Ranked choice voting (RCV) is a family of systems where voters rank candidates (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.), and those rankings are used to simulate runoffs so the winner has broader support than under simple plurality.[1][2]

How ranked choice voting works

Where RCV is used in the U.S.

What the data show: turnout, satisfaction, campaigns

The empirical record is still developing and often context‑specific, but some patterns have emerged.

Turnout

• Comparative studies of RCV vs. plurality in U.S. city elections find mixed but generally modest effects on turnout: sometimes slightly higher, sometimes neutral, rarely dramatically lower once voters have experience.[13][14][2]
• One FairVote synthesis finds that in many RCV city elections, turnout in the decisive RCV election is higher than in the low‑turnout runoffs they replaced, but lower than in high‑salience November general elections; causality is hard to isolate from timing and contest competitiveness.[15][14]

Voter understanding and satisfaction

• Experimental work and surveys (lab and field) find that RCV ballots are perceived as slightly less simple than single‑choice ballots, but not dramatically more confusing for most voters once basic instructions are provided.[16][13]
• A 2025 experimental study reports that RCV treatments increased satisfaction with election outcomes and perceived fairness, even though respondents rated the method itself a bit less satisfying than “pick one” ballots; people felt their preferences were captured better.[16]
• Survey research across RCV cities finds voters in RCV jurisdictions more likely to say campaigns are positive and to report being “very satisfied” with how local campaigns were conducted; they were about half as likely to say they were “not at all satisfied.”[17]

Campaign tone, representation, and outcomes

• Multi‑city survey work finds voters in RCV cities report less negative campaigning and more candidates asking for second‑choice support, consistent with incentives to avoid alienating opponents’ supporters.[6][17]
• Some case studies (e.g., San Francisco, Minneapolis) link RCV to more diverse candidate fields and elected officials—particularly more women and candidates of color—though these effects often interact with local political culture and candidate recruitment.[14][6]
• Analytic work and legal scholarship argue that by requiring broader support to win, RCV can reduce the likelihood of “spoiler” dynamics and encourage more consensus‑oriented candidates, with plausible but still limited direct evidence for depolarization so far.[18][2][13]

Democratic implications: what it means for elections and democracy

Framed in terms of democratic indicators:

• Free and fair elections / integrity
  • RCV is fully compatible with high‑integrity administration; it’s used in jurisdictions with strong election infrastructure, though it requires more sophisticated counting and auditing procedures.[2][13]
  • The main integrity concerns center on complexity (risk of admin or ballot‑design errors) rather than on inherent unfairness; audits and clear ballot design mitigate this.[4][12]
• Turnout and participation
  • Evidence to date suggests small, context‑dependent turnout effects: where RCV replaces low‑salience runoffs, it often improves total participation; where it replaces a single high‑salience round, effects are modest.[15][14]
  • Because RCV can give supporters of minor candidates a more meaningful role in final outcomes, it may help sustain engagement among voters who feel alienated in plurality systems, though this remains more theorized than fully quantified.[13][2]