Ranked Choice Voting on the ballot in 6 states

Costanza

Rising Star
Registered

17 states and the District of Columbia have voting-related measures on the ballot in November​

Voters in a record number of states — including the battlegrounds of Arizona and Nevada — are set to decide this fall whether to enact far-reaching changes to how their elections are run.

Most of the proposals would replace party primaries with nonpartisan contests, where all candidates, regardless of party, appear on the same ballot and some number of candidates, like the "top four" vote-getters, move on to the general election.














Here is a rundown on what is set to be voted on in each state:

Alaska — overturn ranked choice voting and open primaries​

Alaska already has a nonpartisan, top-four primary system, as well as ranked choice voting for general
elections, after voters there approved a ballot measure in 2020.

This system was first used in the 2022 election, when Democrat Mary Peltola won a ranked choice contest for the lone U.S. House seat in the conservative-leaning state.

With ranked choice voting, if a candidate gets a majority of first-choice votes, they win the election outright. But if no one gets a majority, the candidate receiving the fewest votes is eliminated, and voters who ranked that candidate first would have their votes transferred to their second choice. This is repeated until one candidate gets majority support.

Opponents of the system are now hoping Alaska voters reverse course and get rid of ranked choice voting and their open primary structure, with a measure on this year's ballot.

(Across the country, many Republican-led states have in recent months preemptively banned ranked choice voting, and during the general election Missouri voters will decide on a constitutional amendment to block it.)

Arizona — nonpartisan primaries​

If approved by voters, Proposition 140would eliminate partisan primaries and allow all Arizona voters to vote for any candidate running in a primary election, regardless of party affiliation.

The measure would leave it up to state lawmakers to sort out how many candidates move to the general election, and then how it would be decided who wins. According to the proposal, “if future law provides that three or more candidates may advance to the general election for an office to which one candidate will be elected, voter rankings shall be used.”

One complication in Arizona: Voters are also set to vote on a competing measure, Proposition 133, that would maintain party primaries.

Currently, Arizona voters who are registered with a party can only vote in that party’s primary elections. However, unaffiliated voters can choose which party’s primary they want to participate in.

Prop 140 also drops signature requirements for ballot qualification, which is generally an expensive logistical hurdle for independent and minor party candidates. Lastly, the measure would prohibit the use of public funds for “political party elections.”

Colorado — nonpartisan primaries / ranked choice voting​

If approved by voters, Initiative 310 would implement a top-four primary system in Colorado, as well as ranked choice voting in general elections. This is similar to the system Alaska already has in place.

In Colorado's current primary system — like Arizona's — if you are registered with a political party in the state, you can only vote in that party’s primary election. Voters who are unaffiliated can vote in any one party’s primary.

If approved by voters, Initiative 310 is written to take effect in 2026, but state lawmakers passed a law this year that could potentially block implementation of the measure. According to Colorado Public Radio, though, “Gov. Jared Polis said that if the measure passes, he’ll work to ensure that it is implemented by 2028.”

District of Columbia — semi-open primaries / ranked choice voting​

Washington, D.C.'s Ballot Initiative 83, if enacted, would change elections in two ways:

  1. allow unaffiliated voters to vote in a party primary;
  2. implement ranked choice voting, allowing voters to rank five candidates in order of preference for most offices on the ballot.
Currently, the District of Columbia has closed primaries, which means you have to be registered with a political party in order to participate in its primary elections.

Idaho — nonpartisan primaries / ranked choice voting​

If passed, Idaho’s ballot measure would create a top-four primary system, as well ranked choice voting for the state’s general elections.

Since 2023, Idaho has had a ban on ranked choice voting on the books, so this measure would seek to overturn that law.

Right now, political parties in the state are allowed to restrict who can participate in their primary elections by including or excluding voters who are not registered with the party.

Montana — nonpartisan primaries / majoritarian general elections​

Montana has two paired ballot issues — one that would create a top-four primary system, and another that would ensure that majority vote decides an election winner. That could be, for instance, ranked choice voting or a runoff.
Montana currently has open, but partisan, primary elections. This means voters can choose whatever party primary they want to vote in, but they can only vote for candidates in that one party.
Sponsor Message


Nevada — nonpartisan primaries / ranked choice voting​

If approved by voters, Ballot Question No. 3 would create a top-five primary system and ranked choice voting for general elections in Nevada.
The measure would amend the state constitution, and in Nevada, proposed amendments have to be approved in two general elections in order to be enacted. This measure already passed once, during the 2022 general election.
Nevada currently has closed primary elections. This means that only voters who are registered with a party can participate in that party’s elections. Unaffiliated voters can't participate in party primaries.

Oregon — ranked choice voting​

Measure 117 in Oregon, if passed, would create a ranked choice voting system for both primary and general elections, beginning in 2028.
Oregon's proposal would apply to presidential, congressional and gubernatorial elections — as well as other statewide races, including for secretary of state, state treasurer and attorney general. The measure also would allow ranked choice voting to be used for some local elected offices.

South Dakota — nonpartisan primaries​

South Dakota’s ballot measure, if approved, would set up a nonpartisan top-two primary system, in which the two candidates who receive the most votes from all primary voters advance to the general election.
Currently, South Dakota allows political parties to decide who can participate in their primaries. During most recent elections in the state, the Democratic Party allowed Democratic voters — as well as independents and unaffiliated voters. South Dakota’s Republican Party, however, has kept its primaries closed and only allows voters who are registered Republican to participate.
 

Costanza

Rising Star
Registered
We need this system.

I’ve always felt that way but I think the implementation is off. I don’t like the idea of getting rid of closed primaries. I’d like separate Democratic and Republican primaries with ranked choice in each and then ranked choice in the general.

The way they are doing it in DC, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado and South Dakota eliminates partisan primaries. That’s totally extra and not something I ever imagined as a longtime advocate of ranked choice voting.

I think Oregon may be doing it in the more pure way I would prefer based on the description above but I need to read more.

The devil is in the details… I haven’t returned my ballot yet because I’m not sure how to vote on this one issue.

If you eliminate partisan primaries, you’re going to end up with Republicans influencing who the Democratic option is and Democrats influencing who the Republican is. As a left-leaning voter, I think Dems are already too similar too Republicans in many cases so this is a step forward in the general but two steps back in the primaries.
 

Politic Negro

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
I’ve always felt that way but I think the implementation is off. I don’t like the idea of getting rid of closed primaries. I’d like separate Democratic and Republican primaries with ranked choice in each and then ranked choice in the general.

The way they are doing it in DC, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado and South Dakota eliminates partisan primaries. That’s totally extra and not something I ever imagined as a longtime advocate of ranked choice voting.

I think Oregon may be doing it in the more pure way I would prefer based on the description above but I need to read more.

The devil is in the details… I haven’t returned my ballot yet because I’m not sure how to vote on this one issue.

If you eliminate partisan primaries, you’re going to end up with Republicans influencing who the Democratic option is and Democrats influencing who the Republican is. As a left-leaning voter, I think Dems are already too similar too Republicans in many cases so this is a step forward in the general but two steps back in the primaries.
I'm for eliminating the primaries because those elections result in low turnout. In addition, I would say individuals and unknown party candidates have a shot.

Anyway I would add a rule that no candidate will endorse or campaign with an opponent once they enter the race through the election.
 

Costanza

Rising Star
Registered
I'm for eliminating the primaries because those elections result in low turnout. In addition, I would say individuals and unknown party candidates have a shot.

Anyway I would add a rule that no candidate will endorse or campaign with an opponent once they enter the race through the election.

I think low primary turnout is a voter education issue, so my solution would be getting more people to participate rather than getting rid of the primaries.

So using the Maryland senate race as an example, you would prefer that voters were choosing between Larry Hogan, Angela Alsobrooks and David Trone right now? It could work with ranked choice but I think it could make it a lot harder for a candidate like Alsobrooks to succeed since the other two are more established. I’m not sure, though, just a thought.
 

Politic Negro

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
I think low primary turnout is a voter education issue, so my solution would be getting more people to participate rather than getting rid of the primaries.

So using the Maryland senate race as an example, you would prefer that voters were choosing between Larry Hogan, Angela Alsobrooks and David Trone right now? It could work with ranked choice but I think it could make it a lot harder for a candidate like Alsobrooks to succeed since the other two are more established. I’m not sure, though, just a thought.
Before I answer the Maryland Hypothetical, I want to give you a real life example for you preference.

NYC mayor's race was a closed primary. From the outside Yang(fresh off his Pres. run), and prominent council Maya Wiley were known contenders but a little known Police Capt. won with a majority of voters were from Manhattan, the primary was held in the summer, and eventually two candidates were campaigning together to be a spoiler.

If Maryland did a closed ranked choice contest, I don't see Alsobrooks would had a chance because she would not had time to separate herself from multiple candidates in a short time.
 

Camille

Kitchen Wench #TeamQuaid
Staff member
I don’t personally but I think it would be good for others. I would make that change and my question was why I can’t.

I'm not sure. I don't remember the various permissions for each user group. If you don't have the option it may be because you aren't a paid member. I'm sure hnic will chime in. I changed it from 17 to 6 tho.
 

Costanza

Rising Star
Registered
Before I answer the Maryland Hypothetical, I want to give you a real life example for you preference.

NYC mayor's race was a closed primary. From the outside Yang(fresh off his Pres. run), and prominent council Maya Wiley were known contenders but a little known Police Capt. won with a majority of voters were from Manhattan, the primary was held in the summer, and eventually two candidates were campaigning together to be a spoiler.

I'm not understanding your point. (Also who were the two candidates campaigning together and why is that relevant?)

If Maryland did a closed ranked choice contest, I don't see Alsobrooks would had a chance because she would not had time to separate herself from multiple candidates in a short time.

What about open ranked choice? Which means top 2 out of Trone, Alsobrooks and Hogan.
 

Costanza

Rising Star
Registered
I didnt. I like it on its face but need to look into it more. Im 100% for open primary component and always thought not having them was unconstitutional. But anything that complicates the process is a recipe for disaster and will have a learning curve.

Is that because you're not registered with a party?

I felt that way about open primaries in 2008. My state having a closed primary forced me to register as a Democrat to vote for Obama over Clinton. But I think it's better to force people like me inside the tent (and have some more cantankerous folks exclude themselves) than to let everyone in, which includes Republicans.

So that is an issue I have changed my mind on.



 
Top