At its core, ranked choice voting (RCV) is simple: instead of picking just one candidate, you rank them in order of preference—first, second, third, and so on. If no candidate gets a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed based on the next preference. This process continues until someone secures a majority. It’s like an automatic runoff, but without the cost and hassle of holding another election.

Why does this matter? Because First Past the Post (FPTP) systems often produce winners who lack majority support. In multi-candidate races, someone can win with as little as 30% of the vote, meaning 70% of voters preferred someone else. In 2010, Maine’s gubernatorial race was won with just 37.6% of the vote, electing Paul LePage, a polarizing figure who likely wouldn’t have prevailed under RCV. Frustrated by this and subsequent elections, Maine became the first U.S. state to adopt ranked choice voting for statewide elections in 2016.

RCV addresses several pathologies of traditional voting systems. First, it eliminates the “spoiler effect,” where third-party candidates are blamed for splitting the vote and “handing” the election to an undesirable candidate. Ralph Nader in 2000, Jill Stein in 2016—these names haunt progressives who believe their candidacies inadvertently helped elect Republican presidents. But this logic treats votes as property of major parties rather than expressions of individual preference. RCV restores voter autonomy: you can vote for your preferred candidate without fear of enabling your least preferred one.

Second, RCV reduces negative campaigning. In FPTP, candidates win by mobilizing their base and demonizing opponents. In RCV, candidates must appeal to a broader audience to secure second- and third-choice votes. This incentivizes coalition building and civility. A 2016 study by FairVote found that candidates in RCV races engaged in personal attacks less focused on issues more.

Third, RCV fosters political diversity. Under FPTP, voters are often trapped in a two-party system because third parties are seen as spoilers. This structural duopoly stifles new ideas and reinforces polarization. RCV levels the playing field, allowing alternative parties and independent candidates to compete on merit rather than electoral math. As political scientist Douglas Amy notes in Real Choices/New Voices, electoral reform is key to breaking the stranglehold of dominant parties.

Internationally, RCV isn’t radical—it’s routine. Australia has used ranked choice voting (known there as “preferential voting”) for over a century in its House of Representatives. Ireland employs it for presidential elections. In both countries, RCV contributes to high voter turnout, vibrant multiparty systems, and governments that reflect the majority’s will. Even within the U.S., cities like San Francisco, Minneapolis, and New York City have adopted RCV, with positive results in voter satisfaction.

Critics argue that RCV is too complex for voters. But this underestimates the electorate. Voters rank preferences in everyday life—choosing favorite sports teams, movies, or ice cream flavors. In jurisdictions where RCV has been implemented, voter error rates are low, and public understanding improves with experience. As David Daley observes in Ratf**ked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America’s Democracy, the real complexity lies not in RCV itself but in overcoming the entrenched interests that benefit from the status quo.

Another critique is that RCV doesn’t guarantee proportional representation. True—but it’s a step in the right direction. While proportional representation addresses legislative bodies, RCV improves single-winner elections, making them more representative of majority preferences. Together, they form a robust framework for democratic reform.

RCV transforms voting from a defensive act (“How do I prevent the worst outcome?”) to an affirmative one (“Who do I genuinely support?”). This reduces voter cynicism and increases engagement. In places like Minneapolis, which adopted RCV in 2009, elections have seen increased turnout and greater diversity among candidates and officeholders.

RCV aligns with the Taoist principle of wu wei—action through natural flow rather than force. Traditional voting systems force binary choices, distorting the natural diversity of political thought. RCV allows preferences to emerge organically, fostering harmony by reflecting the spectrum of public will.

Consider the ecological metaphor: in monocultures, diversity is suppressed, leading to fragility. In biodiverse ecosystems, balance emerges naturally through interdependence. RCV fosters political biodiversity, allowing ideas to compete and coexist, enriching the democratic landscape.

Implementation is straightforward. Ballot design is intuitive: voters rank candidates. Counting requires simple software or, in smaller elections, manual tallies. The biggest barrier isn’t logistics—it’s political inertia. Incumbent parties resist reforms that threaten their dominance. But grassroots movements have succeeded where institutional reformers failed. Maine’s citizen-led initiative overcame legislative opposition, and Alaska passed a 2020 ballot measure adopting RCV for state and federal elections.

The future of democracy doesn’t lie in clinging to antiquated systems designed for a different era. It lies in evolving, adapting, and embracing methods that reflect the complexity of modern societies. RCV isn’t a cure-all, but it’s a powerful tool in the democratic toolkit—a way to make votes matter, voices heard, and outcomes fair.

Therefore, under Folklaw:

Ranked choice voting shall be implemented in all elections to ensure majority support for elected officials. Voters will rank candidates in order of preference, with instant runoff counting to determine winners. This system will apply to local, state, and national elections, including presidential contests.

Election officials will receive training to administer RCV effectively, and public education campaigns will promote voter understanding.