While controversial in nature, ranked choice voting has recently seen a surge in popularity, and the state of Massachusetts should adopt it, but only if done right.
Using the states of Alaska and Maine as examples, in elections, they have an open primary, where everybody runs against each other. The top candidates, regardless of partisan affiliations, advance to the general election and the general public ranks them from first to last, depending on how many are allowed to advance to the general election. This means the will of the people is often shown, compared to states with partisan primaries. In those states, candidates will often have landslide victories when many are choosing the candidate that they believe is “the lesser of two evils.” In a state that has this system, a winning candidate may only receive a narrow majority over the other three, but this allows people to make their voices heard instead of voting for someone they don’t agree with just because they disagree with the other candidate more.
In many elections, candidates also like to create nasty and vicious campaign advertisements attacking their opponents. Americans born in the 21st Century have become familiar with these brutal tactics, and for some, it’s all they’ve ever known. Ranked choice voting encourages civil campaigning. In 2025, New York City’s mayoral election was very civil, with mayoral candidates Zohran Mamdani and Curtis Sliwa often engaging in light-hearted banter. One could compare this to the 2024 presidential election, where both candidates threw jabs at each other in almost every ad they made. In addition, in 2022, Mary Peltola’s winning senate campaign in Alaska was able to focus on issues representing those who would become her constituents, rather than national issues taking the spotlight, as they do in any other election.
Ranked choice voting also reduces the need for voters to choose the candidate that could beat the other. Instead of simply voting for one person, voters rank the candidates. If the first choice candidate isn’t viable, the vote moves to the second choice, and then further down if necessary, eliminating the need for voters to play the role of “poll watcher.”
This system also eliminates the need for runoff elections, which are uncommon in Massachusetts, but are common in other parts of the country.
One might say this system is too complicated or that it delays the votes, or that it benefits only one party. These concerns are absolutely valid. We as humans are naturally afraid of change. However, not all change is bad, and these changes are an example of that.
To break it down, yes, a new voting system in the state of Massachusetts would absolutely create a learning curve. However, many voters in Maine found it easy to figure out once it was implemented. The same thing happened in Alaska. Ranked choice voting was also implemented for local elections in New York City. The combined population of those regions is over 10.7 million. If 10.7 million people can figure it out, what’s to say the 7 million people of Massachusetts can’t? Additionally, studies have shown that ranked choice voting has led to higher voter turnout in these regions.
Would it delay the results? Well, think about the past three presidential elections. The United States had presumptive winners, but the voting count went on for weeks, leading Election Day to become “Election Season”. With mail-in voting becoming popular during and after the pandemic, most votes are now cast before Election Day. Another key aspect is the count. Georgia’s senate runoff in 2022 occurred 28 days after the general election, had a lower turnout, and cost the state more in taxpayer dollars. Compare this to Alaska’s 2022 election, where the winner was proclaimed after the 15-day period required to receive absentee ballots. This proves the method is faster and more representative.
But does the system favor one party over the other? Diving into the system, it does put pressure on the status quo. This doesn’t necessarily mean it favors one party or another, it just means moderates on either side of the aisle would have an easier time winning. That’s why politicians resisting the status quo, or with beliefs farther to the left or right of center, tend to resist and criticize the system. However, this did not stop DSA-backed Zohran Mamdani, a candidate with progressive views further left than most Democrats, from winning the 2025 mayoral election in New York City. If anything, ranked choice voting favors one group over any other: the voters.
Many believe that Question 3 on Massachusetts’ midterm ballots this year revolves around ranked choice voting. However, this would not be ranked choice voting. It would be an open primary, but voters would have to pick between the top two candidates in the general election. This goes back to the “lesser of two evils” comment made earlier. So, what does Massachusetts need to do? Well, I believe that the state needs to implement open primaries with the top four candidates advancing to the general election. This allows for a more representative election, and should be a ballot question in 2028.
For now, Massachusetts will stick to the traditional voting system, but in the future, ranked choice voting could be a way to fix the election system in the state and allow for more representation, which is what this country was built upon.