If, like me, you are wanting to avoid the lesser of two evils every presidential election cycle, let me introduce you to ranked choice voting.

Ranked choice voting allows more than one candidate to be selected and is ranked by voter preference. For example, the 2024 presidential election in my state of Washington had 10 candidates on the ballot. With ranked choice, instead of only choosing a single candidate, I could rank all 10 in descending order of how they match up with my views.

There are many types of ranked voting systems, but for simplicity sake we will use “instant-runoff”.

How it works: the first choice of voters is counted. If a candidate did not win a majority of the vote, the candidate that received the fewest first choice votes is eliminated and the second choice of each voter is then added. This continues until a candidate receives 50% of the vote.

Ranked choice is overall a more representative outcome of the voters’ preferences because you have just that, more choice.

Our current system is known as “first-past-the-post” (FPTP). Voters choose one candidate and whoever gets the most votes is the winner, regardless of if they achieve a majority. This is why you can win the presidency with less than 50% of the vote.

This system runs into a few issues: lesser evil, as previously mentioned, spoiler effect, and lack of party diversity/false majorities.

Lesser evil is a concept you are likely familiar with. In 2024, Kamala Harris may not have been your favorite candidate, but Donald Trump felt like a worse choice so you may have voted for Harris. Going back to 2016, Hilary Clinton and Trump both had disapproval ratings approaching 60% yet were the final two choices.

First-past-the-post makes the lesser evil strategy nigh unavoidable for a large portion of the population. The two parties currently in power both have such massive backing, both financially and systemically, that anyone running outside of the two parties gets trampled on by being outspent and shouted over on the campaign trail. (Bernie Sanders is an example of this when he campaigns as a Democrat and caucuses as an Independent). This also leads to the “spoiler effect”.

When you think of Ralph Nader or Jill Stein, two of the more successful third-party candidates in prior elections, one’s not likely to think they have a “real chance” of winning. This is the spoiler effect. The sole act of being present on the ballot is seen as taking votes away from other candidates of parties that have more power.

Ranked choice voting moves away from this effect by allowing more than one choice on each ballot.

If you’ve ever wondered why there aren’t more parties, part of it is the FPTP system itself. Geography and “wasted votes” contribute to representation not being equal to the number of votes. The term gerrymandering may come to mind where electoral lines are drawn to intentionally skew the results by having a party have a small number of areas where they get the majority of the vote and a larger number of districts where they don’t.

If party A wins a district against party B by a vote count of 200,000 to 190,000, those 190,000 are not being represented when their candidate loses. The idea of “wasted votes” can then lead parties to abandon areas where they are weaker and focus on these more contested areas. This then has a cyclical effect of weakening those districts further if voters feel like their vote doesn’t count.

Ranked choice voting is just a step towards changing voter sentiment, voter representation, and further overall system change. I’d love to see a transition towards the governing style of our friends in Europe – the coalition government. This requires true compromise and is a truer representation of the populace.