Opinion: Ranked Choice Voting Does Not Produce Majority Support
In November, Irvine residents will be asked to accept or reject a change to the current election process whereby Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) would replace “plurality” elections. In the ballot argument seeking a “Yes” vote, proponents claim that electing a candidate who does not have a majority of the votes “is NOT real democracy” because most voters apparently don’t want that candidate. The RCV “instant run-off” process then enables a candidate with even less apparent support to possibly replace the candidate who received the most votes. “THIS is what real democracy looks like” according to proponents. Confused? RCV is an expensive non-solution to the claimed problem.
RCV will not “Guarantee Majority Support” as the argument claims. If no candidate receives a majority of all votes cast, the RCV “instant run-off” process cannot create a true “majority” – the results speak for themselves. To begin the run-off, the lowest-performing candidate is eliminated and replaced on those ballots by the second or next-ranked candidate – a do-over for those voters — and votes are counted again. The process is repeated and a winner is declared when a candidate receives a majority of the votes counted, and if a winner is declared when there are three or more continuing candidates, additional rounds of counting occur until there are only two candidates left for reporting purposes only. RCV also assumes that all candidates ranked by a voter have that voter’s “support” and deserve a full-value vote if they reach the counting level. Few, if any, voters actually “support” more than one candidate. RCV eliminates the ballots of voters who voted for the lowest-performing candidate and did not rank others, and also eliminates that low-performing candidate from all ballots, whenever that candidate rises to the vote-counting level. RCV then changes the normal definition of “majority” to mean simply the majority of the votes counted in the final run-off process.
If, as implied in the ballot argument, the RCV process is gaining in popularity, it would have advanced more widely years ago. Instead, at the State level, only two States use RCV and 18 States have banned the process. Adopting RCV will surely raise questions about election integrity and create less trust in the election process. Irvine should not be experimenting with a new, complicated, un-necessary and possibly expensive election process change. A NO vote is the appropriate response.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Irvine Watchdog.
6 Comments
mwgabby-li
October 1, 2026 at 12:17 pmNormally if you vote for someone who doesn’t win, your ballot is basically trashed and you have zero influence on the election.
With RCV, if the person you voted for loses, you can still have an influence on the election! It’s no longer all-or-nothing.
Also, you don’t have to vote for more than one candidate. If you really don’t approve of other choices, excluding them is perfectly valid. But it does mean that if there are A, B, and C options, if you only vote for A, you won’t have any influence on whether B or C is elected at all if A loses.
Me, I’d rather have an influence on the election, given the choice.
Scott Perley
October 3, 2026 at 9:23 amNo one’s vote was trashed. Everyone’s initial vote influenced the election. Why should you deserve a do-over?
mwgabby-li
October 1, 2026 at 12:42 pmAlso, arguably the reason RCV has been banned by so many state legislatures is that it is opposed on a bipartisan basis by major political parties, as they are strengthened by first-past-the-post and weakened by initiatives like RCV that make it more likely that third party candidates will win. So they have a strong incentive to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about it.
Instant-runoff style RCV isn’t really the most representative system, but it is definitely an improvement on that front from what we have.
Dr. Arthur Strauss
October 1, 2026 at 1:20 pmThis is a non-solution to a non-existent problem. Save the money to pay down the deficit. In the meantime – reduce the city manager pot of gold and get rid of Irvine’s support of the fraudulent OCPA.
Branda Lin
October 1, 2026 at 9:44 pmThe 18 states that “banned” ranked choice voting (RCV) were all Republican-led states and did so without giving voice to the voters — a clear example of governmental overreach, taking away the power from localities to make the decision on their own. Perhaps it’s because:
– RCV would eliminate extreme candidates while rewarding consensus candidates.
– RCV moves power away from outside interests and moves it into the hands of voters by giving them more choice.
– RCV can’t be “gamed” with spoiler candidates and vote-splitting.
With ranked choice voting, candidates have to work to earn EVERY vote, not just those within their party. You have to be focused on delivering results for your entire community, not just the same old fights based on party lines. This is the upgrade our local democracy deserves.
Michael Schwager
October 12, 2026 at 8:39 amUnfortunately, there is no perfect voting system. Ranked choice voting is likely to be fairer than most.
Think of ranked choice as showing your opinion on which candidates might be better, or worse, at the job if elected.
Say there are five candidates. Then I could mark as 1, my idea of a good choice, 2 as a pretty good alternative, 3 as maybe OK, 4 as a stinker, and 5 as the last person I’d like to see in that office.
Every other voter could do the same. And, since the counting steps are public, the winner would know why they won, and, maybe, would act accordingly.