RCV trends: Four states ban RCV in 2025, bringing the number of states with bans to 15.
(Okay idk why it says 15 up here then later says 16, somebody on that site probably didn’t update the title text)
As of April 30, five states had banned RCV in 2025, which brought the total number of states that prohibit RCV to 16.
- Gov. Mark Gordon (Republican) signed HB 165 on March 18.
- West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey (Republican) signed SB 490 the March 19.
- Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly (Democrat) signed SB 6 into law on April 1.
- North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong (Republican) signed HB 1297 on April 15.
- Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Republican) signed HB 1706 which became law on April 17.
Six states banned RCV in 2024.
Why YSK: If you’re a US-American, its time to pay attention to State and Local politics instead of solely on the Federal. There is a trend in conservative jurisdictions to stop progress in making elecoral systems more fair. Use this opportunity as a rallying-cry to pass Ranked-Choice Voting in progressive jurisdictions, and hopefully everyone else takes notes. Sometimes, all you need is a few states adopting a law to become the catalyst for it to become the model for the entire country, for better or for worse. Don’t allow anti-RCV legislations to dominate, counter the propaganda with pro-RCV arguments. Time to turn the tide.
Edit: fixed formatting
Edit 2: Added in the map so you don’t have to click the link:
See the pattern? 🤔
Tl;dr
I was curious so I had to go look and see what states banned it. I was shocked, shocked I tell you to see the states that banned it are:
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia, WyomingEdit to add:
As a Texan, it’s a relief to finally not be included on one of these lists for once.
Don’t be too relieved. There’s a bill banning RCV that passed the Texas Senate and is being considered by the House: https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1751192
[yeehaws sadly]
Yet. Texas was one of the states where it’s not banned but it’s also not in use anywhere.
A lot ofAbout half the states that haven’t banned it actually use RCV in some or all elections.
Does it also shock you that Iowa is on the short list to do the same?
Nope. I live in Minnesota and I’m well aware of what I.O.W.A. stands for.
I’m curious what you got for I.O.W.A. I hate this place, so I love anything that bags on us.
Idiots out wandering around. Not everybody in the state is an idiot but the ones that are, are out wandering around.
I’ve always known it as “Idiots Out Wandering Around”
You’d think it would be democrats worried about another Bernie Sanders coming along.
What is it the republicans are worried about with RCV?
I don’t know because they shouldn’t be.
Republicans like Senator Tom Cotton and Donald Trump have garnered headlines for stating their opposition to ranked choice voting after election results didn’t turn out exactly as they hoped. Their preferred candidates, Sarah Palin in the House and Kelly Tshibaka in the Senate, didn’t win. Both are Republicans. So, they claim (loudly) that RCV is biased against Republicans or “rigged.”
For those non-USians reading this, the pattern is: states which tend to vote Republican and thus have majority Republican governance. So called “red states”.
Is anybody surprised that you could replace the orange with red and have a pretty accurate election map?
What are you guys scared of? Democracy?
In Kansas it surprises me that Kelly signed it; I’d be more inclined to believe that the Republican supermajorities pushed it past a veto.
It looks like it passed with a veto proof majority that probably included some democrats. Link
In MO. Voted on it last year. The ballot was intentionally worded to be misleading.
It said each person can only cast one vote. Making it sound like it was to prevent people from voting twice even though that person as already not allowed.
So dumb.
They just pulled that in the Ohio House this week. They have been calling it “One Person, One Vote” and are going to withhold state funds to any municipality that uses ranked choice voting. It passed our house 22-5 iirc
Missouri Amendment 7, Require Citizenship to Vote and Prohibit Ranked-Choice Voting Amendmen
Can anyone explain to me why a BAN was even needed? If a State is FPTP that’s the way it is; why do they need to say a different way is not allowed? Especially because of that different way were to actually be viable enough to become law it would just be a one two step - repeal the old, then institute the new.
It’s an attempt to proactively prevent any progressive progress.
Changing the voting system involves changing the law, doesn’t it? Can’t you just revert the ban in that very same bill?
Edit: Ah, I just saw in another comment that this affects lower levels of government that wouldn’t have the power to make this change.
They don’t want sub-divisions of the State (cities/towns) to implement RCV in their local elections. Probably to avoid the idea to spread. It like Democracy/Republicanism. When the French got rid of their monarchy, all the monarchs of nearby countries were afraid the sentinment would spread, same thing here.
Edit: spelling
That makes a lot of (unfortunate) sense, other than Kelly approving it (I’m in Kansas). I’ll need to dig in more and make sure it wasn’t just a veto overridden by the Republican supermajorities, or else wasn’t a poison pill attached to must have legislation.
https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1781139
Blue State Republicans are usually more “liberal” than Red State Democrats. State politics and Federal politics are different.
The link gives some arguments. It’s mostly stupid right wing claptrap.
Opponents of ranked-choice voting argue that it benefits voters with more time and information, leads to decreased voter confidence in elections, and disconnects voting from important issues and debates. Opponents of ranked-choice voting also argue that RCV winners do not necessarily represent the will of the voters.
It goes on to giving statements for those reasons from such respectable organizations as The Heritage Foundation, so do what you want with that.
The Ohio HoR just overwhelming voted to remove all state funding from any city that implements ranked choice voting. It threatens the parties in power, so they are both eager to stomp it out
Alaska passed it. The election results didn’t go as expected. Everyone in one party (guess) freaked out and started passing bans nationwide.
They tried to repeal RCV in Alaska too, but it failed by a slim count
even after 100:1 repeal money advantage. They’ll probably try again: https://alaskapublic.org/elections/2024-11-20/alaskas-ranked-choice-repeal-measure-fails-by-664-votesEdit: misread the fundraising number.
Nope, the “No” campaign (keeping ranked choice voting) outspent the campaign to repeal ranked choice voting by 100:1, largely with out of state money.
Former Lt. Gov. Loren Leman, an advocate for repeal, said he hopes the Legislature will pass a law getting rid of the voting system, but if that doesn’t happen, another repeal initiative is possible.
“I would say half of Alaskan voters were influenced, at least in part, and maybe in large part, by big money from outside the state,” he said by phone. “And ours was a grassroots, homebody campaign.”
The No on 2 campaign attracted nearly $14 millionin contributions, largely from outside the state, and outspent the Yes on 2 campaign by a 100-to-one margin.
My bad. Corrected.
Thanks!
Americans complain about the two party system and do absolutely nothing to change that. It’s like watching a soap opera but everyone’s fell of the horse and lost their memory.
Lol go to r/conservative and you’ll see all those idiots having doublethink simultaneouly saying that they support term limits for congress and support for ranked-choice voting, yet continues to vote in conservatives that oppose the very policies they claim to support.
Its actually quite ridiculous. Republican legislators consistantly oppose raising the minimum wage or abortion, yet, the republican voters votes in favor of those policies, while simultaneously vote for the legislators that oppose them.
I’m just like… Why??? Why do y’all vote like this? 🤦♂️
I think we should just go the Swiss-route and do direct democracy; representatives don’t even represent their constituents anymore.
In Colorado last year RCV was on the ballot as part of an initiative. It was shot down easily because both parties campaigned against it. Not sure what to do when the weight of all incumbents is thrown against something
It’s almost like those in power make the laws that are used to elect those in power 🤔
This may shock you, but there’s a lot of us. It’s not the same people doing both.
The whole entry is enlightening.
absolutely shocked that southern states with the worst education and track history of the most oppressive laws would do this to their constituents
they’ve been nothing but whored-out welfare states the whole fucking time
Did y’all think the regime gonna just let you change the rules of the game that keep it in place…
Cute
“Obey! Resistance is futile 🤖” Thats how you sound my friend. I know it is not easy to see any ways out of the shit the U.S. is in but giving up beforehand is called doomerism and it is one of the biggest cancers alive.
Did you read the same comment as me? I read that as “why would the powers that be wilfully give up the path to that power?”
They’re not saying “obey”. They’re saying this shouldn’t be a surprise.
This is in fact what I meant to convey.
This is a fight worth fighting even if it is futile as it will expose how nasty the oppression really is. Most people assume everything is kosher because they never try to step out from the normie way of thinking where they accept everything as is.
No.
The comment is belittling a call to action as if it is futile because ‘the powers that be’ won’t let you act against them. Which is bullshit. Republicans biggest power comes from political inaction and resignation. They aswell have used the system to play us all and now want every opposition to believe it is too late. Talking about nefarious powers will do exactly nothing but invoke doomerism.
You are injecting heavy opinion here. That’s not what I meant and there others who didn’t read like you did… But sure fight you a wind mill boy
To add on to this: Maine did add RCV, as well as many blue cities in blue states, refer to the map I just added to the post (it’s a screenshot from the source).
If we keep growing interest locally, people will become more familiar with the alternatives. The more cities and counties that use alternative voting systems, the easier it gets to pass these alternative systems statewide.
While many state lawmakers are determined to push back against alternative voting systems, there is always the possibility of flipping the rules back down the line, especially if more states in general flip blue, progressive, or independent.
For real, you better count on sunzu1/2/3 to come out and give up all hope while indirectly giving us his infinite wisdom.
I am not giving up. I am commenting on the current political conditions.
Also, my work speaks for itself and obey aint it ;)
People must exhaust this avenue among others before borne understands the conditions imposed on him/her
At least people are waking so team peasant got that going. It will take a generation or two.
Remember that by the time FDR stepped in plebs spent 2-3 generations shedding blood for the cause. But it still took a cripled nepo baby with sympathy for the common man, along with parasites botching the economy for the change to happen. And it only lasted like 40 years.
My bad. I guess i took the “Cute” the wrong way.
I hate it here in the South.
deleted by creator
🇦🇺 heh, amateurs… But seriously this is ridiculous, and straight up anti-democtatic. Single member first past the post is the worst voting system out there.
Inb4 they make mulit-member electorates winner-take-all (all seats to the party who got the plurality of votes).
This is THE fight USA. In my opinion, your ridiculous voting systems is probably why it’s so easy to suppress you.
This is democrats and Republicans not wanting people to vote for their candidate of choice because they have to constantly play the game of the lesser of two evils. They wanna keep power
Not even one state that has banned it is run by Democrats.
Gov. Mark Gordon (Republican) signed HB 165 on March 18.
West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey (Republican) signed SB 490 the March 19.
Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly (Democrat) signed SB 6 into law on April 1.
North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong (Republican) signed HB 1297 on April 15.
Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Republican) signed HB 1706 which became law on April 17.
5/6 are Republican shitheads however.
While Kansas has a Democratic governor, I wouldn’t call it a blue state. State Congress is likely all red. This was likely a ballot measure and the people voted on it. The governor just put into law what the people voted on. Nothing more.
Really bugs me how americans talk about “ranked choice voting” because you guys seem to mean STV, which is a form of proportional representation with multi-member districts.
But in Canada, “ranked ballots” meant IRV, which was basically FPTP with a ranked ballot, and ironically exacerbated the worst parts of FPTP like the trend to a two party system.
Stick with the real names of electoral systems!
and ironically exacerbated the worst parts of FPTP like the trend to a two party system
Umm. Hi, Australia here. We’ve used IRV for our House of Representatives since 1918. IRV is definitely flawed, and I’ve said in the past it’s the “worst acceptable system”*. But it’s better in every way than FPTP, and definitely doesn’t exacerbate a trend towards two parties. It doesn’t create a proportional result that truly helps break the two-party system like STV (most notably used by Australia’s Senate or Ireland’s Dáil) or MMP (notably used in New Zealand and Germany) would, but it doesn’t entrench it any more than FPTP. In fact, as of today, Australia’s crossbench consists of only 1 fewer person than its Opposition, because independents and third parties have been rising considerably over the past 15 years or so, particularly at the 2022 and 2025 elections.
You’re right that people should be clear about whether they mean IRV, STV, or another ordinal system, though.
* the intent being to highlight that FPTP is an entirely undemocratic and unacceptable system to ever use.
We studied it in Canada, including how it was used in Australia, and it was the only electoral systems out of all the ones listed that actually widened the gap between voter intention and seat distribution from FPTP.
https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/42-1/ERRE/report-3/page-174#49
Specifically here, where it is called “Alternative Vote”:
I’m mostly just frustrated about how it keeps getting renamed.
But it is entirely possible to invent an electoral system that is worse than what we have now, and it seems politicians might have done that with IRV.
Specifically here, where it is called “Alternative Vote”
Yeah that seems to be a very common alternative name. I’m especially not a fan of that name, since all it tells you is that it’s “not FPTP”. At least “Preferential voting” or “ranked choice voting” tells you something of the ballot.
Really bugs me how americans talk about “ranked choice voting” because you guys seem to mean STV, which is a form of proportional representation with multi-member districts.
But in Canada, “ranked ballots” meant IRV, which was basically FPTP with a ranked ballot, and ironically exacerbated the worst parts of FPTP like the trend to a two party system.
Stick with the real names of electoral systems!
This is in the context of US State Legislations, Ranked-Choice Voting is what most laws refer to them as.
In most contexts, we’re mostly talking about Single-Winner elections.
Sometimes, the same concept has different names to different people, there isn’t a name that’s more “real” than others.
I don’t really care what the law calls it. One time an American law tried to call pi equal to 3.2. Had it passed both houses instead of only one, that still wouldn’t have changed what pi actually is.
Ranked-Choice describes a feature of a large number of voting systems. Namely, any system that involves ranking candidates in order of preference. Instant-Runoff Voting and Single Transferable Vote are the two most popular such systems, but there are many others, including the Borda method and Ranked Pairs. It’s better to just be clearer about what it is you actually mean, rather than use an ambiguous term that’s going to lead to more confusion.
In most contexts, we’re mostly talking about Single-Winner elections.
In the context of electoral systems, “Congress” and “Senate” are multi-seat legislatures. Hence the talk about proportional representation, IE how many Americans vote Democrat vs how many Democrats get elected. Without that discussion you’ll never get a 3rd party elected.
Meh. There are better voting systems such as range voting and STAR.
You also have to account in human stupidity. If you make the ballot too complex, dumbasses are gonna mess it up and the ballots will be invalidated.
Ok, I’m sold, let’s do this
The ballot is the same for all ranked voting methods. The method of determining winner from those ballots varies, and some are clearly worse.
For instance, if a candidate would beat all others 1-on-1 (Condorcet winner), then should a decent method always select that candidate as winner? RCV doesn’t do that.
Example
- A > B > C: 2
- C > B > A: 2
- B > C > A: 1
Who wins according to instant run-off? C. Who wins against every opponent 1-on-1? B.
This nice table compares voting methods by a wide range of properties. I don’t think it hurts to make a more informed decision before backing a method that will be difficult to change. The US got stuck with FPTP through inadequate research, and it’d be great not to repeat that mistake.
While rated voting methods fail the Condorcet winner criterion, by rating instead of ranking candidates they satisfy another set of criteria also worth considering.
Among ranked voting methods, ranked pairs seems most compelling to me. Among rated voting methods, approval seems pretty good (and extremely simple).
Among ranked voting methods, ranked pairs seems most compelling to me.
I think that’d fail miserably in the real world.
Think about the average voter. They see this ballot:
A vs B?
A vs C?
A vs D?
B vs C?
B vs D?
C vs D?
Yea I think they’re gonna freak out upon seeing this ballot. Right now, the most important goal should be to get rid of the spoiler effect and FPTP, rather than finding the best system.
approval seems pretty good (and extremely simple).
I can see a bit of strategic voting happening.
Let me demonstrate:
For the sake of simplicity, let’s say we have 3 candidates, and no term limits:
Trump, Biden, Sanders
Biden and Sander voters dispise trump, their preference in RCV is (example):
Biden>Sanders>Trump: 30%
Sander>Biden>Trump: 25%
Trump>Sanders>Biden: 23%
Trump>Biden>Sanders: 22%Okay, so lets say they all approve their top 2:
Biden: 77%
Sanders: 78%
Trump: 45%Okay we have president Sanders! Congrats, right?
Well, now the trumpers who approved sanders are like: “Hey wait a minute, we made our daddy lose because we approved Sanders”
All the trumpers now have a meeting and decided that next election, they don’t approve Sanders or Biden as a strategic vote.
So now, Election 2 Results:
Biden: 55%
Sanders: 55%
Trump: 45%Oh great, it’s a tie. The law says that the election have to be re-done to solve the tie:
Now this next election, all people who preferred Sanders first go to a Sanders supporter meeting and started saying: “Lets disapprove Biden so Bernie can win!”
Simultaneously, Biden voters will be like: “Lets disapprove Sanders so Biden can win!”
Next election results:
Trump: 45%
Biden: 30%
Sanders 25%Congrats, we have a glorified FPTP and spoiler effect yet again!
Now, other election systems could also have strategic voting, but its less likely with, for example, RCV, since you can rank candidates.
Yea I think they’re gonna freak out upon seeing this ballot.
I think you missed the first sentence I wrote:
The ballot is the same for all ranked voting methods.
Maybe explaining what you think that means would clear up confusion?
RCV isn’t monotonic, meaning that in the right circumstances you can harm your chosen candidate’s chances by ranking him higher. Doesn’t matter how rare it is; what a ridiculous quality for a voting system to have.
The point of RCV isn’t to ensure your chosen candidate wins; it’s to ensure that whoever does win has at least some amount of approval from the majority of voters.
It does still have flaws, but it’s still far superior to the current system the US uses.
Really, anything other than FPTP is fine. RCV only has the same outcome as FPTP, where the least liked candidate can win, in ~10% of outcomes which is fairly uncommon. Really we should be okay with promoting most of the alternatives since they can be modified down the line as well. I personally promote Ranked Robin, STAR, and Score more but RCV is always worth supporting if it’s on your local ballot vs FPTP. Most people are more familiar and accepting of RCV if they have heard of some of these alternatives.
I think most people would agree that it does matter how rare it is.
Even if imperfect, ranked choice voting would give voters considerably more voice than they have now. That could be used to, for example, vote in another method in the future.
I agree it’s a flaw, but the answer isn’t to move to an even worse and more gameable system, it’s to move to proportional systems like MMP.
Cardinal voting systems are terrible because strategic voting is as trivial as it is in FPTP. In IRV situations where strategic voting would be possible exist, but they’re rare and hard to predict. In cardinal systems it’s always best to give the maximum score or the minimum score, and never anything in between.
And when that happens it just defaults to approval, which is still non-monotonic and better than IRV, but it’s been proven anyway that that doesn’t happen and most people are honest (or would learn to be honest after few iterations). IRV is also not devoid of strategy, as it can be better to rank your true favourite lower
IRV is also not devoid of strategy, as it can be better to rank your true favourite lower
I think you missed the part where I said that it can happen, but that it’s rare and hard to predict.
Approval Voting is bad because of the simple fact that it doesn’t let you express any preference. There’s no ability to say “I’ll take this guy if I really have to, to avoid the worst outcome, but if possible I would much prefer this other guy”. In single-winner systems, having some mechanism to express that one candidate is better than another is absolutely crucial.
Got some videos here that explains various voting systems if yall are interested.
Electoral Reform Videos
First Past The Post voting (What most states use now)
Videos on alternative electoral systems
STAR voting
Your STAR voting video doesn’t exist on my end, America here if that matters for copyright/prohibition.
There are, and my state would have banned those too it they’d heard about them when they were banning RCV. They weren’t making principled objections like monotonicity failures. They likely noticed that most of RCV’s loudest advocates were from the wrong party (and some of the were the wrong color too!), and figured that was a good enough reason to shut it down.
