🏛️ Civics · Advanced · Policy resolution

Resolved: States should adopt ranked-choice voting for statewide elections.

Voters rank candidates in order; if no one wins a majority, last-place candidates are eliminated and their votes move to the next choice. Maine and Alaska use it statewide. Should more states?

Background

In ranked-choice voting (RCV, or instant-runoff voting) voters rank candidates. If no one gets a majority of first choices, the last-place candidate is eliminated and those ballots count for their next choice, repeating until someone has a majority. Maine adopted it in 2018 for many state and federal races; Alaska also uses it. Most U.S. use is in nonpartisan city elections. In Maine’s 2018 Second District race, the first-round leader lost after the second round, and court challenges to the system failed. [1]

Research summarized by political scientists David Kimball and Joseph Anthony in 2026 found RCV lets voters express fuller preferences, can attract more candidates and is associated with less negative campaigning in cities, but adds complexity, with some evidence of voter confusion (especially in disadvantaged communities), and generally little change in turnout. Several states have banned RCV, and repeal efforts have appeared where it is used. [1]

Where the facts themselves are disputed

Does RCV make campaigns more civil?

  • Surveys in cities using RCV report less negative campaigning, since candidates seek second-choice votes.
  • Negative campaigning has increased in Maine since adoption, and effects may differ for partisan statewide races.

Key terms

Ranked-choice (instant-runoff) voting
Voters rank candidates; the weakest are eliminated round by round until one has a majority.
Plurality voting
The candidate with the most votes wins, even without a majority.
Spoiler
A candidate who draws votes from a similar candidate, helping a third candidate win.
Ballot exhaustion
When all of a voter’s ranked candidates are eliminated, so the ballot no longer counts in later rounds.

Both sides at their strongest

Each argument is written the way its best advocates would make it, followed by the strongest answer from the other side. Use them to build your case and to prepare for the other one.

Affirmative

Ranked-choice voting gives voters more choice and ensures winners have majority support.

  1. A1 Winners need majority support.

    Why Under plurality voting, a candidate can win with far less than half when votes split; RCV continues counting until someone has a majority of remaining ballots.

    Evidence Examples of plurality winners with minority support; Maine’s 2018 results.

    Best answer The negative answers that with exhausted ballots, the “majority” is only of ballots still counting, not of all voters.

  2. A2 It ends the spoiler problem.

    Why Voters can rank a third-party favorite first without fear of helping their least-favorite candidate win.

    Evidence Research finding increased support for third-party candidates under RCV.

    Best answer The negative replies that spoiler effects can still occur in some RCV elections, and third parties rarely win.

  3. A3 Campaigns can become more positive.

    Why Candidates want to be voters’ second choice, so attacking rivals’ supporters is risky.

    Evidence Studies of cities using RCV reporting less negativity and more satisfaction.

    Best answer The negative points out that negativity increased in Maine’s partisan races, so city results may not carry over.

  4. A4 It saves the cost of separate runoff elections.

    Why States that require majorities otherwise hold second elections, which cost money and often have low turnout.

    Evidence Costs and turnout of runoff elections in states that use them.

    Best answer The negative replies that RCV has its own costs for equipment, counting and voter education.

Negative

Ranked-choice voting adds complexity and confusion without clear improvements.

  1. N1 It’s more complex for voters and officials.

    Why Ranking many candidates and following multi-round counts is harder; confused voters rank fewer candidates and trust the results less.

    Evidence Studies of voter confusion under RCV, especially in disadvantaged communities, summarized by Kimball and Anthony.

    Best answer The affirmative answers that most voters report understanding RCV, and education reduces confusion.

  2. N2 Results take longer and can seem less transparent.

    Why Ballots must be collected centrally for later rounds, delaying results, and come-from-behind wins can make losers’ supporters distrust the outcome.

    Evidence Tabulation timelines in RCV jurisdictions; repeal efforts after unexpected outcomes.

    Best answer The affirmative replies that delays are short and the rules are public before the election.

  3. N3 Exhausted ballots can leave voters out of the final count.

    Why Voters who don’t rank all candidates may have no say in the final round, so the winner’s “majority” may not be a majority of all voters.

    Evidence Studies of ballot exhaustion in RCV elections.

    Best answer The affirmative argues that voters in a separate runoff can also sit out, and exhaustion reflects voters’ own choices.

  4. N4 Turnout and outcomes change little.

    Why If RCV doesn’t raise turnout or change who wins much, its costs and complexity aren’t justified.

    Evidence Research finding little turnout change after adoption.

    Best answer The affirmative replies that the benefits are in voter choice and majority support, not turnout.

Strawman or steelman?

A strawman is a weak copy of the other side’s view, easy to knock down and unfair to the people who hold it. A steelman is that view at its strongest. Answer the steelman, and you’ve answered the real argument. (More on steelmanning.)

Affirmative

Strawman “They want to rig elections for their side.”

Why it’s unfair Supporters argue for majority winners and ending spoilers, which can help any party.

Steelman RCV ensures winners have majority support among ballots counted, lets voters back third-party favorites without spoiling, and can reduce negative campaigning.

Negative

Strawman “They think voters are too dumb to count to three.”

Why it’s unfair Opponents cite measured confusion, delays and exhausted ballots, not voters’ intelligence.

Steelman RCV adds complexity that confuses some voters, delays results and can exclude exhausted ballots, without clearly improving turnout or outcomes.

Weak arguments to avoid

Affirmative

  • “RCV will end polarization.” Evidence on polarization is limited; Maine has seen more negativity, not less.

Negative

  • “RCV is unconstitutional because it violates one person, one vote.” Courts, including in Maine, have rejected this argument.

Questions for cross-examination

Ask the Affirmative

  1. What happens to a ballot whose ranked candidates are all eliminated?
  2. Has negative campaigning gone down in Maine?
  3. How long do RCV counts take?

Ask the Negative

  1. What happens under plurality when two similar candidates split the vote?
  2. How much do separate runoff elections cost?
  3. Did courts uphold Maine’s system?

Reading on both sides

Read at least one source from each side before you debate. Look up each source’s author and publisher too: who wrote it is part of the evidence.

Background and overviews

Both sides in one place

Mostly Affirmative

Mostly Negative

Practice this topic

Sources for the background

  1. Benefits and drawbacks of ranked-choice voting (Kimball and Anthony), Bangor Daily News (2026-04-03). Accessed 2026-10-25.

Teddy Rook Book doesn’t take a side on this resolution. Updated 2026-10-25.

@teddyrookbook GitHub