Park City, UT

Home Menu

Ranked Choice Voting

Print Feedback

Font Size: + -

What is Ranked Choice Voting?

In 2018, the Utah State Legislature passed HB 35, which established a ranked choice vote (RCV) pilot program through January 1, 2026. As a result, communities can opt in during a municipal election cycle if they desire RCV.

Voting with RCV involves voters numerically ranking candidates in order of their preference, rather than just selecting one choice. In a single-office election (like Park City’s mayoral election), if any candidate wins over 50% of the votes during the first round, they are the winner. But if no candidate crosses that threshold, the last-place finisher is eliminated, and that candidate’s votes are reallocated to the voters’ next choice. This process is repeated as necessary until a candidate wins over 50% of the votes, at which time they are deemed the winner of the election.

In a multi-winner or multi-seat election (like our City Council elections), the first candidate to reach 50% +1 is removed from the ballot and awarded a seat. Then a second round of scoring commences to determine the second-place winner, and so forth for a third-place winner. The same method of eliminating the last-place finisher and reallocating votes until a candidate reaches 50%+1 is used to award each seat.

Arguments FOR RCV

Elimination of Vote Splitting

RCV helps address the issue of vote splitting, where similar candidates can divide a large voter base, potentially leading to the election of a less-preferred candidate.

Majority Support

Advocates argue that RCV ensures that the winning candidate has the support of a majority of voters, as the ranking process continues until one candidate receives more than 50% of the votes cast.

Reduced Negative Campaigning

Supporters claim that RCV promotes more positive and issue-focused campaigning, as candidates seek to appeal to a broader audience to secure second or third-choice votes from voters.

Enhanced Representation

RCV can potentially lead to the election of candidates who better represent the broader views of the overall electorate, as it allows voters to express preferences for more than one candidate.

Minimization of Spoiler Effects

With RCV, some candidates are less likely to be viewed as election spoilers, as voters can rank candidates without fear of wasting their vote or indirectly helping their least-preferred candidate(s).

Primary Election Time and Cost Savings

With RCV, the election focus is two or three months instead of four to five months, often in two phases. Specifically, RCV eliminates the need for primary elections, potentially saving resources for both the administration of elections (ballot printing, postage, poll workers, technology) and for candidates campaigning for office.

Arguments AGAINST RCV

Complexity and Confusion

Critics argue that RCV is complex for voters to understand, potentially leading to confusion and a higher likelihood of errors in the voting process. They suggest that a straightforward voting method is preferable.

No Clear Majority

Some argue that RCV may not always result in a candidate with a majority of first-choice votes, especially in crowded fields. They contend that a candidate preferred by a majority of voters in the first round may not necessarily win under RCV, which results in after-election confusion and frustration.

Potential for Strategic Voting

Critics express concerns that RCV might encourage strategic voting, where voters rank candidates not based on their true preferences but on tactical considerations to ensure a desired outcome. They argue this can lead to a less genuine expression of voter preferences.

Increased Campaigning and Election Costs

Some opponents argue that RCV may lead to more expensive and time-consuming campaigns, as candidates try to appeal to a broader range of voters to secure second or third-choice rankings. Municipalities may also incur additional costs due to longer ballots which could also result in higher postage costs.

Voter Disenfranchisement

Critics raise concerns about voters who may find the RCV process confusing or challenging, potentially leading to disenfranchisement, especially among certain demographic groups.

Questionable Impact on Representation

Some critics question whether RCV genuinely leads to more representative outcomes, arguing that it may not necessarily result in better representation of underrepresented groups and views.

Votes May Not be Counted

In certain scenarios, a voter’s selection in a multi-winner election may not count in the final tally of the official election count. This is often cited as a source of frustration.

Helpful Links

View Full Site