The future of the instant runoff election reform

American politics is facing a challenging period marked by polarized elections, intense candidate rhetoric, and increasingly extreme leadership. In this situation, it is important to move toward electoral reforms that encourage more moderate candidates and enable politicians to build majority coalitions that address important issues facing the country.

In this paper, I examine ranked-choice voting (also known as instant runoffs) to see how it affects campaign discourse and election outcomes. In 2022, when that reform was in effect in several jurisdictions, the reform worked very much like its proponents advertised. It enabled more centrist candidates, more civil campaigns, and outcomes that were more moderate in nature.

Yet in 2024, voters in most places rejected the reform when asked to approve its adoption. States where it was on the ballot either opposed the proposal outright or supported prohibitions on adopting the measure. As found in post-election exit polls, there were different rationales in various places, but in general, opponents claimed instant runoffs were too complicated, voters would be confused by the electoral mechanism, and the reform violated traditional voting practices of “one person, one vote.”

There are several lessons to be learned from this year’s results. First, the language and approach to reform matters. Voters seem to find the terminology of ranked-choice voting complicated, while phrases like “instant runoffs” tend to be clearer and easier to explain. As election reform continues to move forward, advocates should focus on using understandable language and explaining the reform in ways that resonate with ordinary people.

Second, funding mechanisms play a crucial role, as anti-reform advocates used the millions raised by pro-reform groups against election reform itself, claiming large money was skewing the reform process. In most states, pro-instant runoff advocates had a spending advantage over opponents. Yet that fundraising advantage became a liability when anti-reform leaders used the large amount of money raised as a target to attack the reform itself. In the future, it may be better to focus on grassroots organizing funded by a range of donors rather than out-of-state funding from large donors.

Third, instant runoffs this year became enmeshed in partisan politics with party organizations in various states opposing the reform. In Republican-dominated states, this was the GOP, while in Democratic-dominated places, the Democratic Party opposed the reform. From a voter standpoint, it should be considered a strength of the reform that partisans on either side fear the shift would water down their vote-getting power. But since party organizations are strong and in a position to block reform when it goes on the ballot, reformers need to figure out ways during a polarized time period to deal with partisan opposition.

Finally, the open primary reform where Independents could vote in the Republican or Democratic Party primaries proved much more popular than instant runoffs themselves. That situation suggests reform advocates should think about how to package different types of reforms and focus on proposals that resonate with ordinary voters such as open primaries. In Montana, for example, when the two proposals were separated into different ballot measures, open primaries gained 49% of the vote while instant runoffs only won 40%. Election night exit polling also showed greater public support for open primaries as opposed to ranked-choice voting.

American elections are plagued by problems related to extremism, polarization, and hyper-partisanship.¹ Over the course of several decades, a number of candidates and engaged people have become radicalized politically and moved either toward the left or right.² Many see the opposition as enemies who are to be defeated as opposed to people having a different point of view with whom one should negotiate. In this situation, acute differences in the views of Republicans and Democrats make it difficult for leaders to compromise and address pressing policy problems facing the United States.³

In legislative races, where primaries often are the decisive election, voters face choices that are more liberal or conservative than themselves. Combined with a low voter turnout of around 20% in most legislative primary elections, more extreme political viewpoints sometimes triumph over more moderate individuals who may be closer to the views of the district.⁴ Extreme candidates can win primaries with a crowded field of candidates by getting a relatively low percentage of the vote. That outcome gives voters in the general election choices between very liberal and very conservative candidates, even if voters themselves have more moderate viewpoints. Extreme general election choices alienate voters and makes them think the electoral process does not provide options that represent their point of view.

As an illustration, a 2024 New York Times/Siena College poll found that 45% of U.S. adults believe American democracy is not doing a good job representing the people, compared to 49% that think it is.⁵ The political conundrum of polarized choices and weak representation can affect candidate recruitment, political participation, campaign discourse, and trust in elected officials. The United States has reached a situation where only 7% of the electorate has chosen 87% of the House of Representatives.⁶ Such weak representation encourages candidates who are more extreme, leads to highly partisan discourse, and undermines long-term trust in candidates and policymakers.

The poor quality of American elections has ramifications for the ability of the political system to address policy problems supported by large majorities of the population. The decline of moderate officeholders makes it difficult to address major policy issues even where there are substantial percentages in favor of policy action in the areas of, for example, reproductive rights, climate change, and gun safety.

As shown in Table 1, even on seemingly controversial issues such as climate change, abortion, and guns, there are large majorities in support of concrete policy actions. Seventy-four percent believe the U.S. should participate in international efforts to reduce the effects of climate change.⁷ Sixty-seven percent favor the development of alternative energy sources over fossil fuel energy.⁸ Sixty-two percent believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.⁹ Sixty-one percent think it is too easy to legally obtain a gun.¹⁰

Even with substantial public majorities, the collapse of the political center in a polarized era makes it hard for officeholders to negotiate differences and move legislation.¹¹ Extreme policymakers block compromise and tell their supporters that negotiation is a sellout of important political principles. The resulting polarization makes it difficult to bring different sides together and move forward on key policy areas. The failure to address important questions and take actions favored by large numbers of people erodes public confidence in government and makes people cynical about the political process.¹²

To deal with problems of American elections and public policy, we need meaningful reforms that improve governance and facilitate meaningful problem-solving on the part of elected officials. The way electoral choices get structured matters for public policymaking. There needs to be changes that enable majority coalitions to develop and help policymakers address important problems.¹³

There are different types of reforms that have been implemented in recent years: open primaries, top two challengers regardless of party, and ranked-choice voting, also known as instant runoffs, among the top four or five candidates. Open primaries allow Independents to cast ballots either in Republican or Democratic primaries. The top two system has all Republican, Democratic, and other party candidates competing in one primary with the top two finishers facing one another in a general election. Ranked-choice voting allows people to rank order their preferences among the top four or five candidates. Votes get tabulated in sequence by incorporating second, third, or fourth preferences until someone reaches a majority of votes.

The rationale behind this reform is that such an electoral system would encourage greater moderation by providing a means for someone’s second or third place preferences to do well in the final vote tabulation. Someone may not win a majority of votes as the top choice, but can do well by being people’s second or third preference. Instant runoffs incorporate that voter information and ensure that the winner has majority support from the electorate.¹⁴ Several courts have ruled that this campaign reform is constitutional and does not dilute the views of individual voters.¹⁵

Instant runoffs have been implemented in Alaskan races for governor, Senate, and House through final four voting on a nonpartisan basis. The Maine legislation has enacted it for future statewide elections and Hawaii has done so for special congressional elections. At the local level, the reform has been adopted in New York City, San Francisco, Oakland, Seattle, Salt Lake City, Portland, Oregon, and Cambridge, Massachusetts, among other places.

The results have been promising from the standpoint of electoral reformers. The changes have worked as advertised in that moderate candidates with cross-party appeal did well and the campaign discussions were seen as more constructive and more focused on problem-solving than typically is the case. Far-right and far-left candidates did not fare very well, in general.

In Alaska in 2022, for example, Republican Lisa Murkowski (R-Ala.) won her Senate reelection bid with majority support. She faced Kelly Tshibaka, a hard-right opponent backed by former President Donald Trump, and was the type of moderate Republican who would lose to a more conservative challenger in a standard election.¹⁶

Yet that year, Murkowski was endorsed by several Democrats, presented herself as someone who could work with Republicans and Democrats, and argued she knew how to address major policy problems and get things done. She got 43.4% of the vote in the first round, compared to 42.6% for Tshibaka and 10.4% for Democrat Pat Chesbro. But when the third-place candidate was eliminated and second-place preferences were incorporated in the vote, she beat Tshibaka by 53.7% to 46.3%, retaining her office.¹⁷

The same was true in the Alaska at-large congressional race of Rep. Mary Peltola (D-Ala.). She campaigned as a bipartisan candidate who had worked across the political spectrum in the state legislature and promised to operate the same way in Congress. Although a Democrat, she presented herself as a “Blue Dog” candidate who was more moderate than the typical Democrat and willing to oppose her party if it went too far to the left. In the first round, she got 39.7% of the vote, compared to 30.9% for Republican Sarah Palin and 27.8% for Republican Nick Begich. Once Begich was eliminated and second-place choices were incorporated in the vote, Peltola beat Palin by 51.5% to 48.5%.¹⁸

The moderation seen during the election campaign carried over into actual governance. An analysis of policymaking following the 2022 election found that “winners under the new electoral system were more moderate and responsible than under the old system.”¹⁹ There were no negative consequences in terms of campaign spending and indeed, the 2022 elections actually saw an increase in small donors in the overall campaign, indicating a broadening of the contributor pool.²⁰ There furthermore was evidence that campaigning in these congressional elections was “more civil and less polarized” than often is the case.²¹

In New York City, the 2021 mayoral election was won by Eric Adams, who was seen as the more moderate choice in an eight-person Democratic primary with lots of progressive candidates on the ballot. During the first round, he garnered 30.7% of the vote. It took eight rounds of ranked choice voting, but since he had significant support as people’s second, third, fourth, and fifth choice candidate, he won the primary with a 50.4% to 49.6% victory over Kathryn Garcia.²² He went on to win the general election over Curtis Silwa by 67% to 27.8%.²³

During that campaign, Adams positioned himself as a centrist candidate who was pro-police and could help the city’s working-class voters. He talked about his background as a former police officer and argued he was not part of the New York City elite. He complained about the “fancy candidates” who were running well to his political left and said they would not help those who required the greatest assistance.²⁴

In the 2024 San Francisco mayoral race between incumbent London Breed and Daniel Lurie, where instant runoffs were in place, the more moderate Lurie defeated Breed 55.3% to 44.7%. Voters were upset at the rise of crime and homelessness in the city and turned her out of office in an effort to improve governance and policymaking. Critics claimed the city’s politics had moved in a radical direction and yielded unfavorable results and that Lurie, who was heir to a Levi Strauss fortune, would do a better job.²⁵

As illustrated by these cases, the arguments of election reformers that instant runoffs would moderate campaign appeals and lead to the election of more moderate individuals has been borne out so far. In several cases, more centrist-oriented individuals beat very conservative opponents in the Republican Party and very liberal candidates on the Democratic side. Women and minority candidates did well, and voter participation was high. In Alaska, primary turnout was the third highest in the United States in 2022.²⁶

There is some evidence suggesting ranked-choice voting helps minority candidates and voters and does not provoke detrimental consequences. Andrea Benjamin and Barry Burden find that the election reform reduces racial polarization and helps minority candidates cut down on the problem of those individuals splitting the minority vote and thereby helping to elect white candidates. It also is associated with more civil campaigns and less polarized political rhetoric. They conclude that “communities of color have little to fear from FFV [Final-Five Voting]”.²⁷

There were a number of election reforms on the ballot in 2024.²⁸ Seven states plus Washington, D.C. had major election reform referenda: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and South Dakota — but nearly all those measures lost.²⁹

Colorado

On a 53.5% to 46.5% vote, Colorado rejected a referendum authorizing open primaries and an all-candidate primary with the top four candidates advancing to the general election. In that stage, an instant runoff would determine which individual got the majority. Reform supporters raised $15 million with support from Chevron and out-of-state billionaires, but that funding became a contentious campaign issue when “opponents argued the measure would give well-funded candidates an advantage and lead to voter confusion.”³⁰

The election results were surprising because an August 28 to September 1 poll by Colorado Voters First, which supported the ballot measure, found likely voters favored it by a 64% to 25% margin with 11% undecided.³¹ The election reform had substantial support across the political spectrum from many different types of voters. Yet during the subsequent campaign, the pro-reform forces lost nearly 20 percentage points, going from 64% to 46.5% support despite having a major fundraising advantage.

In examining what happened during the campaign, opponents noted in news stories the largely out-of-state funding and money from energy companies and used that argument to persuade voters they should be suspicious of reform advocates. The measure was opposed by the Colorado Democratic Party, and its chair Shad Murib said, “Proposition 131 would have sacrificed the safety and security of our election system for the whims of special interests and big corporations whose pay-to-play tactics would have flooded the state with even more dark money.”³² Despite having co-sponsored a national ranked-choice vote bill, Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) opposed the state measure and argued “we have been battered by a one-sided barrage of millions of dollars of TV advertisements to persuade us to abandon our current, world-class election system for an untested experiment.”³³

An exit poll of 600 voters conducted by the Mellman Group for the pro-reform group Unite America found support for the major reform provisions included in the ballot measure. For example, when asked about creating a new all-candidate primary election where every voter could vote for any candidate on the ballot for that office, 55% said they favored it while 37% opposed. Fifty-two percent said they favored a provision in which the four candidates for each office receiving the most votes in the primary election would advance to the general election, while 42% opposed it.

Yet in the same exit poll, 54% said they voted against the measure and 46% voted in favor of it, which is very close to the actual election result. There wasn’t a widespread familiarity with the measure as 56% said they had heard a great deal or some information about the ballot measure and 44% had not. There also was a very large last-minute voter decision-making process as 57% of voters said they made up their minds in the last week of the campaign.

It is not completely clear why people voted against a ballot measure when they favored its two major components: open primaries and ranked-choice voting. But an analysis of the no vote provides some insight into the voter rejection. When asked what was “one of the most important” or “very important” reasons for their no vote, the top reasons given were as follows: It makes voting too confusing (46%); it will unfairly give members outside of a political party the ability to determine that party’s nominee (41%); people will lose the principle of “one person, one vote” (38%); it will cause thousands of ballots from confused voters to be disqualified and thrown out (38%); it tries to impose a voting system from California on Colorado (37%); it is bankrolled by out-of-state billionaires (36%); and it is pushed by liberal Democrats who want more power in Colorado (36%).

Idaho

The reform measure lost in Idaho by 70% to 30%. It had a ballot providing for an all-candidate primary, with the top four individuals going to a general election and an instant runoff deciding the winner in that race. The Idaho Republican Party, Governor Brad Little, Attorney General Raul Labrador, and many GOP House members opposed the initiative, while the Idaho Education Association, Mormon Women for Ethical Government, and a number of former elected Republican officials supported the reform. The latter argued that closed GOP primaries disenfranchise 275,000 unaffiliated voters, which is more than one-quarter of the state’s registered voters (Democrats already have open primaries).³⁴

Ballot supporters raised $5.5 million for ads, town hall meetings, and voter outreach, while opponents spent around $420,000. Most current elected Republicans opposed the reform on grounds that “it’s just full of gamesmanship.” They worried it would harm the very conservative wing of the Republican Party, which included many of those who are in office right now.³⁵

A Mellman Group exit poll of 600 voters showed high visibility on the ballot measure. Eighty-eight percent said they had heard a great deal or some information about the referendum item. Most decided well in advance of Election Day as only 29% indicated they made up their minds in the last week of the campaign.

When asked why they voted no, Idaho voters cited the top reasons as follows: It will bring ranked choice voting to Idaho (74%); people will lose the principle of “one person, one vote” (65%); it will cost taxpayers millions of dollars (64%); it will make voting too confusing (59%); and it is pushed by liberal Democrats who want more power in Idaho (58%).

Montana

Montana had two referenda on the ballot that would reform election procedures. One would set up an all-candidate primary with the top four aspirants moving to a general election. It lost narrowly by 51% to 49%. A second ballot measure would create an instant runoff that would determine the victor of that stage. It lost on a 60% to 40% margin. While voters clearly distinguished the open primary from the ranked-choice voting change, opponents complained the reform measures would confuse voters and increase election uncertainty. State law currently prohibits the use of ranked-choice voting so the loss by that measure reaffirms the election status quo.³⁶

Republicans in that state devoted $3 million to defeating the ballot measures and ran ads saying “They have OPEN BORDERS. They want OPEN BATHROOMS. They need OPEN PRIMARIES.” That messaging neatly integrated the GOP’s stance on immigration, transgender issues, and election reform, and thereby helped Republicans torpedo ballot reform by linking it to controversial policy positions.³⁷

A Mellman Group exit poll of 600 voters found several reasons cited by those who voted against the top four primary vote-getters advancing to the general election: It tries to impose a voting system from California on Montana (55%); it has failed in places that have tried this system, and they are trying to repeal it (52%); it will unfairly give members outside of a political party the ability to determine that party’s nominee (52%); and it is pushed by liberal Democrats who want more power in Montana (50%).

Nevada

By a 53% to 47% vote, Nevada voters rejected balloting for an all-candidate primary with the top five advancing to a general election and having an instant runoff to decide who won that race (a reversal from the state’s support in 2022). Both major parties in the state rejected the reform with Republicans claiming it was “a California idea” and Democrats saying it was confusing to voters.³⁸ The latter spent over $12 million to defeat the reform and maintain the electoral status quo.³⁹

A Mellman Group exit poll of 600 voters revealed several reasons behind the no vote: It makes voting too confusing (62%); it will cause thousands of ballots from confused voters to be disqualified and thrown out (61%); it will bring ranked-choice voting to Nevada (58%); it will unfairly give members outside of a political party the ability to determine that party’s nominee (53%); and people will lose the “one person, one vote” principle (52%).

South Dakota

South Dakota had a referendum on an all-candidate primary with the top two individuals moving to a general election, but it was defeated by 66% to 34%.⁴⁰ Reform supporters had more than a two-to-one fundraising advantage over opponents yet were not able to persuade many people of the proposal’s merits. Voters said they worried about elections getting too complicated and did not want to support a major change in how elections operated.

A Mellman Group exit poll of 600 voters showed a number of reasons behind the no vote: It tries to impose a voting system from California on South Dakota (41%); it allows two candidates of the same party to run against each other in the general election (41%); it is bankrolled by out-of-state billionaires (39%); it is pushed by liberal Democrats who want more power in South Dakota (39%); and it will unfairly give members outside of a political party the ability to determine that party’s nominee (39%).

Oregon

Oregon held a ballot on ranked-choice voting, but it was defeated 58% to 42%. Supporters raised $9.4 million in favor of the proposition and groups such as the League of Women Voters, American Civil Liberties Union, and Urban League endorsed the measure. But a number of county clerks in the state opposed the measure and said it would “overburden their offices and cost millions to implement.” They complained election officials were not asked to comment when state legislators voted to put the reform on the ballot and felt their expertise was not respected.⁴¹

A Mellman Group exit poll of 600 voters found a number of reasons for the no vote: It will make voting too confusing (59%); people will lose the principle of “one person, one vote” (55%); it will cost taxpayers millions of dollars (44%); it will cause thousands of ballots from confused voters to be disqualified and thrown out (41%); and it makes elections less secure (40%).

Arizona

Arizona had two ballot measures requiring partisan primaries and then replacing party primaries with open contests. The first one (Proposition 133) lost by 58% to 42%, while the latter (Proposition 140) lost by 59% to 41%.⁴² The reform initiatives were supported by the League of Women Voters and several Democratic leaders and their side raised over $10 million. The opposition came from the Arizona Republican Party and the Free Enterprise Club which felt party people mainly should decide primary elections.⁴³

Washington, D.C.

Washington, D.C. had a ballot measure that asked voters to approve ranked-choice voting and open primaries and it was approved by voters. That measure known as Proposition 83 won on a 73% to 27%. Supporters argued that the election reforms would allow Independents, who comprise about 16% of the electorate, a chance to vote in primaries. Since the Democratic primary winner almost always wins over the Republican, having Independents participate would empower them and exercise a moderating impact on primary politics. Opponents felt the change would water down the primary election and allow non-Democrats to influence the race.⁴⁴

Several top Democrats, including Mayor Muriel Bowser and City Council President Phil Mendelsohn opposed the measure, with Bowser calling the reform “a bad idea” and stating she hopes that “nobody votes for it.”⁴⁵ Opposition on the part of those major Democratic leaders is noteworthy because the ballot measure had language saying the reform would not go into effect until the City Council appropriates money for its implementation2, and it is not clear if or when it will do so.

Reform advocates were helped by $1.4 million in pro-proposition funding from national groups. Voters interviewed by reporters liked the pairing of open primaries with ranked-choice voting. Several argued that the 76,000 Independents were disenfranchised under the closed primary system and deserved a chance to vote in primary elections, which generally are the decisive part of election campaigns. Support for the ballot measure was strong across all the city’s wards, including in areas with a large number of African American voters, suggesting minority voters did not see the reform as harming their electoral prospects.⁴⁶

A number of states have legislatures that have banned ranked-choice voting outside of a voter referendum process: Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota. In looking across these places, the bans were enacted not by voters but by state legislatures in largely Republican areas where conservatives feared the election reform would harm their candidates. Legislators worried about this impact and felt they should stop the reform before it even was implemented in their home states.⁴⁷

In 2024, Alaska and Missouri had anti-reform measures on the ballot. By a 68% to 32% margin, Missouri voted to amend its constitution to prohibit adoption of the reform on grounds it was confusing to voters and people would not understand how to rank their candidate preferences.⁴⁸ Without any evidence, critics claimed the reform would introduce a larger number of voting errors and thereby harm the electoral process.⁴⁹ Voter consideration of the amendment was complicated because the state legislature added language to the measure saying it was illegal for non-U.S. citizens to vote (which already was not allowed). Election reformers complained that the amendment language was duplicitous because “politicians are afraid of competitive elections, so they lied to trick Missourians into banning a better system,” according to Show Me Integrity CEO Benjamin Singer.⁵⁰

Everyone paid close attention to Alaska since it utilized ranked-choice voting in 2022 and is seen as one of the success stories. But in 2024, when a repeal measure was on the ballot, the state was very narrowly divided in its views. At the time of this paper’s writing, 50.1% opposed the ballot repeal and 49.9% favored it (or a margin of 664 votes).⁵¹ Called Ballot Measure 2, the repealers publicly claimed the original reform was foisted on Alaska by out-of-state forces and financed by wealthy individuals. They were outspent by $15 million to $150,000.

One of their ads complained that “ranked-choice voting is complicated and leaves many voters frustrated. By voting yes on 2, we can return to a simple, clear process: Just one vote, for the candidate you believe in.” Forces opposed to the repeal enlisted Sen. Lisa Murkowski in their efforts as she had benefitted politically from the reform during her 2022 reelection bid. She cut an ad for the group that said “as Alaskans, we value our independence. Sixty percent of Alaskans choose not to join a political party. Ballot Measure 2 limits our freedom to vote for the best candidate, regardless of party. So join me in rejecting politics as usual.”⁵²

In 2024, the Mellman Group undertook an Alaska exit poll with 600 voters for the pro-reform group Unite America. The visibility of the ballot measure was very high as 86% of voters said they had heard about it and only 13% said they had not. People had different views about the open primary and ranked-choice vote reforms which were combined in the ballot measure. In the exit poll, only 43% said they favored getting rid of open primary elections and bringing back primaries open only to members of the party holding the primary, while 56% wanted to get rid of ranked-choice voting in general elections and bring back voting for a single candidate.

In terms of the timeline for vote decisions, 21% indicated they made up their minds in the last week of the campaign. When asked to assess how the state’s ranked-choice voting system worked, 47% said it worked well and 50% thought it didn’t work well.

Alaska voters were asked which words described the ballot repeal measure. Table 2 shows the results: 89% thought the measure was understandable; 47% considered it unnecessary; 44% believed it good for democracy; 44% thought it mainly was supported by Republicans; 41% considered it confusing; 39% thought it was pushed by out-of-state billionaires and their dark money groups; and 33% considered it mainly supported by Democrats.

There were several questions asking people what they thought the “almost certain” or “very likely” impact of the measure would be if the ballot reform was repealed. Among the top responses shown in Table 3 were the following: Voters would not be able to rank candidates (65%); voting would be less confusing and complicated (46%); voters would have fewer election choices (44%); political parties would have more power (39%); independent voters would have less of a voice (36%); and special interests would have more power (35%).

Exit polls asked people about “one of the most important” or “very important” reasons for their yes vote. Table 4 shows 71% said the measure restores principle of “one person, one vote”; 66% indicated it makes voting less confusing; 63% claimed the current system of ranked-choice voting has failed Alaska; 55% think the “no” campaign is pushed by liberal Democrats who want more power in Alaska; and 54% think the current system causes thousands of ballots from confused voters to be disqualified and thrown out.

Pollsters inquired about “one of the most important” or “very important” reasons for people’s no vote. The top reasons are given in Table 5, and they were as follows: The current system gives voters the freedom to select from all the candidates in the primary and not just those of one political party (75%); the current system allows voters to vote their conscience instead of picking the lesser of two evils (64%); the measure takes power away from voters and gives it to political parties (61%); the measure gives voters fewer choices (51%); the measure decreases the number of independent candidates and those not affiliated with a party who run for office (51%); and measure unfairly prevents the 60% of Alaskans who are Independents from voting in primary elections (51%).

One complaint that has arisen in recent years is that by focusing on second, third, or fourth-choice preferences, ranked-choice voting produces so-called “dud” leaders who struggle to govern effectively once in office. The idea is that candidates who do well under that system are more likely to be problematic decision-makers due to their weak base of support and lack of experience at actual governance.

Two cases are cited in support of that proposition: Mayor Eric Adams of New York City and Mayor Sheng Thao of Oakland, California. Adams had a rocky road during his mayorship and then in 2024 was indicted along with several members of his administration on corruption charges. He was accused of bribery and fraud, allegedly accepting money from foreign sources in return for favorable action in their areas of interest.⁵³

In Thao’s case, she was elected in 2022 but became the subject of a recall measure in 2024, and she lost the recall on a 64% to 36% vote. Critics claimed she was soft on crime and not exercising strong leadership skills. Local leaders of the African American community complained about her decision to terminate the police chief and a failure by city officials to apply for federal anti-crime grants totaling millions of dollars.⁵⁴ In large part, the recall effort was funded by a wealthy businessman who was opposed to her policies.⁵⁵

But in neither case is it easy to tie their governing difficulties to election mechanisms. Adams faced opposition from progressives as well as the business community, and that combination would have been a challenging situation for him regardless of how he was elected. In Thao’s case, she was criticized for public safety issues even though Oakland’s homicides dropped 32% in 2024, burglaries were down by 55%, robberies fell by 24%, and aggravated assault was down by 15%.⁵⁶ It probably is not the case that the particular problems found in those cases are due to elected officials having gained office through being voters’ second, third, or fourth choices.

To summarize, the 2024 ballot measures largely failed. Reform proposals were rejected in nearly every place except the Alaska repeal (which narrowly triumphed) and in Washington, D.C. (which still requires City Council approval to move forward). Research on actual implementation of instant runoffs shows promising results. In the few cases where it has been implemented, the reform appears to generate more civil campaigns, less polarized rhetoric, more moderate candidates, and election winners more willing to work with opposing parties.

Voters do not appear to be confused by instant runoffs. In a postelection survey undertaken in Alaska in 2022, 79% said they thought instant runoffs were “simple” to use and had few problems from a voter standpoint. They did not think it was overcomplicated or difficult to understand. In addition, half of voters believed candidates were of a higher quality under instant runoffs compared to those in previous elections.⁵⁷

In addition, an analysis of “residual voting” (i.e., ballots without a valid vote) that year indicates the error rate was small. According to research by Anthony, Manion, Kropf, and Kimball, the percentage of improper ballots was only 1.3% in 2022, down from 2.4% over the preceding decade in U.S. House elections.⁵⁸ That provides behavioral evidence that voters were not confused by instant runoffs but rather were able to understand the election reform and cast their ballots properly.

Yet those positive implementation results did not generally lead voters this year to support the electoral reform. In looking at ballot campaigns, it is clear that the language and type of reform matters. The terminology of instant runoffs appears more understandable than ranked-choice voting. People also appear to prefer the reform of open primaries where Independents could vote in the Republican or Democratic Party primaries to instant runoffs themselves.

That situation suggests reform advocates should think about how to package different types of reforms and focus on proposals that resonate with ordinary voters. In Montana, for example, the two proposals were separated into different ballot measures, and open primaries gained 49% of the vote while instant runoffs only won 40%. There were similar results in postelection exit polls.

Money became a contentious issue in some states where the measure failed, as opponents linked financial backing from unpopular sources, such as billionaires and energy firms, to grounds for suspicion. In most states, pro-instant runoff advocates had a spending advantage over opponents. Yet that fundraising advantage became a liability when anti-reform leaders used the large amount of money raised as a target to attack and discredit the reform itself.

In the future, it may be better to focus on grassroots organizing financed by a range of donors rather than out-of-state funding from a relatively small number of large donors. Big contributions from wealthy individuals or corporations represent an inviting target in an election campaign. It is easy to appeal to voter cynicism that money buys political results and use that to defeat meaningful election reforms.

Instant runoffs have become enmeshed in partisan politics with party organizations in various states opposing the reform. In Republican-dominated states, this was the GOP while in Democratic-dominated places, the Democratic party opposed the reform. It may be that established parties that are doing well electorally fear a reform that could challenge their continuing success. From a voter standpoint, it should be considered a strength of the reform that partisans on either side fear the shift would water down their vote-getting power. But since party organizations are strong and in a position to block reform when it goes on the ballot, reformers must find ways to navigate partisan opposition during this era of polarization. We need to discourage parties that succeed electorally by fielding extreme candidates to block necessary reforms.

Speaking more generally, it is important to note that many political reform efforts took years if not decades to enact and had to overcome many barriers along the route.⁵⁹ Since instant runoffs seem to have generated positive results for campaign rhetoric and leadership performance where they have been implemented, it is vital to continue the reform effort despite the negative results from 2024. It took women over 30 years to gain the right to vote, and it also took several decades for the income tax to gain adoption through an amendment to the U.S. constitution.

Election reform is no different from these types of efforts and likely could require a number of years before success is achieved. Reformers should study the 2024 results to see why voters in so many different states rejected the ballot measures, often by substantial numbers. They need to come back with refined tactics and strategies and figure out the best ways to market ballot reform to voters.