The 2021 municipal elections in Utah were significant for election policy and the institution of voting in Utah. Roughly 20 cities across the state participated in the Municipal Alternate Voting Methods Pilot Project, in which voters used ranked-choice voting (RCV) to elect city council members and mayors.

Sutherland Institute has committed to studying and analyzing the evidence on RCV and Utahns’ experience with it in 2021. The following is Sutherland’s preliminary analysis of RCV in Utah. A deeper, more thorough analysis will be forthcoming at a later date.

Under RCV elections in the pilot program, the dual roles of primary elections (narrowing the list of potential candidates for office) and general elections (selecting who will serve in office) are combined into a single election in November. The new voting process has significant implications for voting in Utah that are worth examining from the perspective of the evidence and the data – particularly for their potential impact on public trust in the institution of voting.

The available evidence suggests both potential benefits and potential drawbacks from RCV elections.

Potential Benefits

1. Aligns policy preferences with voters: Research evidence suggests that low-turnout elections can give special interest groups an outsize impact on public policy. By transferring the role of low-turnout municipal primaries into higher-turnout general municipal elections, RCV may dilute this special interest influence. The result may be that municipal public policies align better with the desires of city residents, which would likely serve to bolster public trust in elections.

2. Reduces cost to taxpayers: Cities using RCV can reduce overall election administration costs for taxpayers by eliminating primary elections.

3. Incentivizes civil campaigns: Some survey research finds that voters view campaigns under RCV to be less negative than typical campaigns. This is supported by scholarly research analyzing campaign tone through language captured in election news coverage. The need for campaigns to accrue second-, third- or fourth-ranked votes from voters can disincentivize negative campaigning and strengthen public trust in voting.

4. Positive voter experience: Based on a Y2 Analytics survey data of Utah voters who used RCV in 2021, Utahns were as satisfied with RCV as they were with traditional elections. They reported that instructions were clear and the system was easy to use.

Potential Drawbacks

1. Current political climate: Attacks on election outcomes are heightened in the current political climate, threatening public trust in vital institutions of self-government and democracy. The Y2 survey reported that 46% of all Utah voters believe RCV should expand beyond municipal elections, compared with 54% who think otherwise. This suggests that significant expansion of RCV could magnify the impacts of attacks on the institution of voting.

2. Growing pains: Sandy city’s mayoral election was exceedingly close, with confusion over recount procedures in RCV elections leading to temporary public uncertainty over the outcome. Procedural clarifications are normal in the implementation of any new program, but they create greater risk to public trust in elections in the current political climate.

3. Unnecessary ballot exhaustion: RCV vote tabulations create “ballot exhaustion”: a ballot is not counted in the final tally for or against the winner if every candidate that a voter ranked has been eliminated and more than two candidates remain in the race. This is a feature of the RCV vote tabulation software. It seems unnecessary to disregard ballots for the final tally when they could be treated similar to third-party votes in the current system.

4. Opposition-driven vulnerability: An organized effort in Sandy city sought to persuade voters to submit ballots without fully ranking candidates, likely increasing ballot exhaustion. In the Sandy mayoral race – decided by 21 votes in the final tabulations – there were 3,930 exhausted ballots reported, representing nearly 1 in every 5 total ballots submitted in the mayoral election. Similar efforts in higher profile races could significantly harm public perception of RCV elections, and perhaps elections generally by association if RCV was used beyond the municipal level. This is underscored by scholarly research suggesting that many voters question whether RCV produces fair election outcomes.

Conclusion

The potential benefits of RCV suggest there is merit in continuing the Municipal Alternate Voting Methods Pilot Project. However, the potential drawbacks of RCV, along with the current threats to public trust in the election process, should not be ignored. Both raise important questions about next steps regarding expansion of RCV.

Based on the evidence, it seems prudent to continue with the pilot project to its 2026 completion date. This will allow more Utah voters to become familiar with RCV as municipalities join the pilot program, and it should result in more and better evidence about RCV in Utah and its potential impact on public trust in the institution of voting.