AllStances™: Should the U.S. Reform Its Voting Methods?

While some voters argue the current voting system (a mixed system, but predominantly plurality voting method) is the best, others have called for major election reforms, including entirely new voting methods like ranked choice voting, Condorcet method, and STAR voting. They point to chronically low voter participation, growing contempt for both parties, dwindling trust in government, and unclear benefits post-election as reasons to explore a different voting method, arguing it would provide fairer elections and increase voter confidence. Others argue different methods would simply add complexity and expense.

AllSides explores multiple stances and perspectives on voting reform and alternative voting methods. Jump to a glossary of terms or skip to the stances.

Are we missing a stance or perspective? Email us!
See a related AllStances exploring whether voter fraud or voter suppression is a bigger issue.

Background

Most major elections in the United States use the plurality voting method. Plurality voting is also known as “first past the post,” and is when the candidate with the most votes is elected.

For U.S. presidential elections, a candidate must receive a majority (270) of the electoral votes from the Electoral College. The Electoral College was established in the U.S. Constitution as a compromise between those that wanted to elect the president by congressional vote, and those that wanted to elect the president by popular vote. The number of electors in a state is determined by the combined number of the state’s members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. Presidential candidates who receive the most votes in each state win all of the electoral votes for that state.

The number of bills introduced in the state legislature pertaining to alternative voting methods has surged in recent years. Some voters argue that different methods will increase voter turnout, discourage polarization and negative campaign strategies, and better reflect the will of voters.

Some of the most commonly cited alternative methods are defined below.

Stance 1: Keep our current system of plurality voting

Core Argument: Plurality voting is simple and stable; it is the oldest and most common method of voting in the United States. The candidate with the highest number of votes wins, with no requirement to receive a majority.

Our current system is easily understood by voters and changing it will lead to confusion.
Plurality voting is the simplest to tabulate.
This method affords confidence because there is always a winner (except in rare circumstances where two nominees receive the same specific number of votes).
Can also be used in multi-member electoral areas where voters are asked to vote for as many candidates as there are vacancies
This system creates a one-party, strong government: Usually one party wins the election, which means the winning party can put their plan into action.

Stance 2: Switch to Ranked Choice Voting

Core Argument: Ranked Choice Voting, also known as “instant runoff voting,” is when voters rank candidates in order of preference. This allows voters to fully express their preferences without the risk of “wasting” their vote, or “splitting the vote” in such a way that a less desirable candidate wins.

Solves the issues of the “wasted vote” and “vote splitting” because if their first choice is disqualified in the first round, their vote goes to their second choice candidate.
Discourages negative campaigning (attack ads, mud-sling, etc.) because candidates also compete for second-choice voters from their opponents supporters.
More diverse racial representation due to lowering the barrier to entry for non-incumbent candidates.
Increases the chances smaller parties can win.
Discourages “strategic voting” (casting a vote against a candidate rather than in favor of someone).
Saves money by eliminating the need for expensive preliminary elections and runoffs.
Can increase voter turnout by consolidating primary and runoff elections into a single higher-turnout general election.
Voters can still choose to vote for only one candidate.

Stance 3: Use Proportional Ranked Choice Voting for Elections

Core Argument: =Proportional Ranked Choice Voting has all the same benefits of Ranked Choice voting, with the added benefit of ending “winner-take-all-politics.” Voters rank candidates in order of preference, but instead of one candidate winning with a majority of votes, several candidates win with smaller shares, better representing the district.

Gives each ballot the greatest possible impact.
Gives more power and representation to minority populations.
Voters don’t have to worry about “wasting their vote” or “vote-splitting” because if their first choice is disqualified in the first round, their vote goes to their second choice candidate.
Discourages negative campaigning (attack ads, mud-sling, etc.) because candidates also compete for second-choice voters from their opponents supporters.
More diverse racial representation due to lowering the barrier to entry for non-incumbent candidates.
Increases the chances smaller parties can win.
Discourages “strategic voting” (casting a vote against a candidate rather than in favor of someone).
Saves money by eliminating the need for expensive preliminary elections and runoffs.
Can increase voter turnout by consolidating primary and runoff elections into a single higher-turnout general election.
Voters can still choose to vote for only one candidate.

Stance 4: Use the Condorcet Method with Ranked Choice for Elections

Core Argument: The Condorcet Method, while complex, delivers the election results that most accurately reflect the will of the voters. A candidate wins the election only when the majority of voters prefer a candidate to each other candidate, when compared to each other one at a time during tabulation. If no candidate wins every head-to-head election, a second vote may be required. (This is called the Condorcet paradox.) This method is used extensively in political and private organizations but is not currently used in government elections anywhere in the world.

The Condorcet Method most accurately reflects the will of the people because it is a consensus.
Resists strategic voting by requiring that each candidate win in a head-to-head election against every other candidate.
Condorcet ballots are expressive and allow voters to cast a nuanced ballot.
Unlike other ranked choice methods which may ignore or redistribute some votes, Condorcet counts all rankings, on all ballots.
This method has a track record for real-world implementation and rigorous academic research.

Stance 5: Use the STAR Method for Elections

CORE ARGUMENT: STAR (“score then automatic runoff”) is the best of all other voting methods, while avoiding many of the pitfalls. Voters assign candidates a score from 0 (worst) to 5 (best). Equal scores indicate no preference. Ballots are first tallied in a scoring round. The top two candidates are then scored head-to-head, and your vote goes to the finalist you prefer.

STAR Method is easily understood by voters.
STAR ballots are expressive and allow voters to cast a nuanced ballot.
Voters don’t have to worry about “wasting their vote” or “vote splitting” because if their first choice is disqualified in the first round, their vote goes to their second choice candidate.
Discourages negative campaigning by allowing voters to support multiple candidates, so there is no reason for a party to become divided if it has more than one popular candidate.
Increases the chances smaller parties can win.
Discourages strategic voting (casting a vote against a candidate rather than in favor of someone).
Saves money by eliminating the need for expensive preliminary elections and runoffs.
Can increase voter turnout by consolidating primary and runoff elections into a single higher-turnout general election.
Voters can still choose to vote for only one candidate.
Every voter has the same number of votes, unlike other ranked choice methods which may redistribute and recount some votes.

Glossary of Terms

Tactical / Strategic Voting - When a voter casts a vote for someone other than their preference to prevent (what they perceive as) a worse outcome

Vote Splitting - When the distribution of votes in an election with two similar candidates is such that neither can win, increasing the likelihood a different, less popular candidate is elected.

Spoiler Candidate - A negative term used to describe the non-winning candidate that is thought to influence the result of the election.

Nonpartisan organization - A label some organizations apply to themselves when they do not wish to be affiliated with a particular political party or movement (Note: this does not mean they are not ideological)

Gerrymandering - The manipulation of political electoral boundaries with the intent to favor one political party or group

Automatic / Instant runoff - Used in ranked voting to elect the majority choice

Majority Vote - When the candidate that wins more than half of the vote is elected

Plurality Vote - When the candidate that polls more than any other candidate is elected

Proportional Representation - A system in which parties gain seats in proportion to the number of votes cast for them

Non-transferable vote - One vote in a plurality system

Transferable vote - One vote used in ranked methods that may be transferred to a candidate other than the voters’ first choice

Voting Reform Playlist on YouTube

Are we missing a stance or perspective? Email us!

Developed by:

Project Manager and Executive Assistant Krystal Woodworth

AllSides Editor-in-chief Henry A. Brechter (Center bias)

Reviewed by:

Content Designer Joseph Ratliff (Lean Left bias)

Julie Mastrine, Director of Marketing and Media Bias Ratings (Lean Right bias)