Politics & Government
The Effect of Ranked-Choice Voting on Political Extremism
Quick fact
In ranked-choice elections, candidates often need second-choice votes to win, which incentivizes them to tone down extreme positions and reach out to a broader audience, potentially reducing political extremism.
Why this is interesting
Have you ever voted for a candidate you liked but felt you were 'wasting' your vote? Ranked-choice voting might be the answer—and it could also be making politicians more moderate.
Read the full explanation
Understanding The Effect of Ranked-Choice Voting on Political Extremism
Think of ranked-choice voting (RCV) as a way to rank your choices, not just pick one. If no candidate gets a majority, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated, and their voters' second choices are counted. This continues until one candidate has more than 50%. This means candidates can't just appeal to their base; they need to be at least the second choice of many voters. So, instead of just attacking opponents, they may be more civil and focus on issues that appeal to a wider group, because alienating a rival's supporters could cost them those precious second-choice votes. This is a sharp contrast to our usual 'first-past-the-post' system, where a candidate only needs the most votes, often leading to extreme positions to energize a narrow base.
A deeper explanation
The mechanism is about electoral incentives. In plurality systems, a candidate can win with only a plurality of first-place votes, so they are motivated to 'fire up' their core supporters, even if that means taking extreme stances. RCV changes the game: to reach a majority, a candidate must accumulate votes through transfers, especially from supporters of eliminated candidates. Thus, candidates have a strong incentive to broaden their appeal and avoid alienating potential second-choice supporters. This can discourage extreme rhetoric and fringe positions since those alienate more voters than they attract. While RCV isn't a panacea for extremism—ideological polarization can still exist—it alters the strategic calculus, making moderation a viable path to victory, as seen in simulations and some real-world elections.