by Soorya Baliga

As Democrats ponder the upcoming presidential election, many feel conflicted with the notion of choosing between a lesser of two evils. Ultimately, they experience a nagging dissatisfaction that the party has failed to bring a stronger candidate to the final ballot. 

This sentiment is only intensified by a view that the initial spread in the run for Presidency consisted of numerous other Democrats that brought intriguing policies, intentions, and qualities to the table. 

When a nomination that displeases a substantial portion of a party is made, it is difficult not to question why ranked choice voting was not widely used in the process of the candidate’s selection. 

Ranked choice voting is a selection system in which each voter has the ability to rank candidates on their ballot in order of preference. This method, which is currently in use in the state of Maine and numerous individual municipalities nationwide, aims to select candidates that an optimal proportion of voters will approve of. Ranked choice voting ensures that everyone’s voice is heard, and that a satisfactory nominee is chosen.

A ranked choice election containing candidates X, Y, and Z could end in the following scenario: 

1. Candidate Z receives the smallest proportion of first-choice votes, resulting in their elimination from the run to win. 
2. However, those who voted for Z as their first choice can still have their voices heard—their second choices are added to the totals for either X or Y. 
3. Then, it is found that X has more votes than Y, making the former the official winner. 

As can be seen here, this method gives voters the opportunity to express their thoughts on more than one candidate (X, Y, and Z), even if their first choice (in this instance, Z) is relatively less popular. This could pave the way for third-parties to gain more votes and political power, resulting in our governments becoming less strictly bipartisan. 

In addition, some experts believe that candidates may become more civil if they are not competing solely for first-choice votes, and may work to appeal to a wider range of voters. This could further decrease divides between party lines, as candidates may strive to be less critical of other ideas, hoping not to sway voters away from choosing them for their second ballot slot. 
Efforts to further implement ranked choice voting are currently underway. Just a few months ago, four states (Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, and Wyoming) replaced caucuses with ranked choice voting to select their Democratic Party presidential nominees. This was a major step towards the usage of ranked choice voting in crucial national elections, and could be the beginning of a road to satisfy more voters.