On Wednesday, lawmakers passed ranked choice voting for presidential elections in the state of Maine—which would effectively mean ditching its caucuses for a presidential primary based on voter preferences. Ranked choice voting is exactly what its name suggests; rather than vote for any single candidate, voters have the opportunity to rank a number of candidates.
These preferences are taken into account when a majority vote isn’t established. Proponents argue it’s a more inclusive voting system and one that better reflects the needs of the majority of citizens. Still, it’s not without major criticism, with many calling the system “unconstitutional.”
So is ranked voting that simple?
Pretty much. Voters would have the ability to rank their preferences in an election. If a candidate fails to reach a majority vote, the candidate with the fewest votes is then eliminated, based on these rankings. Voters who voted in support of those eliminated candidates then have their second choices factored in. If necessary, this process would repeat itself until a candidate with a majority vote is established.
Has this been done before?
Yes! In fact, it’s currently in use at the local level by several cities across the U.S., including Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Santa Fe in mayoral elections.
Maine lawmakers also voted in favor of this system for some of its elections ahead of the 2018 midterms, using a ranking system based on first, second, and third preferences; Maine’s Senate and first congressional district race completed within their first rounds.
The race for the second congressional district, however, entered into multiple rounds, with Democrat Jared Golden beating out the incumbent and Republican Bruce Poliquin; Poliquin later filed a federal lawsuit, calling the system “unconstitutional.” (He conceded to Golden in December.)
Still, no state has yet to pass the ranked voting system for a presidential election. Other countries use a similar ranked choice voting system, too, including nations like Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand.
What do proponents argue?
A few things. Fair Vote, a nonpartisan organization for voter reform, argues that it actually promotes majority support—given that candidates can win elections without actually receiving a majority popular vote—in addition to providing more choices for voters overall. They also argue that it minimizes “strategic” voting:
Voters should be able to vote for candidates they support, not just against candidates they oppose most. Yet in elections without ranked choice voting, voters may feel that they need to vote for the “lesser of two evils,” because their favorite candidate is less likely to win. With ranked choice voting, you can honestly rank candidates in order of choice without having to worry about how others will vote and who is more or less likely to win.
What are critics saying?
For the most part, critics argue that the ranking system still has a few logistical faults.
In Maine, Poliquin also argued he had more first-preferences during the initial ballot, but lost when Golden absorbed the votes of eliminated candidates—still, Golden’s win is representative of the overall majority of voters; Poliquin was a less-preferred candidate overall.
Depending on the kind of election, it’s also possible that a voter’s ballot may not count in a ranked system, as Democracy Journal writes:
Say there are five candidates running, but the voter ranks only three, and all three are eliminated prior to the last round. As a result, none of their votes will have gone to the winning candidate or the runner-up. In effect, their ballot doesn’t figure in the outcome.
What happens next?
The bill has passed both the House and Senate and is currently with Governor Janet Mills for consideration, a decision which could impact elections to come.
For more from Lifehacker, be sure to follow us on Instagram @lifehackerdotcom.