JACKSON: Case for ranked choice voting
"A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump" is the tagline of two Democratic attack advertisements against Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, which aired in key swing states in the past month.
The obvious questions are: Why is the Democratic Party clamoring over a candidate only polling at 1 percent? And how could a vote for Stein, a progressive Liberal, be characterized as support for the Conservative Republican candidate, former President Donald J. Trump?
The answer to these questions revolves around the "spoiler effect," which boils down to a majority voter bloc being split between multiple candidates so that a minority bloc wins. Stein is accused of being a spoiler in this upcoming election and faced the same allegation in 2016. If the votes for Stein in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in 2016 had gone to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, Clinton would have become president.
Stein is far from the first spoiler in recent presidential elections. More examples include George Wallace in 1968, Ross Perot in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 2000, who each splintered one of the major party's voter blocs.
The spoiler effect is clearly not new. Yet, this phenomenon has begun recurring more regularly, reflecting the growing polarization in our country, which means margins for victory are even smaller, and election outcomes are not broadly supported.
Rachel Hutchinson, an electoral reform advocate, argues that "If our presidential elections are so fragile that a third-party candidate can throw the entire system into disarray, the problem isn't with the candidate, it's with our elections."
What if I told you there was a relatively simple election reform that could eliminate the spoiler effect? Let me introduce you to ranked choice voting (RCV).
RCV allows voters to rank multiple candidates on their ballot. If the first person a voter lists on their ballot cannot win, that person's vote goes to the candidate they ranked second. This means that if no candidate secures a majority, the candidate with the least votes will be dropped from the race, and those who voted for them will be counted for their second choice.
This negates the spoiler effect by allowing voters to choose a third-party candidate but still have a backup.
RCV has been used in citywide elections in New York City, as well as at the presidential level in Maine.
What does RCV mean for those using it in the upcoming presidential election? Voters will no longer have to employ "strategic voting," where they choose the candidate they believe can win instead of one they truly support.
A 2023 study on strategic voting found that RCV "is less susceptible to strategic voting" since it "creates smaller average incentives to vote strategically." This would disarm the attack that a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump, which the Democratic Party uses to instill fear in third-party voters and push the logic that they must vote for the lesser of two evils.
If RCV can solve this question of spoilers and lead to election results with broader support, why is this not being used more?
First, let me say that RCV is relatively new and data on the effect of its implementation is still uncertain. Though several studies have been conducted surrounding the promise of RCV, it is certainly not all positive, with criticism that RCV makes voters more confused and does not create an immediately less negative campaign environment.
While these are valid concerns that deserve further research, especially on the long-term effects of campaign rhetoric, there is something else missing as to why RCV is not widely used.
Our country is grounded in duopoly, the rule of two major parties. As political polarization has accelerated, campaigns are increasingly rooted in defining themselves in opposition to the other party instead of gaining voters with their ideas and policies.
In an election where one votes for the lesser of two evils, many Democratic supporters are voting against Trump, not for Vice President Kamala Harris. Ranked choice voting challenges this logic, encouraging campaigns to be grounded in moderation and broader appeals instead. This is not in the favor of many Democrats and Republicans, whose support is based on the fervor and fear of their opponents.
Ranked choice voting represents a clear way to broaden voters' choices and ensure their votes count. Especially in a time where the margin for victory is slim, RCV would end the spoiler effect that has interfered with providing election results that are widely supported.
Kate Jackson is a senior in the School of Arts and Sciences majoring in history and minoring in critical intelligence studies. Her column, "Writer's Block," runs on alternate Thursdays.
Columns, cartoons, letters and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the views of the Targum Publishing Company or its staff.
YOUR VOICE | The Daily Targum welcomes submissions from all readers. Letters to the editor must be between 350 and 600 words. Commentaries must be between 600 and 900 words. All authors must include their name, phone number, class year and college affiliation or department to be considered for publication. Please submit via email to oped@dailytargum.com and eic@dailytargum.com to be considered for publication.
