This week Sutherland Institute co-sponsored an event with the University of Utah Department of Political Science and College of Social and Behavioral Sciences about the future of ranked-choice voting (RCV) in Utah.

RCV as an election policy has seen growing interest (and scrutiny) in recent years. More than 20 cities in Utah opted to use RCV in 2021 as part of a municipal election pilot program, and during the 2022 general legislative session there were bills introduced to expand RCV to state and congressional elections.

Panelists at the event – R Street Institute’s Matt Germer, state elections director Ryan Cowley, Taylor Morgan with Utah Ranked Choice Voting, and political science professor Josh McCain from the University of Utah – offered differing perspectives and enlightening comments about RCV. Three takeaways from the discussion include: (1) Polarization and politicization present significant challenges to continued use of RCV for Utah elections, (2) we need more and better evidence to evaluate the impacts of RCV in Utah, and (3) there are real benefits to the use of RCV, as well as real drawbacks.

Polarization and politicization as hurdles to RCV

In response to a question about how any election reform could successfully navigate the polarized and politicized political climate we are in, everyone acknowledged that it is a difficult challenge. One reason is just plain politics: Election reforms impact the ability of elected officials to get reelected, and that will naturally spark opposition among many officials who were elected under the current systems.

A second reason is that polarized and politicized rhetoric builds on and magnifies real underlying issues in areas such as election administration. For instance, election administrators in rural Utah counties face unique challenges with election reforms relative to urban or suburban counties.

Urban/suburban counties have a full election staff to incorporate electoral reforms and administer elections. But in rural counties, there is sometimes only one person to do everything regarding election administration – including implementing reforms. Polarized rhetoric can exacerbate the political weight of such legitimate election policy problems – it can make any additional issue feel insurmountable – and further complicate election policy reform.

But there may be one hopeful path for election reform despite polarization: pilot programs that allow a reform to start small and help voters grow accustomed to its benefits incrementally and over time. This was the path by which vote by mail in Utah grew to become the default voting method, for example. It is also the way that voters are gaining experience with RCV via municipal elections.

More and better evidence on RCV needed

Both advocates for and skeptics of RCV on the panel noted that the potential benefits from moving to RCV are, in some sense, theoretical. In modern America, RCV hasn’t yet been used in a widespread way over enough time to produce sufficient data to examine its benefits and drawbacks thoroughly and empirically.

The lack of data and evidence on the impact of RCV is one purpose, in fact, of Utah’s municipal election pilot program. With an increasing number of cities choosing to use RCV – and hopefully a variety of Utah cities choosing to do so over multiple election cycles – the hope is that the pilot program will produce evidence that can inform Utah policymakers and voters about the real impacts of RCV relative to traditional election methods.

RCV has benefits and drawbacks

One main benefit is the ability of voters to more fully express their voting preferences through rankings – especially in high-profile, crowded partisan primaries. In such primaries, several scenarios may play out that allow someone to win the primary election with a small plurality of voters.

For instance, one scenario is a primary in which several similarly minded candidates may split a base of voters, allowing a candidate who does not enjoy broad primary voter support to win with only 30%-39% of the primary vote. This could possibly play out in the 2022 Republican U.S. Senate primary. A second scenario might be one like the 2020 Utah Republican gubernatorial primary: A race with three or more competitive candidates that results in a primary victory with a little more than one-third of the total primary vote.

RCV would solve this plurality problem by redistributing ranked votes from lower-performing candidates so that the winner has something close to a majority of total ballots submitted.

One main drawback is that RCV is new to most voters. That creates challenges of educating voters in how to properly cast a ballot under the system, and it generates a natural uncertainty about RCV from voters who have used RCV only once or not at all.

Conclusion

RCV, like many election policy reforms, is a complex and politically thorny policy idea. But it is here in Utah, and it may well be here to stay in one form or another. Only time and experience will tell.

Given the present reality and future prospects of RCV, candid and substantive discussion and debate about the issue is warranted. Neither proponents for or opponents to RCV have the monopoly on sound reasoning or concrete evidence. And that means more and better information and analysis on the issue will likely be needed to help policymakers make the best election policy decision for Utah.