The 2022 general session of the Utah Legislature saw a raft of bills proposed to reform, expand and/or eliminate Utah’s municipal election ranked-choice voting (RCV) pilot program, which is slated to run until 2026. Ultimately, the legislation that became law made refinements to the program, rather than dramatically expanding or changing it.

This legislative activity occurred within a national landscape in which use of RCV in elections is incrementally expanding. Currently, 16 states have authorized or enacted RCV as the voting method to decide at least some local, statewide or Congressional elections. A few other states use RCV for partisan elections, including presidential primaries.

For the time being, it seems, ranked-choice voting will continue to be a part of Utah elections. What does that mean for Utah voters? Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

There is no perfect election system. There are only election systems with different groups of benefits and drawbacks.

Sutherland Institute seeks to clarify some of those benefits and drawbacks, using analysis grounded in evidence and data, in its newly released publication The Benefits and Drawbacks of Ranked-Choice Voting in Utah. The purpose of this publication is to help elevate the public dialogue and debate around RCV beyond the levels of polarized and politicized talking points through credible research, solid evidence and sound policy reasoning.

At the municipal level, potential benefits of RCV include potential cost savings and alignment of policy decisions with voters’ preferences. Potential drawbacks include the timing of significant election reforms in the polarized political climate and potential damage to public trust in elections. Regarding the idea of expanding the use of RCV in Utah to state and federal elections, potential benefits include ensuring the winner has a majority of votes and fewer “wasted votes” in presidential primaries. Potential drawbacks include minority levels of public support for using RCV beyond municipal elections and the risks for public trust in elections from expanding RCV to higher-profile races.

The potential benefits of RCV suggest there is merit in continuing the Municipal Alternate Voting Methods Pilot Project. However, the potential drawbacks of RCV should not be ignored: They reinforce the importance of a thoughtful, deliberate approach to elections reforms that expand the use of RCV.