As state legislatures across the country begin their 2026 sessions, lawmakers are considering a range of bills that would either expand or ban ranked-choice voting (RCV). RCV is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference. If no candidate secures a majority of first-place votes, subsequent preferences are used to conduct an instant runoff until a winner emerges.
The R Street Institute has released research addressing both the benefits and criticisms of RCV as states revisit the topic. According to the organization, “RCV has three primary strengths: 1) it rewards candidates for representing their constituency more closely; 2) it increases the legitimacy of eventual winners; and 3) it allows voters to vote their conscience by eliminating the ‘spoiler effect.’ Requiring the eventual winner to achieve a true majority of votes incentivizes candidates to broaden their appeal. Research shows that voters are more likely to accept a candidate as legitimate if they know they had to secure a majority of votes. Knowing their ballot will still count if their first-choice candidate is eliminated, voters are free to support their preferred option rather than voting strategically for the ‘least bad but politically viable’ alternative. A standard runoff election can replicate these advantages to a degree; however, RCV achieves these results all at once, saving taxpayers’ money and voters’ time.”
R Street’s analysis also suggests that RCV can be especially useful in primary elections, where fields tend to be crowded and competitive. The institute states that “primaries are more likely than general elections to have a competitive yet crowded field. RCV can aid parties in selecting the candidate who best reflects participating party members while avoiding minority victories with small pluralities of the vote.”
Addressing concerns about partisan bias, R Street’s research finds no evidence that RCV inherently favors left-wing candidates or disadvantages Republicans. Instead, they argue that “RCV favors candidates who represent voters and their political leanings more closely.” The institute notes that conservative candidates perform well under RCV in areas where conservative views dominate and suggests Republican candidates could benefit from its adoption in competitive districts.
Another criticism is that RCV tends to advantage moderate or centrist candidates over those with strong ideological positions. However, according to examples such as Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s win in New York City, this claim does not hold up in practice. The system instead rewards coalition-building strategies rather than any specific ideology.
Concerns about voter confusion have also been addressed through research on Maine’s implementation of RCV. The institute found that most voters understood how to use ranked ballots and took advantage of ranking multiple candidates.
R Street concludes by stating: “States, localities, and parties should ultimately decide if and how RCV can benefit them. While RCV may not be the right choice for every circumstance, our research has proven it a valuable tool for securing more representative election results and helping successful candidates enjoy greater legitimacy.”
