As I write this, Indiana’s legislature is close to passing Senate Bill 12, a measure that would prohibit the use of ranked-choice voting in Indiana. The bill was co-authored by Republicans who are evidently worried that the state might use the system some day in the future (it is not in effect now and has not, to the best of my knowledge, been proposed).
What, you may be asking, is ranked-choice voting, sometimes called “instant runoff” voting?
It’s simply a system that allows voters to rank candidates in their order of preference, rather than forcing them to select just one. In other words, voters rank the candidates–first choice, second, and so on. The vote count begins with the first choices; if one candidate receives over 50%, that’s it. Election’s over. If no candidate receives a majority, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated, and his or her votes are reassigned to the remaining candidates based on each voter’s next highest preference. The process of eliminating and redistributing continues until a single candidate achieves a majority of the remaining votes.
Organizations concerned with fair elections support ranked-choice voting. Indiana’s League of Women Voters supports it because–among other things– the system would “give voters meaningful choices to reduce the toxicity of negative campaigning.” Indiana’s Common Cause supports ranked-choice voting because the organization finds the system makes elections more equitable, allows voters to choose among more diverse perspectives, and provides more choices.
The legislators opposed to the system insist it is “too complicated”–that there is something “unAmerican” about allowing voters to say, in effect, “my first choice is candidate X, my second choice is candidate Y, and if neither of them wins, I suppose I can live with candidate Z. Evidently, they think voters in states that currently use the system, like Maine and Alaska, are smarter than Hoosiers. (Given some of the people we’ve elected, maybe they have a point.)
Interestingly, according to Governing Magazine, in 2020, the state Republican Party used the method to select delegates.
In an article on the subject, Indiana’s Capital Chronicle noted that the award of the Heisman Trophy is the result of ranked-choice voting. The article explained why using that method ensures that the candidate with the most support wins.
This is the same reason why so many states and localities have adopted ranked choice voting for elections for governor, state legislature, city council and other offices. It is an incredibly useful tool for voters in any race with more than two candidates.
It ensures a majority winner in a crowded field. Voters can choose the person they like best, without fearing that their vote might go to a “spoiler” and help elect the person — or the quarterback — that they like least.
The article then turned to Indiana Republicans’ current effort to ban the system, pointing out that in a state where some 3% of voters are libertarians, ranked-choice voting would mean Republicans would no longer need to worry that a Libertarian candidate might tip the race to the Democrats — and Libertarian voters could support the candidate of their choice without that fear, as well.
Why prevent Indiana and its localities from giving voters more choice? The bill’s sponsors suggest that ranked choice voting is confusing, and that they want to protect Indiana’s current election system. But every poll conducted after a ranked choice election shows that huge majorities of voters — often even bigger than Mendoza’s Heisman margin — like it, find it easy to use, and want it expanded to other elections.
Beyond the flaws of SB12 are other questions: Why, in a short session with limited time to address other pressing issues, has the GOP super-majority decided to spend time banning something the state isn’t doing anyway? Why is our legislature overruling– in advance–the ability of Indiana’s local jurisdictions to adopt a voting measure used in hundreds of cities and counties across the country?
As the Capital Chronicle quite properly concluded, we need to reject this nonsensical ban. “Ranked choice voting produces more positive campaigns, majority winners, and puts an end to spoilers. It’s proven and it’s easy. If Indiana’s political parties, cities and towns want to adopt it, they should have that right.”
We know one thing for sure, RCV is bad for MAGA extremists. If I remember correctly, Alaska was able to kill off that idiot, Sarah Palin under the voting system. I really don’t know why anybody supports her because she became irrelevant almost immediately.
None of the reasons (gaslighting) the GOP uses are truthful. If MAGA says it, it’s a lie. If we’ve learned anything from Trump’s administration, we have ample confirmation of their persistent lying. Under normal times, Trump’s cabinet would all be in jail for lying under oath, but not one of them, including Bondi, has suffered any consequences. Ro and Massie are the only ones forcing accountability.
The other obvious reason for cancelling RCV is it hurts party leadership and if it hurts the party’s control, it’s bad for the oligarchy. The parties are controlled by the oligarchy – the uniparty IS part of the establishment.
And, as Sheila alluded to, what I’ve witnessed by Hoosier voters in my area, they can easily be manipulated by Fox News or NewsMax or whatever right-wing media spits out as propaganda. Hoosiers love their pedophiles!
If Republicans dislike something like ranked voting, it must be good for the people. As Todd suggests, anything that the oligarchy dislikes, Republicans follow their financiers’ wishes.
Are we seeing the beginnings of the death throes of the GOP? It’s gotta be about time for them to go.
We used ranked choice voting for the faculty senate and various committees at the University of Indianapolis and we loved it! If ranked choice voting had been used in the Republican primary for governor in 2024, it is not clear that Braun would have won. With ranked choice, we could have been sure.
I’m from Cambridge, Massachusetts. Ranked choice voting (it’s called PR or Proportional Representation) is designed to give minority voters a chance at representation. It has been used in Cambridge since the 1920s. Ranked choice voting is used in the Republic of Ireland.
Ranked choice has three problems. Most serious is that it is open to manipulation. A leading candidate who only has one potential problem opponent can direct her/his followers to rank that opponent very low. You can imagine other variations…
A second problem is that it can confuse voters, especially those for whom English is a second language.
The final problem is that it upsets the notion embedded in our system that your vote if for the person you want for the office – period.
Love ranked choice voting. Ro Kanna is a semi-Progressive Dem.
People don’t necessarily vote for the person that they want in office period because with a 2 party system, many of us end up voting for the least objectionable person who still has a chance of getting the vote. It’s Dems v GOP, especially in voting for Congressional or Senator elections. Right now, our nation is already pretty upset, people would be happier with ranked choice voting.
From what I have read about ranked-choice voting, it is a benefit. Can it be gamed? What system cannot?
From what I have read and from conversations I have had with people who do not vote, there is a great disaffection with Indiana’s political parties. The Democrats are feckless; this is a Republican state; therefore, there is no reason to vote.
I take exception to Mr. Levine’s last paragraph. What is embedded in our system is that we vote for the people selected by the political parties. Declining party identification undercuts voting for a person one wants. Write-in voting is a sop. Gerrymandering cuts down the people getting any variety of choice. I think there were more political choices in my first election, 1980, than there are now. Ballot access being restricted is another sign of our political duopoly.
Ranked choice to remedy something that is embedded in our constitutions and that has been tarnished – that the people govern themselves, not the political parites. This is also why it will be seen as a threat to those same political parties.
The outstanding candidates will win on the first pass. That said, if you’re one of the people charged with counting the votes, be prepared for a long night.
Here in Maine, ranked choice voting helps pull candidates to moderation, and moderates the ability of extremists to win office. The necessity of candidates catering to the most extreme “base” is lessened. I think that’s a big win for sanity and encourages more people vote.
The Indiana Democratic Party hasn’t bothered to send me a 2026 membership renewal (I finally sent a request, still waiting); this has me wondering which state I should begin researching for possible candidates to support whatever form they use. Georgia’s Democratic candidates have received my support in the past along with the few Indiana candidates I found information on. Getting information on local candidates is skimpy at best after many years of being buried under campaign mailings from all parties. The cost of postage probably the reason but…for those of us who do support either party we deserve to receive information as to why we should even bother.
I love voting by mail. I would love ranked choice voting. I have also been a poll worker. I am always so proud of every individual making the time to vote—but you know what? More often than you might suspect, voters are confused at the polls. What do they need to do when face-to-face with a complicated machine? Poll workers to the rescue, explaining how the machine works…how to select their candidates, how to cast their vote. It is not going to be any harder to explain how to rank candidates than it has been to tell them how to find the selection for a straight party. And that “straight party” is an option that should go. Often, those choosing it don’t bother with nonpartisan questions or candidates.
sure would slap magas face when its all tallied.with the present issues,we need the working class in full force. the country is not supporting anyone but its wealthy. imagine the person running was a typical working class and down the line,s. favoring the average Joe/Jo. throwing water on the high dollar pacs/special intrests. and watching that money get wasted on bots and lies
Well done, Ms. Kennedy.
Ranked choice assures that the winning candidate has the support (possibly tepid, but support nonetheless) of over 50% of the voters. There are plenty of examples where candidates with 40% or less of the vote “won” an election just because they had more votes than anyone else on a crowded field.
RCVoting would threaten the unalloyed power the Indiana legislature apparently enjoys to the utmost.