Aiming to fulfill a campaign promise, Gov. Ned Lamont announced on June 6th the formation of a 14-member working group to investigate and draft a legislative proposal to implement ranked-choice voting (RCV) in caucuses, conventions, primaries, and specific municipal elections in Connecticut.
The bipartisan team, comprised of legislators and political representatives from various organizations, will deliver recommendations by the end of the year to allow the General Assembly to review and consider the findings during the 2025 regular session.
RCV operates differently from traditional plurality elections, where the candidate with the most votes wins. Instead, RCV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, from their top choice to their last. This system is designed to increase voter participation and broaden voter choice by ensuring that the winning candidate has majority support.
Initially, all first-choice votes are tallied. If no candidate secures an outright majority, an “instant runoff” is triggered. The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and voters who selected that candidate as their first choice have their votes reassigned to their next preference. This elimination and reassignment process continues until a candidate receives more than half of the total votes.
Twenty-nine states have implemented some form of ranked-choice voting, including Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont.
On June 14, the working group held its first meeting where members heard a presentation from Deb Otis, Director of Research at FairVote — a Maryland-based nonprofit dedicated to educating the public and promoting the adoption of RCV nationwide.
Otis outlined the key reasons for the growing interest in RCV, emphasizing that it “promotes more voter choice” by enabling voters to clearly express their preferences. She explained that voters often have distinct views on which candidates they like, dislike, or feel neutral about. RCV voting allows them to rank these candidates accordingly, ensuring their choices are accurately represented and reducing the impact of vote splitting and strategic voting.
Additionally, Otis highlighted that RCV tends to foster more civil campaigns, as candidates are less incentivized to engage in negative attacks, focusing instead on issues and voter engagement.
She also pointed out that FairVote has evidence that independent and third-party candidates receive larger vote shares in RCV because people aren’t afraid to vote for them. In places that use RCV, she asserted, voters are more likely to be contacted by campaigns which she attributes to “candidates need[ing] to get a broader group of voters.”
Furthermore, she indicated that “half the time you got a winner just on first choices” meaning that in the other half an instant run-off is needed to find a majority winner.
Otis acknowledged that “the research is mixed” on whether RCV improves voter turnout. However, she noted that in odd-year municipal elections, RCV has led to a “1.5 to 2 point” increase in voter participation, indicating a modest but positive impact on turnout.
When asked why there’s such an active opposition to RCV, Otis said it comes from what she refers to as “money interests on the far right.” She specifically pointed to the Federalist Society — a conservative and libertarian legal advocacy organization.
It is interesting to point out that FairVote has received funding in the past from far left-leaning organizations like George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, Jennifer and Jonathan Allan Soros Foundation and Omidyar Network Fund Inc.
Still, support for RCV is emerging from both sides of the political spectrum. In an op-ed, members of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) endorsed RCV, viewing it as a tool for “working class mass organizations,” such as labor unions, to support candidates who fully reflect their goals in the electoral arena.
They argue that RCV could make socialist and Communist candidates more viable. Additionally, they noted that even if their preferred candidate did not win, their votes “would simply be allocated to another non-fascist candidate,” ensuring their influence remains significant in the election outcome.
On the other side of the aisle, the Libertarian think tank Cato Institute endorses RCV, stating that “it improves elections by letting voters communicate much richer data about their preferences.”
Cato argues that RCV reduces the chance of a candidate with a dedicated but narrow base slipping through in a crowded field. Additionally, the think tank notes that RCV allows voters to cast a conscience vote for a long-shot candidate who is genuinely the best choice without forfeiting the opportunity to influence the final decision. This system, they believe, helps ensure that the most broadly appealing candidate wins.
However, Cato acknowledges some challenges associated with RCV, such as the complexity of multi-seat races and potential delays in vote tabulation. They suggest that while RCV might be seen as a reform beneficial to all political sides, its successful implementation requires ensuring that voters understand the process and that election results are promptly reported. Careful management and education are essential to address these concerns and maximize the system’s effectiveness.
Critics, such as the free-market think tank Heritage Foundation, argue that RCV is a “confusing, chaotic ‘reform’ being pushed by mega-liberal political donors and other activists.” They claim that RCV disenfranchises voters and can result in the election of marginal candidates who do not have majority support. Additionally, Heritage suggests that the complexity of the system and its potential to distort election outcomes make it a flawed electoral reform.
Lee Drutman, Senior Fellow at the left-leaning think tank New America, has recently revised his stance on RCV. While he still supports its use in primary elections with crowded fields and acknowledges “it is better finding a consensus winner when the electorate is not deeply divided,” he has noted that RCV mirrors divisions within a polarized electorate.
Drutman observed that “in a geographically polarized and deeply divided electorate, moderates are unlikely to win more than a few single-winner elections.” He clarifies that he is not “anti-RCV” but now views it as having a more limited application than he previously envisioned.
While RCV has its merits and potential benefits, its implementation in Connecticut should be approached with caution. The state must first address its existing electoral issues before undertaking such a significant change.
Recent instances of election fraud in Bridgeport, where irregularities and questionable practices have tainted the democratic process, highlight the need for a reliable and trustworthy electoral system.
Furthermore, allegations from Bridgeport Sen. Herron Keyson Gaston suggest that election corruption extends beyond the Park City. During a debate on an amendment to remove the mandate on drop boxes for elections, Sen. Gaston emphasized, “I also dare to say that this issue that we’re having right now that we see out of Bridgeport is not just happening in Bridgeport it’s happening across many of our towns and many of our municipalities.”
These allegations have yet to be publicly addressed.
Until Connecticut can ensure the integrity and efficiency of its current voting mechanisms, the introduction of RCV may be premature and could exacerbate existing problems rather than resolve them. Ensuring the fundamental reliability of elections should be the priority before experimenting with new systems like ranked-choice voting.
