Is Ranked Choice Voting Faster?

Claims that Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is faster than traditional runoff elections should be approached with skepticism. While proponents argue that RCV offers speed advantages, several factors warrant careful consideration. RCV eliminates the need for separate runoff elections, potentially saving time and resources. However, it is crucial to assess whether the time saved outweighs the complexities introduced by RCV. Simultaneous vote counting in RCV may expedite the process, but the overall efficiency and accuracy of concurrent calculations need to be evaluated, especially in larger and more complex elections. While ranked ballots are designed to streamline the counting process, their practical impact on speed can vary depending on voter familiarity and potential confusion. The use of technology and automation can enhance the speed of counting RCV votes, but it is important to acknowledge that factors such as electorate size, ballot complexity, available resources, and counting infrastructure quality can still affect the overall speed. 

Ranked Choice Voting is not always faster

The implementation of ranked-choice voting (RCV) has raised concerns regarding its speed and efficiency. One of the main factors contributing to this concern is the alteration required in the ballot counting process. RCV ballots need to be transported to a centralized location for counting due to multiple rounds of tabulation. This centralized tabulation process can increase the cost of the election and make it more susceptible to mismanagement. Furthermore, the intricate nature of counting the final results in RCV elections leads to delays in declaring the winner, often taking several days or weeks after Election Day. Such delays can raise suspicions of impropriety and significantly impact voter confidence, posing a threat to the democratic process.

Studies and examples from jurisdictions that have implemented RCV provide further evidence of challenges associated with this voting system. For instance, in the 2011 San Francisco Municipal Election, precincts with higher proportions of specific demographic groups and progressive precincts were more likely to have ballots containing overvotes, indicating confusion or errors in the ranking process. Similarly, the first ranked-choice primary in New York City experienced a high rate of "exhausted" primary ballots, which raises concerns about the effectiveness of the system. In the 2022 Oakland, CA mayoral election, incorrect instructions on RCV ballots led to confusion, and significant overvoting occurred in certain precincts, reflecting demographic divisions.

These instances highlight various challenges associated with RCV, including overvoting, ballot errors, confusion, and concerns about fairness and accuracy. Implementation issues and discrepancies across different precincts can result in higher rates of disenfranchisement and adversely impact voter trust. As jurisdictions consider adopting or expanding RCV, it is crucial to address these challenges and ensure that the system functions efficiently, accurately, and inclusively.

Case Study: Minneapolis, Minnesota's 2009 Mayoral Race

In the 2009 mayoral race in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the election office estimated that tabulation would take 37 eight-hour shifts with 102 election officials working for a turnout of 70,000 voters. In other words, tabulation was estimated to take 30,192 man-hours or nearly 13 days of round-the-clock counting.

Case Study: New York City's 2021 Mayoral Democratic Primary

During New York City's 2021 mayoral Democratic primary, the election process took 15 days to reach a conclusion, with the two final candidates only separated by slightly more than one percent of the vote. A contributing factor to the delay was the erroneous inclusion of 135,000 test ballots.

These case studies further illustrate the potential time-consuming nature of implementing RCV and the impact it can have on the timely determination of election outcomes. Ranked-choice voting has raised concerns about its speed and efficiency. The centralized tabulation process, the complex nature of counting final results, and examples of challenges and errors in jurisdictions that have implemented RCV all contribute to the notion that RCV is not always faster. It is crucial for jurisdictions to address these challenges and ensure that the system functions efficiently, accurately, and inclusively to maintain voter trust and the integrity of the democratic process.

https://thefga.org/research/ranked-choice-voting-a-disaster-in-disguise/