My State Adopted Ranked-Choice Voting. It Was a Mistake.

Wouldn’t it be nice if it were that simple? Unfortunately, the reality is quite the opposite.

In Maine—the first state in the country to adopt ranked-choice voting in statewide and federal elections—I’ve witnessed the hype, the slogans, the lawsuits, and the “trust us, it’s simple” sales pitch. But it is now clear that this electoral experiment has been a mistake. Other states should learn from our example and resist efforts to implement ranked-choice voting for presidential primaries nationwide. 

Ranked-choice voting is a Rube Goldberg machine—a contraption of levers and pulleys designed to do a simple job in the most convoluted way imaginable, while promising that the complexity itself is a virtue. Let’s examine how the idea went so wrong.

RCV was born from partisanship, not principle. Motivation matters when it comes to public policy. If an idea is born of a genuine desire to fix a problem, it’s worth considering. If it is born of a desire to achieve a partisan end, it should be suspect, and it may shock you just how political the motivation for enacting ranked-choice voting has been.

In Maine, there were attempts to adopt the system in the early 2000s, but those proposals lacked any real support and were quietly defeated. The push for ranked-choice voting only became serious after Republican Paul LePage won the governorship in 2010 with about 38 percent of the vote. Many progressives, irate that he had won at all, began discussing ways to prevent his future reelection.

They argued that if voters for the bottom three finishers—Democrat Elizabeth Mitchell and independents Shawn Moody and Kevin Scott—had been allowed to make a second choice on their voting preference, they would have rejected LePage in favor of the runner-up, Democrat-turned-independent Eliot Cutler. 

Notably, this reform didn’t feel urgent four years earlier, when Democrat John Baldacci won reelection with some 38 percent of the vote, or in 1994, when Angus King won with 35 percent. The “problem” only became a crisis when the wrong person benefited from the existing rules.

And it didn’t take long for the new system to achieve its political goals. In Maine’s first statewide ranked-choice race in 2018, Democrat Jared Golden received fewer votes than incumbent Republican Rep. Bruce Poliquin in the first round but ended up “winning” the 2^nd Congressional District in the instant run-off that followed.

That elections will go from choosing plurality winners to selecting candidates with broad majority support is the core promise of ranked-choice voting. But not all supposed “majorities” are what they claim to be.

In practice, ranked-choice voting often produces a majority by using an administrative math trick, shrinking the denominator as ballots drop out round by round—as people no longer rank a candidate—creating thousands of phantom voters who showed up, intended to register a choice, but are then treated in the final tally as though they were never there.

Those dropped ballots are politely referred to as “exhausted.” In the 2^nd Congressional District race in 2018, more than 8,000 ballots were exhausted between rounds. Tabulators calculated the final “majority” using the remaining ballots in play, not the total number of voters who showed up on Election Day. That is not majority rule; it’s majority by attrition.

Advocates of ranked-choice voting also claim that the system will yield better candidates. The theory is that candidates need to be everybody’s second choice, so they’ll stop attacking one another and start acting like well-adjusted adults in the hopes that they will be chosen in later rounds by second-choicers. 

But this rosy scenario certainly isn’t what we’ve seen in Maine or Alaska, nor in the dozens of municipalities where RCV is used. Modern campaigns do not stop being negative because of a new ballot format. They become negative in different ways. Under RCV, the most predictable shift is that candidates outsource the ugliness to third-party groups. Candidates grin for the cameras, strike a positive tone, and let unaccountable allies do the dirty work. It’s the politics of two-faced respectability: Politicians purport to be “above the fray” while super PACs drop attack ads on their opponents.

That doesn’t reduce polarization. Indeed, it does quite the opposite. It creates a more cynical system in which negativity becomes both more frequent and less accountable. It doesn’t make candidates better. It makes them slicker.

Ranked-choice voting also creates confusion and hurts transparency come Election Day. When opponents of the system raise concerns about its complexity, they’re often told to stop whining: “You just rank the candidates. What’s so hard?” But that’s not the full story. 

In a traditional winner-take-all election, you have one main opportunity to screw up your selection as you are asked a single question (who do you want to vote for?) to answer. In ranked-choice elections, you have several. You could “overvote” by voting for too many candidates in any single round. Or you could skip rankings round by round. There is confusion among several voters about whether you can “vote again” for your first choice in later rounds, as well as uncertainty over whether ranking fewer candidates is “wasting” your vote.

In Maine, we’ve seen the evidence of this confusion in the form of canceled or exhausted ballots—not because voters are stupid, but because the system is not intuitive in practice. And these ambiguities give an inordinate amount of power to bureaucrats. Ranked-choice voting isn’t just “rank candidates and count.” It requires administrative decisions—such as how to treat skipped rankings and eliminate candidates—that can materially affect results.

These challenges would be even more acute if states adopted ranked-choice voting in presidential primaries, which often have large fields of candidates vying for votes. In 2016, 17 candidates entered the Republican primary for president; in 2020, the Democratic field topped 20. Can anyone authentically rank their fifth or sixth choice, let alone their 13^th and 14^th? Most voters can’t, and yet we pretend that later-round “preferences” reflect meaningful consent.

Take Portland, for example. It was the first city in Maine to experiment with RCV in its competitive 2011 mayoral race, which saw 15 candidates run and required 15 rounds of voting to declare a winner. Not only did Portland lose votes every round, it also re-tabulated choices that no voter could realistically make.

RCV defenders will tell you the system is more representative because it captures more preferences. But it can also empower the political extremes by giving second (or third) life to radical candidates, allowing them to overcome other candidates with broad first-preference support.

In a 2021 citywide election in Portland, a moderate and well-respected small-business owner ran on behalf of “everyday Portlanders,” promising to bring a reasonable voice to the charter commission. His campaign resonated with voters, and after the first round he was in second place with 21 percent of the vote. But because the election used a ranked-choice system, the final tabulation produced a more ideologically one-sided outcome: The reasonable business owner was eliminated, and an activist candidate who started with just 342 votes—4.2 percent of the vote—ended up winning a seat after nine rounds of re-tabulations. This kind of outcome is the opposite of what ranked-choice voting was supposed to achieve.

Let’s say the quiet part out loud: Many Americans today mistrust our electoral systems. Whether you view that mistrust as misguided or justified, when people view election results as inherently untrustworthy, it threatens the functioning of the republic.

In this environment, adopting a system that routinely produces delays and “tabulations” most voters don’t understand is reckless. Complexity adds failure points—and failure points create opportunities for public doubt.

Maine has already experienced embarrassing tabulation issues—like the 2020 situation in which 13,000 ballots were missing from the initial count due to processing and upload problems. Officials caught the error, disclosed it, and fixed it. Good. But that’s the point: A more complex process creates more chances for error, and more chances for the public to assume the worst.

So where does this leave us? RCV was marketed as a reform that would deliver majority winners, reduce negativity, and improve our politics. In practice, the flowery rhetoric bears no resemblance to reality. If society decides plurality wins are unacceptable, the honest solution is a real run-off: a clean second election where voters can reset, re-evaluate, and participate in the same head-to-head comparison—without exhausted ballots, algorithmic redistributions, or semantic games about what “majority” means.

Elections are already chaotic enough. Bolting ranked-choice voting onto that structure doesn’t “improve” anything. It adds a new layer of confusion and tells voters it’s making their experience better.

Maine’s experience should serve as a national cautionary tale—and it may already be doing so. In 2024, voters in six states—Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon—defeated attempts to adopt ranked-choice voting. Another state, Missouri, went further by approving a constitutional amendment prohibiting RCV and requiring plurality primary elections.

In the end, ranked-choice voting has given us math gimmicks, slicker negativity, more discretionary power for bureaucrats, slower counting, and less trust. It has failed.