Ballot Playoffs: How Ranked Choice Voting Turns Elections into a Fair Game
I was sitting around today thinking about the Super Bowl. How each team at the beginning of the season has an equal chance to make it all the way to the end. One random thought led to another, and next thing I knew, I was stuck on the idea of our two-party system here in the United States. Weird jump, I know. But with the Chiefs in the Super Bowl again, it reminded me of the Patriots usually always in the Super Bowl for the past decade when they were dominate. And the bounce to our nation, and who represents us, you know—donkey vs. elephant, the same old matchup.
This system has left a lot of people rolling their eyes at politics (like a lot of people probably rolling their eyes with the Chiefs being back), which is a big reason why voter apathy is at an all-time high for certain states during elections. For example, Oklahoma only had 53.28% of eligible voters vote this past election, Hawaii with only 50.28%, as well as Texas with 56.57%. That’s like being a Raiders or a Jets fan knowing deep down in your heart, they’re not going to the Super Bowl, so why would I bother to vote? Not voting because you assume your opponent is going to win or your vote doesn’t matter is a lot like refusing to watch the big game just because your team didn’t make it. Then, come game day, you can’t escape it—it’s on every TV, blasting from every radio, and your neighbor keeps chanting, “I’m so pumped for the big game! Check out my hat!” Meanwhile, you’re trying to tune it all out, grumbling, “I don’t care who wins,” but it doesn’t matter. They won’t quit talking about it. Politics works the same way; even if you ignore it, it’ll still creep into your life. You can try to shut it down, saying, “You’re so annoying,” but you’d better believe someone’s going to keep waving their team colors in your face or put up a flag in front of their house. That’s the game—like it or not.
Because if this, I started wondering: what if there was something that could snap us out of this apathy? Then I remembered a thing called Ranked Choice Voting—RCV for short. To me, it feels like the “playoff system” of elections. Instead of having only two giant teams that make you pick one and just live with the consequences, RCV lets you rank your top choices. If your first choice doesn’t make the cut, your vote slides to your second choice, and so on. It’s like cheering for your favorite football team, but still having a backup if they don’t make it to the Super Bowl.
Right now, Team Donkey and Team Elephant act like they own the field. They scare you by saying the other side is pure evil, so you’d better stick with them. Meanwhile, a lot of folks are so fed up they don’t even watch the game anymore—turnout goes down, negativity goes up. With RCV, candidates would actually need broad support. They’d have to calm down and try to be reasonable because they want people’s second or third choices, not just their die-hard fans.
Some people call RCV “too complicated,” but come on—we master new apps, video games, and even weird TikTok dances on a daily basis. If we can do all that, we can figure out how to rank a few names on a ballot. States like Maine and Alaska have used RCV, and the sky hasn’t fallen. They just count the votes in rounds, kinda like playoffs, until someone comes out on top. Simple enough, right?
Now, will Ranked Choice Voting fix every political problem under the sun? Probably not. But it does give regular folks more control. In fact, a study by researchers at the University of Minnesota and the University of Missouri–St. Louis found that in cities using RCV, voter turnout often stayed the same or went up. That’s a pretty good sign that when people feel like their vote truly counts—even if their first choice doesn’t win—they’re more likely to show up. Instead of feeling like your vote is wasted if you pick someone who’s not a donkey or an elephant, you can still back new ideas without losing your say in who eventually wins. That alone might bring people back into the arena. And who knows? If we stop treating elections like a never-ending grudge match and start treating them like a playoff where multiple teams get a fair shot, maybe we’ll find some fresh energy and fresh leaders along the way.
So that’s why I believe RCV can cure—or at least seriously treat—our national apathy problem. It gives us more choices, more reasons to pay attention, and more chances to influence the final outcome. Think about it: if the Super Bowl only had two teams playing every single year, we’d get bored pretty fast. And that’s sort of what our elections look like right now. Let’s mix it up. Let’s open the field. Who knows—maybe our democracy will end up more exciting than the Super Bowl itself.
