Majority rule is a rather easy concept to understand when only two options are presented for resolution of a question. The choice receiving more than half of the votes is declared victorious. In the voting booth, we are often presented with a binary decision of “yes” or “not” on a measure or proposition. If only two candidates for elected office are on the ballot, the decision process is straightforward as well; the candidate receiving more than half the votes, and therefore a majority, is elected. However, when more than two choices are available, it is possible and often probable, that although one may receive more votes than any other, none exceed the majority (50% plus one) threshold.
In order to conform to the principle of majority rule, the concept of “ranked-choice” voting has been introduced in some elections. In this case, when more than two candidates are presented, voters are asked to rank their choice by listing their top selection and those remaining by preference (i.e., #1 choice, #2 choice, etc.). If no candidate receives a majority vote of over 50 percent of votes cast, the candidate with the least first-preference votes is removed and those remaining receive the ranked choice votes from that candidate’s constituency that favor them as second choice. This process continues until only two candidates remain, dictating a majority vote for one of them or one candidate receives a majority vote no matter how many others remain on the ballot.
Although the process of ranked-choice is a bit more cumbersome and can delay final results of an election due to reallocations, it can serve an important purpose when dealing with a relatively small group of voters who have multiple choices. In such situations, while one candidate may receive a narrow plurality, that doesn’t necessarily translate to majority voter approval. The ultimate winner may have initially appeared to lose to another candidate by a small margin but that deficit can be erased by subsequent voter choices. When an election is close, ranked-choice can make a big difference.
For example, in the last General Election, Fremont, held elections for three council members. Each district elects its own councilmember so vote totals are relatively small. In District 2 and 3, three candidates competed and, in each case, no one received a majority vote. Although vote counts are not yet official, it appears that the difference between first and second place was close to 200 votes. Votes cast for the third candidate were a significant factor (22% in District 2 and 16% in District 3) and more than covered the first and second place difference. Would ranked-choice voting have made a difference? It is hard to say without knowing the preferences of those voting for a third candidate, but if voters show preference for a particular style of leadership but are split among several candidates, should those votes lose potency due to dilution?
While not totally convinced that ranked choice voting is a sensible answer in all cases, it should be explored as a viable option, especially in elections from a small voter pool.