Assemblyman Joe Danielsen has introduced legislation aimed at establishing Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) for primary and general elections in New Jersey. Under the proposed law voters would no longer simply pick a single candidate. Instead they would rank candidates by preference (first choice second choice third etc.). If no candidate wins a majority (greater than 50%) of first-choice votes ballots for the lowest-ranking candidates are eliminated and their votes are redistributed to the voters’ next choices repeating rounds until someone gets a majority. The rationale is that winners have broader support and are not elected with a small plurality of votes in crowded fields. Danielsen argues this reform is needed now due to increasingly competitive elections and many candidates.
Under the existing system, a candidate can win even if a majority of voters preferred someone else simply because the vote was split among many candidates. Proponents argue that RCV helps prevent the so-called “spoiler effect” where similar candidates split votes and allow a less popular candidate to win. They say RCV delivers more legitimate winners by giving a win to those whom a majority of voters directly or via their ranked preferences support. Because voters can rank their true favorite first without “wasting” their vote voters may feel freer to vote sincerely rather than strategically pick the “lesser evil.” This may encourage participation in more minor-party or independent candidacies or cause voters to support “underdog” candidates they believe in rather than just viability. Proponents argue that because candidates must appeal not only to their strongest base but also to potential second- or third-choice voters RCV can incentivize more civil issue-focused campaigning. They also say RCV will save money by eliminating the need for run-off elections. Danielsen says as more candidates enter races RCV adapts better to crowded fields and gives voters more expressive power.
An argument can also be made against RCV. It is undoubtedly more complex. Voters must rank multiple candidates rather than pick one. Critics argue that could confuse or intimidate voters especially those who are less familiar with the system leading to errors or “exhausted” ballots (ballots that no longer count because none of the ranked choices remain) under certain circumstances. Even supporters of RCV concede that implementing it will require substantial voter education making sure voters understand how to rank and what different rounds mean. In addition switching to RCV isn’t just a matter of changing ballot instructions. It may require upgraded voting equipment new software for tabulation revised procedures and training for election officials. Opponents argue that in practice RCV has some fatal flaws. One risk is that some ballots become “exhausted”. For instance if a voter only ranks a few candidates and all of them get eliminated their vote no longer counts in the final rounds. Critics argue this method can still produce winners who don’t enjoy true majority support.
From the perspective of voting theory RCV (specifically Instant-Runoff Voting the method likely to be used) has vulnerabilities. One complicated problem is something called the non-monotonicity paradox. In a fair voting system, if you rank your favorite candidate higher it should never hurt their chances of winning. That’s called being monotonic. In RCV there are rare and specific situations where a voter trying to help their top candidate by ranking them first could actually cause that candidate to lose. This happens because the transfer of votes in one round might cause a different candidate to be eliminated in the next round completely changing the final outcome in an unexpected way. The paradox is that trying to help your candidate by ranking them higher can cause them to lose the election they were just about to win. This strange behavior is difficult to explain and even supporters of RCV concede it points to a theoretical complexity that can be hard for the average voter to trust or understand. RCV can also fail when a candidate whom a majority would prefer head-to-head against any other loses.
According to a poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University (FDU) only 37% of New Jersey residents support a shift to RCV while 42% oppose it. Support is especially weak among older voters and Republicans stronger only among younger voters and independents. A quick look at social media will show claims that “this will ensure another Republican never wins again”. (I would suggest that may be a reality at this point anyway.) Because RCV could upend advantages enjoyed by incumbent parties and party-backed candidates under the current system some political actors may resist it. That political resistance combined with lack of popular support makes passage and implementation challenging. At this point, the Danielsen bill has been introduced but has not advanced through committee.
The Danielsen bill reflects growing concern that New Jersey’s elections don’t consistently deliver candidates who enjoy broad majority support. If passed RCV could lead to more representative outcomes reduce wasted votes and encourage more diverse candidate participation. However realizing those benefits isn’t guaranteed. Much depends on implementation: whether ballots are designed clearly, whether voters are educated properly, whether election officials and machines are equipped for the change and whether turnout remains robust. As we’ve seen in Union County and as NJ21st has written about previously, our ballot design is frequently problematic. Thus as some NJ activists have argued even if RCV is adopted it’s not a silver bullet. At a minimum passage of the Danielsen bill would mark a major shift in how New Jersey votes. Whether that shift improves democracy in the state or simply introduces new tradeoffs remains to be seen.
References:
Save Jersey coverage: N.J. Democrats take up ranked choice voting bill
LegiScan: NJ Senate Bill S1585 (companion bill)
New Jersey Globe: Poll — New Jersey isn’t ready for ranked choice voting
ROI-NJ: FDU Poll — Little support for ranked choice voting
|
Related Articles
A4121 Passes Assembly as Lawmakers Move to Eliminate the NJGPA
REAL Could Redraw NJ’s Flood Map and Its Development Future
