Kai Cruz

November 28, 2025

Ranked-choice voting has been a controversial topic for several years and has most famously been used in the New York City primary elections beginning in 2021. Maine and Alaska are currently the only two states to use this voting method for federal and state elections; many states, such as Massachusetts in 2020, have proposed ballot measures to adopt ranked-choice voting for state and/or federal elections, but the vast majority of these measures have failed to garner much support from their states. This year, the New York City primary highlighted ranked-choice voting as a method that could have some significant benefits as opposed to current plurality voting. Plurality voting, while simple to understand, creates unnecessary conflict between candidates of similar ideology and maintains the status quo of a two-party system, since a candidate represented by a large party is seen as more likely to win a relative majority. Ranked-choice voting allows for multiple candidates to have a fair shot, and reframes voting in a more democratic way for everyone involved—voters and candidates alike.

Ranked-choice voting, commonly abbreviated as RCV, is a form of voting that challenges traditional plurality (winner-take-all) elections. With RCV, voters must rank one candidate at minimum on their ballots. In the case of the New York City primary, voters were able to rank up to five candidates. If one candidate wins over fifty percent of the first-choice vote, they are automatically the winner; this is highly unlikely to be the case in any election. From there, the candidate with the fewest number of first choice rankings is eliminated, and the votes for that candidate go to the voter’s second ranked candidate. This proceeds until a candidate receives over fifty percent of the votes. The issue with plurality voting is that it can lead to results that don’t represent the majority of a voter base. A candidate in an election that uses plurality voting who receives less than fifty percent of the vote can still win, which is known as a relative majority. An extreme example of this was Massachusetts Representative Jake Auchincloss, who was able to win the fourth district congressional seat with a mere 22.4 percent of votes [1]. Another possible outcome of these elections could result from vote-splitting, where similar candidates are voted equally by supporters of both and a less popular candidate ends up rising past their votes to win the election. An alternative outcome is referred to as a spoiler, in which a candidate with slim chances of winning draws enough votes away from a major candidate, and a third-party candidate is able to win. “If you vote for a less popular candidate in a plurality election, your vote is irrelevant, and, what’s worse, you run the risk of contributing to a spoiler.” [2]. Both of these outcomes lead to the top candidate losing the election. Since 2021, however, New York City has been using RCV in its primary elections to try and avoid these outcomes altogether. 

At the start of the NYC Democratic primary race, a familiar face in the city announced his run for mayor of New York City. Andrew Cuomo, former governor of New York and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under the Clinton Administration, was the favorite to win the election. According to the Manhattan Institute, Cuomo held a lead in polls a week before primary voting actually began [3]. But the young challenger, Zohran Mamdani, quickly rose in popularity by creative campaigning and appeals to the diverse population of New York City. While Mamdani’s campaign strategy and proposed policies may have created a strong voter base for the Democratic socialist, what really helped Mamdani’s success in winning the primary was having voting as ranked-choice ballots for the election. From R Street Institute: “Rather than shape who won, RCV helped shape how Mamdani won.” [4]. In a winner-take-all election, negativity against all other candidates is encouraged, increasing opposition between political opponents who may still be from the same party. RCV, on the other hand, encourages cross-endorsing candidates with similar platforms. This benefits both candidates: if both are ranked first or second, the candidate between the two who is not eliminated will get the other’s votes. In Mamdani’s case, his cross-endorsement of the Jewish NYC comptroller, Brad Lander, allowed progressive voters to comfortably choose between the two. However, RCV does not entirely erase any hostility from these campaigns: Mamdani, Lander, and a few others all advised voters to not rank Andrew Cuomo at all. The DREAM campaign group—Don’t Rank Evil Andrew for Mayor—described its messaging with RCV as “key in Cuomo’s downfall” and turned “what could have been a confusing ranking strategy into a popular mass message.” [5]. Another failure on Cuomo’s campaigning end was his choice to not cross-endorse any other candidates, even though the format of ranked-choice voting encourages this in order to secure additional non-first choice votes in the event of multiple rounds. Two minor candidates in the primary who endorsed Cuomo only totaled about 12,000 additional votes for him, while Mamdani received close to 100,000 additional second-choice votes, part of his 12 percent victory margin over the former governor. Voter turnout was a historic high in NYC, especially for a primary, because voters do not feel like their votes are being wasted and they do not feel forced to vote for a candidate who they don’t actually align with—in fact, around 8.3 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in the primary, making this the highest primary voter turnout since 1989 [6].

Critics of ranked-choice voting typically emphasize that the counting of votes and distribution of an eliminated candidate’s votes to the next ranked candidate can make the process much more lengthy. Having more candidates run and allowing the possibility of ranking up to five of them naturally increases the amount of research being done on said candidates and takes more time for voters to decide if and/or how they want to fill their ballot. When it comes to calculating the winner of an election using RCV, the possibility of multiple rounds may extend the vote distribution and counting across multiple days. Some also cite the issues with the computer system used to count the votes, as there was an error in 2021 where almost 20,000 test ballots were entered into the real voting pool, and this delayed the true election results. News stations and reporters complain that ranked-choice voting makes it more difficult for them to accurately predict election results and inform voters as quickly as possible [7]. However, none of these hypothetical drawbacks necessarily pose any real issues to democracy or the voting process. In fact, most voters who have experienced voting with this method are in support of keeping it: 81 percent of voters who took an exit poll said that they have a solid understanding of RCV, and the majority wanted to keep it implemented. The New York Times writes that “[r]oughly three-fourths of voters said they wanted to keep or expand ranked-choice voting.” [8]. Yet, although RCV doesn’t pose any democratic issues, many propositions or ballot initiatives in states where RCV is not already used are rejected by the general public. A specific example of this would be during the 2020 election cycle, where Massachusetts Question Two asked voters to choose to implement ranked-choice voting for “primary and general elections for state executive officials, state legislators, federal congressional and senate seats.” [9]. While the vote was somewhat close—1,549,919 or 45 percent of voters chose YES—Massachusetts did not implement RCV, as there were 1,877,447 NO votes, around 55 percent of the vote, making it the majority [10].

Opponents argue that Boston should be cautious about adopting ranked choice voting because past debates in Massachusetts show that many voters find the system confusing and overly complex. During the 2020 statewide RCV ballot measure, Gov. Charlie Baker warned that adding “an additional layer of complication for both voters and election officials” could undermine turnout and delay results, especially “at a time when we need to be promoting turnout and making it easier for voters to cast their ballots.” [11]. Secretary of State Bill Galvin echoed this concern, explaining that although the idea behind RCV “is a reasonable idea, it’s complex, and many voters didn’t really grasp what it would mean for them.” [12]. Critics also argue that the tabulation process itself feels opaque, with one analyst describing RCV as “putting your ballot in a paper shredder and hoping democracy miraculously reassembles itself inside the black box of tabulation” [13]. These worries are reinforced by the fact that Massachusetts voters have rejected RCV before, including in highly Democratic cities like Worcester and Springfield, suggesting that confusion and skepticism extend beyond partisan lines [14]. Together, these critiques suggest that Boston may be moving forward with a voting system that many residents, and even experienced policymakers, do not yet fully understand, raising concerns about voter confidence and the practicality of implementing RCV at the city level.

However, this isn’t the last that Massachusetts has seen of RCV. Recently, Boston mayor Michelle Wu has spoken about the future of RCV in the city. In the 2020 election, 65 percent of Boston voters chose YES in support of the measure that would implement ranked-choice voting in Massachusetts. It is possible that the city will see another ballot measure for residents to vote on in the near future. “In a major milestone from…May [2025], Boston City Council voted eight to four to advance a Home Rule Petition to implement RCV in Boston’s elections.” [15]. Over 60 percent of Boston residents voted for ranked-choice voting in 2020, while over 50 percent statewide opposed implementing RCV for state and federal elections. The group behind this petition, Ranked Choice Boston, uses the empanada exercise to help everyday citizens understand what they’re voting for. To explain: “Beef empanadas were [one participant’s] first choice, and it was the flavor that ultimately won — but not because it received more than 50 [percent] of the votes in the first round. Rather, it was because many people ranked beef empanadas as their second favorite. Those votes end up getting counted towards the overall winner after the empanada that receives the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated and, on those ballots, votes are tabulated from the second choice.” [16]. But the initiative being approved by the mayor doesn’t mean much yet. The coalition that is Ranked Choice Boston says, “If the city’s government ultimately opted to change the voting system, it would need permission from the state’s Legislature, possibly by a home-rule petition. The coalition will also be joining other municipalities beyond Boston that are petitioning the state Legislature for the ability to opt into ranked choice voting if they so choose.” [17].

Ranked-choice voting does not solve all the problems that America still faces with voting, and most voters are aware of this. However, this does not make plurality voting the better option simply because it’s well-established, easy to understand, and remains the status quo. Vote-splitting and spoiler elections are very real outcomes and don’t truly represent the majority of American citizens. The fact that plurality voting perpetuates the use of a two-party system makes it more difficult for Americans to truly feel represented by the candidate they vote for. Ranked-choice voting provides a way for voters to feel as though they are not wasting their time or that they are being forced to vote for a candidate they don’t identify strongly with. The best strategies for a pro-RCV campaign in an area like Boston is exposure and education. If more cities and their residents see what New York City has done with their primary, or how Maine and Alaska have implemented RCV in their elections, perhaps it is possible that ranked-choice voting will make its way across the entire country.

Image Credits: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zohran_Mamdani_at_the_Resist_Fascism_Rally_in_Bryant_Park_on_Oct_27th_2024.jpg

Works Cited

[1] Volić, Ismar. 2025. “Ranked choice voting in NYC showed us what elections could look like.” WBUR. https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2025/07/16/ranked-choice-voting-new-york-mayor-boston-zohran-mamdani-ismar-volic.

[2] Volić, Ismar. 2025. “Ranked choice voting in NYC showed us what elections could look like.” WBUR. https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2025/07/16/ranked-choice-voting-new-york-mayor-boston-zohran-mamdani-ismar-volic.

[3] Madison, Jonathan. 2025. “NYC and RCV: Changing Behavior, Not Outcomes.” R Street. https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/nyc-and-rcv-changing-behavior-not-outcomes/.

[4] Madison, Jonathan. 2025. “NYC and RCV: Changing Behavior, Not Outcomes.” R Street. https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/nyc-and-rcv-changing-behavior-not-outcomes/.

[5] Fitzsimmons, Emma G. 2025. “New Yorkers Embraced Ranked-Choice Voting. Mamdani’s Win Proves It.” The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/01/nyregion/ranked-choice-voting-nyc-mayor.html.

[6] Reisman, Avram. 2025. “Ranked choice voting would protect voter choice in New York City mayoral election.” FairVote. https://fairvote.org/ranked-choice-voting-would-protect-voter-choice-in-new-york-city-mayoral-election/.

[7] Caruso, David B. 2025. “NYC’s ranked choice voting explained.” AP News. https://apnews.com/article/nyc-ranked-choice-voting-explained-bdf80be2a079c8573b4571adfc6f4015.

[8] Fitzsimmons, Emma G. 2025. “New Yorkers Embraced Ranked-Choice Voting. Mamdani’s Win Proves It.” The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/01/nyregion/ranked-choice-voting-nyc-mayor.html.

[9] Ballotpedia. 2020. “Massachusetts Question 2, Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2020).” Ballotpedia. https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_2,_Ranked-Choice_Voting_Initiative_(2020).

[10] Ballotpedia. 2020. “Massachusetts Question 2, Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2020).” Ballotpedia. https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_2,_Ranked-Choice_Voting_Initiative_(2020).

[11] Lennan, Katie. 2020. “Baker, Polito Won’t Be Voting In Favor Of Ranked-Choice Voting.” WBUR. https://www.wbur.org/news/2020/10/27/baker-polito-question-two-ranked-choice-voting.

[12] DeCosta-Klipa, Nik. 2020. “What went wrong for ranked choice voting in Massachusetts?” Boston.com. https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2020/11/05/massachusetts-question-2-ranked-choice-voting-what-went-wrong/.

[13] Ebs, Dylan. 2025. “How ranked choice voting works: A guide ahead of New York City’s primary.” NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/ranked-choice-voting-works-guide-ahead-new-york-citys-primary-rcna212784.

[14] DeCosta-Klipa, Nik. 2020. “What went wrong for ranked choice voting in Massachusetts?” Boston.com. https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2020/11/05/massachusetts-question-2-ranked-choice-voting-what-went-wrong/.

[15] Volić, Ismar. 2025. “Ranked choice voting in NYC showed us what elections could look like.” WBUR. https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2025/07/16/ranked-choice-voting-new-york-mayor-boston-zohran-mamdani-ismar-volic.

[16] Loss, Hannah. 2024. “New coalition wants Boston to give ranked choice voting another shot.” WGBH. https://www.wgbh.org/news/local/2024-02-22/new-coalition-wants-boston-to-give-ranked-choice-voting-another-shot.

[17] Loss, Hannah. 2024. “New coalition wants Boston to give ranked choice voting another shot.” WGBH. https://www.wgbh.org/news/local/2024-02-22/new-coalition-wants-boston-to-give-ranked-choice-voting-another-shot.