Why Alabama might ban ranked choice voting

Republican Glenn Youngkin scored an upset victory in the Virginia governor’s election three years ago and Chris Saxman says the GOP has ranked choice voting to thank for it.

“Everyone said, ‘what the hell is ranked choice voting?’” Saxman, a Republican member of the Virginia House of Delegates from 2002-2010. “Well, ranked choice voting allowed us to grow the party. We were on death’s door.”

Indeed, the state Virginia Republican Party’s convention that year included a vote using a form of ranked choice voting (RCV), and Youngkin emerged the winner. He nudged out a more hard-right opponent, faced minimal negative campaigning, and went on to win the general election.

But the same system of ranking preferred candidates instead of the classic “winner-takes-all” election, is drawing negative reviews from mostly Republican election officials nationwide. A growing number of states with a Republican trifecta (control of House, Senate, and governor’s office) are pitching bans to RCV before it can even gain a foothold in state elections, including in Alabama.

One such bill, SB186, passed out of the Alabama Senate earlier this month and awaits a hearing on the House floor. That is likely to come sometime next week.

Ranking the choices

The voting system that is creating the stir is often called an “instant runoff,” and is similar to how the Associated Press Top 25 in college sports is decided.

Proponents say it’s an alternative to expensive primary runoff elections that occur in Southern states including Alabama, and which draw paltry turnouts. They also say RCV creates a system that elevates the most widely supported candidates, and not extremists who can win with a small base of supporters.

Opponents, including Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen, claim it’s confusing to voters “designed to make winners out of losers.”

The system works like this:

• If more than two candidates are on a ballot, a voter selects their top choice, and then indicates a second choice and so on as far down as he or she wants to go.
• If one candidate wins 50% plus one, the election is over.
• If no one receives more than 50%, the second round begins. The candidate receiving the least number of first-place votes is eliminated.
• Those that voted for the losing candidate will then have their next choice counted.
• The process continues until a candidate reaches the majority threshold.

Pros, cons

Often called “instant runoff” election, RCV is viewed as a way to avoid the primary runoffs that can cost taxpayers millions, sparks negative campaigning, and can result in turnouts dipping under 10% of registered voters. Last week’s runoff elections in Alabama, highlighted with two 2nd congressional district primary contests in South Alabama, saw an overall turnout of 7.5%.

“When I canvassed to get voters to return to the polls to vote for me in a runoff in 2013, some voters were honest and said they felt having to go back to the polls to vote in a runoff was burdensome,” said state Rep. Adline Clarke, D-Mobile, who has advocated for election reform measures in the Statehouse.

Allen, who wrote an Op-Ed last week criticizing the system as flawed, said lawmakers should press forward in banning it. The Foundation for Government Accountability, a conservative think tank, argues the system is a progressive mechanism being exploited at a time in which Americans are concerned over the future of democracy, and is also advocating for its ban.

If approved, Alabama will join neighboring Florida and Tennessee with bans that were approved in 2022. Legislation is also under consideration in Mississippi and Georgia. In Kentucky, Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear vetoed a bill that included a RCV ban. Other Republican-leaning states are considering bans: Missouri, Iowa, Oklahoma, South Carolina, among others. Lawmakers in three states last year – Idaho, Montana and South Dakota voted to ban RCV.

More than two dozen cities – including New York City, San Francisco, Minneapolis, and Salt Lake City – use RCV for local elections. Only two states—Maine and Alaska – have it for all state and federal general elections. Nevada voters adopted the system in 2022, for state and federal elections but not for this year’s presidential contest.

“Ranked choice voting results in voter confusion, spoiled ballots, delayed election results, and violates the fundamental principle of ‘one-person, one vote,’” said Allen, who opposed RCV when he was a member of the Alabama House. “Alabama elections are fair, secure, and transparent. Elections that utilize ranked choice voting have no place in Alabama.”

Alaska concerns

Saxman in Virginia said that 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s loss in a 2022 congressional race is the impetus behind the push to ban the system. Palin, since losing that special election, blasted Alaska’s RCV for causing her defeat. Also joining her in criticism is former President Donald Trump, who called the system “rigged.”

Saxman argues that Palin’s unfavorables in her home state led to her defeat, not RCV. But her complaints about the election system have resonated as legislation pushing for bans has spread, and caught the attention of state Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur.

Orr is the sponsor of SB186 and told AL.com last week that the confusion in Alaska is one of the reasons for the move to ban it now.

“Alabama and many other states are used to the system we have now and how it works,” Orr said. “What they have in other states (with RCV) is that they wind up not voting on a second preference, third or fourth … it’s a real ordeal to accurately vote.”

Alaska voters in 2020 approved the new RCV system, and the special election in 2022 was the first time the new system was in use.

In Alaska, elections start with an “open” primary in which candidates of all political parties compete and all voters are allowed to participate, casting their ballots for their choice. The top four vote-getters, regardless of party, advance to the general election.

During the general election, the voters rank the candidates in the order of their preference – one through four, but they are also not required to do so. Voters could choose to rank only their single favorite, top two or even the top three.

That’s when the ranked choice kicks in until a candidate gets 50%. The candidate with the least amount of first place votes will get eliminated. The votes that had gone to that candidate are assigned to the second choice listed on those voters’ ballots. Another round of tabulation then kicks in until a 50% threshold is reached.

“The final four means that a voter can choose among four options rather than two options,” said Amy Lovecraft, a political science professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. “The voter is better able to express what they want (in their vote) and that is the key to democracy. I do like RCV, and it allows the citizens to more closely be represented by their preference in government.”

‘Keep it simple’

Proponents for RCV say the system maximizes voter satisfaction, and Fair Vote points to exit polling in Alaska two years ago that said RCV is “simple” and 62% supportive of the state’s new primary system. RCV was implemented in Alaska via a statewide referendum in 2020.

“The people who don’t like ranked choice voting the most is those who are controlling the outcome which is inherently corrupting in a democratic society,” Saxman said. “If you’re in the majority, and you continue to hold down the minority, you will start eating your own. That’s just how power works. (RCV) is not a panacea for all our problems in American politics, but it’s an effective tool in the toolbox when needed.”

Proponents also say the system elevates the most widely supported candidates, rather than the extreme candidates who are more likely to win races with large fields based on small bases of support.

But opponents point out its flaws, particularly the lack of tabulating the votes in a quick manner. According to the Foundation for Government Accountability, the results from a RCV election are rarely available the night of an election.

In Alabama, results are almost always available on Election Day night.

“Alabama and many other states are used to the system we have now and how it works,” Orr said. “What they have in other states (with RCV) is that they wind up not voting on a second preference, third or fourth … it’s a real ordeal to accurately vote.”

He added, “My point is, why do we need to go down this road? Keep it simple.”

Alabama does have a version of RCV for military and oversee absentee voters, and Orr’s bill would maintain that if the ban is approved.

Mantell, with Fairh Vote, said the exceptions to allow RCV are notable. “If it’s good enough for military and overseas voters, it raises the question – why not for other voters?”

Said Orr, “I still think with a head-to-head runoff vote provides the voters with the better choice than getting into a graded sentiment about my third or fourth choice on the ballot.”

‘Politics changes quickly’

Clarke said she doesn’t believe Alabama should outright prohibit RCV, and instead urges lawmakers to pause and wait and see how it plays out nationwide.

“The Alabama Legislature should not close that door,” she said. “Instead, we should see how RCV works for other states over time and follow suit in the future, if the concept works well for a majority of the states.”

Orr said the Alabama legislation does not prevent lawmakers from removing the ban someday.

Saxman, in Virginia, said there might be a need for Republicans to reconsider RCV if they ban it. He said in the early 2000s, he would not have predicted that Republicans would be facing an “existential crisis” in Virginia. But they were, in 2021, before Youngkin won his race thanks to RCV during the primary. Prior to that, the Republicans had not won a statewide election since 2009.

“Politics changes quickly in this country and more so than in the past,” Saxman said. “If you need it and don’t have it in the toolbox, you cut your nose off in spite of your face.”