By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews
As Maryland lawmakers once again debate changes to how elections are conducted, ranked-choice voting (RCV) has reemerged as a leading proposal. Supporters argue that RCV reduces vote-splitting, discourages negative campaigning, and helps ensure winners reflect broader voter preferences—particularly in crowded races.
Those goals are not frivolous. Studies from places like Maine and New York City suggest that RCV can encourage more civil campaigning and allow voters to express nuanced preferences without fear of “spoiling” an election.
Yet as Maryland considers whether to expand the system beyond a handful of localities, a more basic question deserves scrutiny: does ranked-choice voting actually strengthen democratic participation in Maryland—or does it introduce new risks without addressing the state’s underlying electoral problems?
How Ranked-Choice Voting Works—and What It’s Designed to Fix
Under ranked-choice voting, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their ballots are redistributed to voters’ next choices. This continues until one candidate reaches a majority of the remaining ballots.
The system is intended to:
- Reduce the “spoiler effect” in multi-candidate races
- Eliminate the need for costly runoff elections
- Encourage candidates to appeal beyond their base
- Elect candidates with broader support
In many low-candidate races, RCV functions smoothly, and supporters note that it can outperform plurality voting in elections where vote-splitting would otherwise distort outcomes.
Ballot Exhaustion and the Question of Disenfranchisement
One of the most persistent critiques of RCV involves ballot exhaustion—when a voter’s ranked choices are eliminated and their ballot no longer counts in later rounds.
Exhaustion rates vary widely:
- In races with two or three candidates, exhaustion can be minimal
- In crowded primaries, exhaustion rates have been significantly higher
For example:
- Early studies (Burnett & Kogan, 2015) found exhaustion rates ranging from roughly 9% to over 25% in some municipal RCV elections
- In New York City’s 2021 Democratic mayoral primary, approximately 14.9% of ballots were exhausted before the final round
Proponents argue that exhausted ballots are not fundamentally different from “wasted” votes under plurality systems, where voters who back losing candidates also fail to influence the final outcome.
Critics counter that RCV is unique in that ballots can be removed after being cast, reducing the weight of some votes in determining the winner. Research has also found that exhaustion can be unevenly distributed, with higher rates in precincts with lower-income voters, language barriers, or less familiarity with the system—particularly when voter education is uneven.
At the same time, other studies suggest RCV has helped elect more women and minority candidates in some jurisdictions, especially in the Bay Area, complicating claims of uniform harm.
The evidence is mixed—but the disparities are real enough to warrant caution before expansion.
Majority Winners—or Majorities of Remaining Ballots?
RCV guarantees a majority winner only among non-exhausted ballots, not necessarily among all voters who participated. In elections with substantial exhaustion, the final outcome may reflect the preferences of a reduced electorate.
This does not invalidate RCV outright, but it does challenge the simplicity of claims that the system always delivers a clearer mandate than traditional voting.
Structural Concerns: Non-Monotonicity and the Center-Squeeze Effect
Beyond voter experience, RCV has well-documented theoretical limitations.
Non-monotonicity refers to situations where ranking a candidate higher can inadvertently harm their chances, or ranking them lower can help them win. While rare in practice, such outcomes undermine intuitive voter behavior.
A frequently cited real-world example is Burlington, Vermont’s 2009 mayoral election, where the RCV winner was not the candidate who would have won every head-to-head matchup. Public dissatisfaction with the result contributed to voters repealing RCV the following year.
Another concern is the center-squeeze effect, in which a broadly acceptable moderate candidate is eliminated early for lacking strong first-choice support, allowing more polarized candidates to advance. Critics point to Alaska’s 2022 U.S. House race, where a moderate Republican was eliminated despite evidence he may have defeated either finalist in a head-to-head contest.
Supporters note that plurality systems have their own distortions, but these cases highlight trade-offs that are rarely discussed in promotional materials.
Maryland’s Political Reality: A One-Party Dominant State
Maryland’s electoral context matters. The state is overwhelmingly Democratic, with supermajorities in the General Assembly and most statewide and congressional offices held by one party. In many districts, Democratic primaries—not general elections—decide outcomes.
RCV does little to address:
- The exclusion of independents from closed primaries
- Low turnout in decisive primary elections
- The lack of meaningful general-election competition
Some argue RCV could help manage crowded Democratic primaries by ensuring winners have broader intra-party support. Others warn it may amplify factional dynamics or advantage highly organized ideological groups.
Either way, RCV does not directly address the structural exclusion at the heart of Maryland’s system.
Follow the Money—With Context
Organizations like FairVote, headquartered in Maryland, have played a central role in promoting RCV nationwide. FairVote is registered as nonpartisan and is primarily funded by progressive-leaning philanthropic foundations such as Open Society, Hewlett, and Arnold Ventures.
There is no evidence of illegality or impropriety. However, critics note that RCV’s spread is often driven by national advocacy networks rather than local grassroots demand. Maryland has seen repeated legislative efforts—six major bills since 2023 alone—despite mixed voter familiarity and limited statewide debate.
At the same time, local adoption in places like Takoma Park and Greenbelt (which approved RCV in an advisory referendum) suggests growing momentum in some communities.
An Alternative Worth Serious Consideration: Open Primaries
If the goal is broader participation and legitimacy, open primaries offer a simpler reform.
Open primaries would:
- Allow independent voters to participate in decisive elections
- Preserve transparent, auditable vote counting
- Avoid ballot exhaustion entirely
They come with trade-offs, including theoretical risks of strategic “raiding” and the possibility of same-party general elections, as seen in California’s top-two system. Hybrid models, such as Alaska’s top-four primary combined with RCV, were designed to address these issues—but have faced backlash and repeal efforts.
Still, open primaries directly confront Maryland’s central problem: who gets to vote, not how votes are tabulated.
Conclusion: Reform Should Fit the Problem
Ranked-choice voting offers real benefits in certain contexts, particularly in genuinely competitive, multi-candidate elections. But in Maryland’s political environment—defined by one-party dominance, closed primaries, and declining trust—RCV risks adding complexity without expanding participation.
Before adopting permanent changes, lawmakers should weigh not just intentions, but outcomes—and consider whether simpler reforms might better serve Maryland voters.
Democracy is strengthened not by novelty, but by clarity, inclusion, and public confidence.
Call to Action
Maryland voters deserve a full debate—not slogans—before election rules change. Any reform should expand participation, preserve transparency, and reflect the realities of how elections are actually decided in this state.
Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free
MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.
If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.
Have a tip or documents to share?
We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.
Discover more from Maryland Bay News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.