Aspen’s Disenchantment with Ranked-Choice Voting: A Cautionary Tale

Even when ranked-choice voting works well, it still doesn’t work. 

In November, Nevadans will be asked to vote on Ballot Question 3, which will enshrine ranked-choice voting (RCV) into the Nevada constitution. I’ve authored many articles about the terrible, long-lasting consequences of a yes vote, which would take a minimum of four years to undo if we change our minds as almost every jurisdiction in America that has implemented RCV since 1974 has done. 

How Does RCV Work?

First, I will summarize the election process. Also known as “instant runoff” voting (ICV), ranked​-​choice voting requires that voters rank their preference for multiple candidates for election to each office. If no candidate receives more than 50​ percent​ of ​the ​first-place votes, then the candidate with the least ​number of ​first-place votes is eliminated, and those who listed that candidate as their top preference will instead have their second-place votes distributed to candidates.

This process continues until one candidate receives a majority of votes, which could require multiple rounds of “instant runoff” tabulations. 

How did RCV Work In Aspen, CO?

Sometimes, RCV works just as advertised… but it still doesn’t work. Take the example of Aspen, Colorado. In 2009, Aspen adopted RCV for its mayoral and at-large council races. The candidates that the voters wanted got into office. Yet in 2010, the system was scrapped by an estimated landslide of 65% of the voters. What happened? 

It turned out that the same candidates would have gotten into office with the tried-and-true winner-take-all elections.  When surveyed in an exit poll data from the first RCV election in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in 2018, a significant percentage of voters said they were confused by RCV voting rules, and had less confidence in the accuracy of the elections. A study by the Center for Election Confidence showed that in RCV elections, citizens were less likely to vote. 

 In Aspen, voters were disappointed that RCV meant that candidates spent more time campaigning and increased the costs of the elections.  

As stated by Curtis Wackerle, editor for the Aspen Daily News, “In the four municipal elections in which it was used, the candidate who received the most votes in the first round won the runoff every time, making the extra month of campaigning seem like a money-sucking, brain damage-inducing waste of time.” 

Nevada Deserves Better

Is this the kind of system we want implemented in Nevada? Definitely not. The solution to good governance is educated voters choosing the candidates they want to govern, not complex systems that will override the people’s choices with so-called “moderate candidates” who do not represent the will of the people. 

Bob Zeidman is a Policy Fellow at Nevada Policy. His book Election Hacks is the true story of how he challenged his own beliefs about voting machine hacking in the 2020 presidential election and made international news and $5 million.