Ranked-Choice Voting: Democracy’s “Upgrade” That No One Asked For

By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews

Montgomery County Councilmember Evan Glass recently praised ranked-choice voting (RCV) as a reform that “strengthens democracy,” claiming it gives voters more options and ensures winners reflect majority will.

That sounds good — in theory.

In practice, ranked-choice voting is a confusing, opaque, and unnecessary overhaul of a system that already works. And Maryland should think very carefully before embracing it.

Complexity Is Not a Virtue

Democracy functions best when it is clear and transparent. Voters cast a ballot. Votes are counted. The candidate with the most votes wins.

Ranked-choice voting replaces that simplicity with layers of redistribution, elimination rounds, and mathematical recalculations that most voters do not fully understand.

Under RCV:

• If no candidate receives a majority,
• The lowest-performing candidate is eliminated,
• Their votes are redistributed based on second (or third) preferences,
• And the process repeats until someone crosses 50%.

That may sound orderly on paper. But in reality, it introduces confusion at the ballot box and skepticism during counting.

When voters cannot easily explain how the winner was chosen, trust erodes.

Exhausted Ballots and Artificial Majorities

RCV advocates claim it ensures “majority support.” That’s often misleading.

In many jurisdictions that use RCV, large numbers of ballots become “exhausted” — meaning voters did not rank enough candidates, and their votes are removed from later rounds.

The final “majority” winner is often just a majority of the remaining ballots — not a majority of total voters.

That’s not majority rule. That’s statistical gymnastics.

If 100,000 people vote and 20,000 ballots are exhausted, the “majority” winner might be backed by only 40,001 voters — not 50,001.

That is not stronger democracy. That is accounting theater.

Lower Turnout, Higher Confusion

Evidence from some RCV cities shows increased ballot errors and disproportionately higher rates of ballot exhaustion among lower-income and less-educated voters.

Democracy should expand participation — not create a system that requires a tutorial.

If a reform makes voting harder to understand for regular citizens, it is not a democratic improvement. It is an academic experiment imposed on working people.

Maryland already struggles with voter engagement and civic trust. The last thing we need is to tell voters they now need to “strategize” their ballots like a fantasy football draft.

Weakening Accountability

RCV also changes campaign incentives in ways that are not necessarily healthy.

Instead of presenting clear distinctions between candidates, RCV can encourage bland, lowest-common-denominator campaigns where candidates avoid taking firm positions to remain everyone’s second choice.

Strong ideas get watered down. Sharp contrasts disappear. Accountability blurs.

Democracy works when voters can clearly choose between competing visions. RCV pushes toward political ambiguity.

Imported Reform, Local Consequences

Supporters frequently cite Alaska, Maine, and certain cities as success stories.

But Maryland is not Alaska. Montgomery County is not New York City.

New York’s first major RCV mayoral primary was marked by confusion and even a ballot tabulation error that forced officials to retract early results. That incident alone demonstrates how fragile public trust becomes when counting grows complicated.

Maryland should not rush to adopt a trendy national reform without clear evidence that it improves outcomes here.

The Real Question

If ranked-choice voting is such an obvious upgrade, why does it require so much explanation?

Why does it require simulations, charts, elimination diagrams, and public education campaigns?

Good democratic systems are intuitive.

The traditional ballot is intuitive.

Ranked-choice voting is not.

Maryland’s elections are not broken. We do not have a crisis of candidates winning with 5% support. We do not have systemic ballot chaos.

Before lawmakers experiment with the mechanics of democracy, they should ask a basic question:

Are we solving a real problem — or just chasing a political fad?

Because when it comes to the rules of elections, simplicity is strength. Transparency is strength. Trust is strength.

Ranked-choice voting risks weakening all three.

And Maryland should not gamble with democracy for the sake of novelty.

---

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.

Support Local Journalism

Have a tip or documents to share?

We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.

Submit a Tip

Need background research, policy analysis, or legislative clarity?

MDBayNews offers independent research and legislative analysis services, including bill summaries, issue memos, district-level context, and fact-checked opposition research. This work is informational and non-advocacy in nature.

Independent · Confidential · Non-coordinated
Candidate Services | Legislative Services | Sponsored Profiles

Want more?

For deeper analysis, strategies, playbooks, deep dives, and more, subscribe to our premium newsletter, The Blue Heron.