| Beth Fukumoto | Honolulu Civil Beat |
The alternative election method offers clear advantages and clear trade-offs.
[The] winner-take-all, choose-one system is not perfect. Turnout often drops, holding two elections costs more and the “pick one” rule encourages people to vote strategically. In a crowded first round, voters worry about wasting their vote on someone who cannot make the top two, or splitting the vote between similar candidates and helping someone they like less. Many people end up dropping their first choice and pick someone they think can win.
Away from negative messaging
Research from places that use ranked choice voting shows some consistent benefits. The decisive round happens in a single, higher turnout election instead of a lower turnout preliminary. Voters can express their full preferences without worrying as much about “spoilers,” and new or underdog candidates can compete without being punished for splitting the vote. Campaigns move away from negative messaging, since candidates want to be the second or third choice of people who prefer someone else first. It also saves money by eliminating runoffs.