Stone: Don’t experiment with our elections by adopting ranked choice voting

Election systems should be judged by one simple standard: Do they make it easier for voters to participate and have confidence that every vote counts equally? Ranked choice voting fails that test.

Supporters describe ranked choice voting as a cure for many of our political problems. They argue it produces majority winners, encourages more civil campaigns, increases voter participation and creates more representative government. Those are worthy goals. The problem is that the evidence from jurisdictions, including states and cities that have actually used ranked choice voting, is far less convincing than its advocates suggest.

The first concern is complexity. Our election system should be understandable to every voter, regardless of age, education or economic background. Under ranked choice voting, voters are asked not simply to choose a candidate but to rank multiple candidates in order of preference.

While many voters adapt easily, studies have found that the added complexity can increase ballot errors and voter confusion, particularly among seniors, first-time voters, voters of color and communities with fewer resources. An election system should reduce barriers to participation, not add new one.

Another issue is ballot exhaustion. Under ranked choice voting, if all of the candidates a voter ranks are eliminated before the final round, that ballot is no longer counted in determining the winner.

Serious academic research examining several ranked choice voting elections found ballot exhaustion rates ranging from nearly 10% to more than 27%, meaning winners did not receive a majority of all ballots cast, but only a majority of the ballots still active in the final round. That distinction matters because public confidence depends on voters believing the winner reflects the support of the electorate as a whole. One-person-one vote should always be the standard in a democracy.

Proponents also claim that ranked choice voting reduces negative campaigning and saves money by eliminating runoff elections. Yet independent research has found little consistent evidence that campaigns become more civil or that election costs decline. In some cases, jurisdictions have faced significant administrative costs, extended vote counting and expensive voter education campaigns simply to explain how the system works.

Closer to home, California has already experienced problems implementing ranked choice voting. Software errors have required election results to be corrected after certification, and close contests have demonstrated how costly recounts can become when multiple rounds of tabulation are involved. Election systems should emphasize transparency and simplicity, especially when public trust in government is already under strain.

Perhaps the most troubling concern is whether ranked choice voting delivers on its promise of expanding participation. Some researchers have found that ballot exhaustion and voting errors occur disproportionately in minority and lower-income communities. If true, that means the voters ranked choice voting is intended to help could instead see their voices diminished. That should give policymakers pause before replacing a voting system that people already understand.

None of this means our election system is perfect. There are legitimate conversations about improving voter participation, increasing competition and strengthening confidence in elections. But replacing a familiar voting method with a more complicated one that has produced mixed results is not the answer.

Election reform should make voting easier, not harder. It should strengthen confidence, not require voters to trust a complicated series of calculations that many cannot easily follow. Before adopting ranked choice voting, we should demand clear evidence that it improves elections for every voter — not just promises that it might.

Our democracy works best when every voter understands the ballot, every vote carries equal weight and every election result is accepted with confidence. Ranked choice voting has yet to demonstrate that it can consistently achieve those goals.

Elections are expensive, especially in California. The governor and state Legislature could reduce the cost of elections by adopting a system like Oregon. But sometimes in a democracy, the cost of elections is one of the most cost-effective expenditures a government can make, asking citizens to express their preference.

Larry Stone is the former assessor for Santa Clara County.