November 2022). "Nevadans appear to vote in favor of all three ballot measures". [[KTNV-TV]].
255. "Nevada Top-Five Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2024)".
256. Ambarian, Jonathon. (2024-08-23). "Montana election reform measures qualify for November ballot as Secretary of State completes certification".
257. Sakariassen, Alex. (2024-11-06). "Montana rejects constitutional initiatives to reshape primary and general elections".
258. (2023-06-25). "Oregon lawmakers send ranked choice voting proposal to November 2024 ballot".
259. "HB2004 2023 Regular Session - Oregon Legislative Information System".
260. (2024-11-06). "Voters reject statewide ranked choice voting, Measure 117, by wide margin".
261. Board, The Editorial. (2018-11-10). "Opinion {{!}} A Congress for Every American". The New York Times.
262. Drutman, Lee. (2017-04-26). "This voting reform solves 2 of America's biggest political problems".
263. Berman, Russell. (2023-07-06). "A Radical Idea for Fixing Polarization".
264. (November 18, 2023). "Many voters say Congress is broken. Could proportional representation fix it?". NPR.
265. Winger, Richard. (June 18, 2021). "Congressional Bill for Multi-Member U.S. House Districts".
266. Ingraham, Christopher. (2021-03-02). "Analysis {{!}} How to fix democracy: Move beyond the two-party system, experts say". Washington Post.
267. Daley, David. (2017-06-27). "Make democracy great again: Rep. Don Beyer's revolutionary bill could transform how we elect Congress".
268. Kambhampaty, Anna Purna. (2019-11-06). "New York City Voters Just Adopted Ranked-Choice Voting in Elections".
269. (April 30, 2024). "Primer: Ranked-Choice Voting".
270. "Ranked Choice Voting".
271. (April 25, 2023). "Explainer: Instant runoff voting".
272. (2023). "Campaigns and elections: rules, reality, strategy, choice". W.W. Norton & Company.
273. "The Future is Proportional Improving Minority Representation through New Electoral Systems" https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/reports/the-future-is-proportional/ accessed June 11, 2025
274. Compton, Kyle. 2025. “Depolarizing America With Ranked-Choice Voting”. ''University of Pittsburgh Law Review'' 86 (4). https://doi.org/10.5195/lawreview.2025.1096.
275. Gutiérrez, Manuel; Simmons, Alan J.; Transue, John (2022-11-01). "Ranked-Choice Voting and Democratic Attitudes". ''American Politics Research''. '''50''' (6): 811–822. [[Doi (identifier). doi]]:10.1177/1532673X221109519. [[ISSN (identifier). ISSN]] 1532-673X.
276. Dowling, E., Tolbert, C., Micatka, N., & Donovan, T. (2024). Does ranked choice Voting Increase voter turnout and mobilization? ''Electoral Studies'', ''90'', Article 102816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102816
277. McDaniel, J. (2018). Does More Choice Lead to Reduced Racially Polarized Voting? Assessing the Impact of Ranked-Choice Voting in Mayoral Elections. ''California Journal of Politics and Policy'', ''10''(2), 0_1-24. https://doi.org/10.5070/P2CJPP10241252
278. Correa-Lopera, G. (2025). Ranked-choice voting versus first-past-the-post: how polarization shapes their performance: Ranked-choice voting. ''Economic Theory Bulletin'', ''13''(2), 321–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40505-025-00297-x
279. Colner, Jonathan. 2025. “Running toward Rankings: Ranked Choice Voting's Impact on Candidate Entry and Descriptive Representation.” ''American Journal of Political Science (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.)'' 69 (3): 1010–28. doi:10.1111/ajps.12908.
280. Vishwanath, A. (2025). The Effects of Ranked Choice Voting on Substantive Representation. ''Quarterly Journal of Political Science'', ''20''(3), 409–437. https://doi-org.proxy006.nclive.org/10.1561/100.00023123
281. (2020-12-09). "Why Some N.Y.C. Lawmakers Want to Rethink Ranked-Choice Voting".
282. Anuta, Joe. (2021-09-08). "Lower-income communities showed less engagement with ranked-choice voting in NYC primary".
283. Cormack, Lindsey. (2024). "More Choices, More Problems? Ranked Choice Voting Errors in New York City". [[American Politics Research]].
284. (2024-12-17). "Why Portland's District 1 voter participation lagged other districts in first election using ranked choice voting".
285. Cerrone, J., & McClintock, C. (2023). Come‐from‐behind victories under ranked‐choice voting and runoff: The impact on voter satisfaction. ''Politics & Policy'', ''51''(4), 569–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12544
286. (2022-09-11). "A Mathematical Analysis of the 2022 Alaska Special Election for US House".
287. (2023-10-01). "Split Cycle: a new Condorcet-consistent voting method independent of clones and immune to spoilers". Public Choice.
288. Holliday, Wesley H.. (March 13, 2024). "A simple Condorcet voting method for Final Four elections".
289. Clelland, Jeanne N.. (2023-02-28). "Ranked Choice Voting And the Center Squeeze in the Alaska 2022 Special Election: How Might Other Voting Methods Compare?".
290. Samuels, Iris. (October 11, 2022). "Republican U.S. House candidates in Alaska continue to attack each other while urging voters to 'rank the red'".
291. Mutnick, Ally. (2024-08-06). "Dem-linked super PAC elevates Republicans ahead of Alaska primary".
292. Mueller, Julia. (2024-08-25). "Alaska Republicans unite to defeat Peltola".