Skip to main content

Should the US Adopt Ranked-Choice Voting?

Alaska and Maine use ranked-choice voting for federal elections; New York City adopted it for local primaries. Proponents say it ends the spoiler effect. Critics say multi-round ballot counting confuses voters and can elect a candidate most voters ranked second. Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.

Friday, September 11, 2026 · 7:00 PM EDT

Scheduled date passed

Contribute now

The opposing positions

Resolved: The United States should adopt ranked-choice voting for all federal elections

RCV could end the "lesser of two evils" dynamic that defines American elections. Or it could produce winners most voters actively opposed, while making vote-counting so complex that confidence in results collapses.

PRO: Vote your conscience, not your fear

RCV lets voters express genuine preferences instead of strategically voting for the lesser evil. It produces winners with broader support and breaks the two-party duopoly.

  • The spoiler effect — where a third-party candidate splits the vote with the ideologically closer major-party candidate and elects the one both disliked most — is a structural defect in plurality voting. Ralph Nader in 2000, Ross Perot in 1992, and dozens of state-level races show this. RCV eliminates it mathematically: your second choice activates only if your first is eliminated.
  • Alaska adopted RCV in 2022 and elected Mary Peltola, ending 50 years of Republican dominance in its House seat. Post-election surveys showed voters understood the system and approval of the process was high. The claim that RCV confuses voters is not supported by the evidence from jurisdictions that have adopted it.
  • RCV forces candidates to build broader coalitions — you need to be the second choice of your opponents' voters to survive. That structural incentive rewards candidates who run issue-focused, less negative campaigns. Studies of Australian elections (which have used RCV nationally since 1918) show lower negative campaigning rates than equivalent US races.

CON: Complexity undermines democratic confidence

RCV can elect candidates a majority of voters actively opposed, delays results for days or weeks, and burdens election administrators with a system that creates new forms of voter confusion.

  • RCV violates majority rule: the Condorcet paradox shows that in certain vote distributions, it's possible to elect a candidate who would lose head-to-head against any individual opponent. "Exhausted ballots" — where a voter's rankings are all eliminated before the final round — mean not all voters participate equally in the final decision.
  • New York City's 2021 mayoral primary under RCV saw weeks of counting, multiple erroneous results, and a final outcome that differed from initial results — creating widespread public confusion about who won. Election administrators in smaller counties lack the software and training to run RCV reliably; scaling it federally would require massive infrastructure investment.
  • The spoiler effect is overblown: strong third-party candidates appear in only a fraction of elections, and the solution — ballot access reform, open primaries — can be achieved without the complexity of RCV. Approval voting achieves most of the anti-spoiler benefit with much simpler ballot mechanics and counting that can be done by hand.

Contribute now

Add your perspective

Record a 60-second take or write an argument. Your contribution can stand on its own, and the discussion stays open.

Start here

Contribute now

A 60-second video or a written argument. You do not need an opponent to get started.

Write an argument

Share only material you have permission to make public.

Optional

Exchange responses

Choose whether to be paired. An exchange starts only after both people accept.

Pairing is not available on this page yet. You can still contribute or respond to a public take.

At a set time

Live attendance

Live attendance is separate from your contribution. Check the showcase details for any scheduled session.

Check showcase details

PRO: Vote your conscience, not your fear

CON: Complexity undermines democratic confidence

Or make your case in writing

“The spoiler effect — where a third-party candidate splits the vote with the ideologically closer major-party candidate and elects the one both disliked most — is a structural defect in plurality voting. Ralph Nader in 2000, Ross Perot in 1992, and dozens of state-level races show this. RCV eliminates it mathematically: your second choice activates only if your first is eliminated.”

“Alaska adopted RCV in 2022 and elected Mary Peltola, ending 50 years of Republican dominance in its House seat. Post-election surveys showed voters understood the system and approval of the process was high. The claim that RCV confuses voters is not supported by the evidence from jurisdictions that have adopted it.”

“RCV violates majority rule: the Condorcet paradox shows that in certain vote distributions, it's possible to elect a candidate who would lose head-to-head against any individual opponent. "Exhausted ballots" — where a voter's rankings are all eliminated before the final round — mean not all voters participate equally in the final decision.”

“New York City's 2021 mayoral primary under RCV saw weeks of counting, multiple erroneous results, and a final outcome that differed from initial results — creating widespread public confusion about who won. Election administrators in smaller counties lack the software and training to run RCV reliably; scaling it federally would require massive infrastructure investment.”

The debate format

Follow each side’s case through questions, rebuttals and closing statements.

  1. 4 min

    Opening Argument

    PRO · opening case

  2. 4 min

    Cross-Examination

    CON questions PRO

  3. 4 min

    Opening Argument

    CON · opening case

  4. 4 min

    Cross-Examination

    PRO questions CON

  5. 3 min

    Rebuttal

    PRO

  6. 3 min

    Rebuttal

    CON

  7. 3 min

    Closing Statement

    PRO · final case

  8. 3 min

    Closing Statement

    CON · final case

  9. —

    Audience Vote

    You pick the winner

Get debate updates

Leave your email for announcements about this debate.

Debate schedule

Friday, September 11, 2026 · 7:00 PM EDT

Get Involved

Open debate runs on the people who show up. Tell us how you want to be part of it.

I want to…

No spam. We'll only reach out about what you picked.

More Debates

Structured debates on the ideas that matter most. You score who makes the stronger case.

Scheduled date passed

Should the Four-Day Work Week Become Standard?

October 26, 2026, 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM EDT
Online
View event
Featured

Should Supreme Court Justices Have Term Limits?

November 2, 2026, 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM EST
Online
View event
Featured

Should Race-Conscious College Admissions Be Restored?

November 4, 2026, 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM EST
Online
View event
Featured

Should Organ Donation Be Automatic Unless You Opt Out?

November 9, 2026, 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM EST
Online
View event