What Nevada Can Learn from Ann Arbor’s Failed RCV Experiment

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), or Instant Run-off Voting, sounds like a fair way to elect leaders-voters ranking candidates from first to last choice- but it’s far from fair and even further away from simple.

For example, if three candidates are running for office, the voter may rank them by first, second and third choice. If the voter’s first-choice candidate receives the least votes in the initial round, their second-choice candidate receives their vote in the following. The process is repeated until a candidate gets an outright majority.  

RCV in Ann Arbor, Michigan

In the 1970s, Ann Arbor, Michigan gave this voting system a try and boy, was that a mistake. The mayoral election ran tallies with first preference votes for James E. Stephenson at 14,453, Albert Wheeler at 11,815, Carol Ernst with 3,181, and for miscellaneous write-in candidates, the first preference votes were 52. The system ended up getting rejected after this messy and controversial mayoral election.  

The results were that Wheeler won the mayoral election over Stephenson despite having fewer votes in the initial round. Voter dissatisfaction led to a swift throw out of RCV. Nevadans should heed this historical event. Everyone knows it’s best to learn from mistakes, so you don’t repeat them.  

According to court documents on Ballotpedia regarding the case Stephenson v. Ann Arbor Board of Canvassers, Stephenson argued the RCV electoral system to be invalid because it violated the equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section II, of the Michigan Constitution.

While Stephenson may have been salty about the loss, he wasn’t wrong. The judge in this case ruled against Stephenson and upheld the system’s results in 1975. However, on April 5, 1976, Ann Arbor introduced Proposal B, Repeal of Ranked Choice Voting Initiative, passed by 62.43% voter support.  

Disadvantages to RCV 

The subsequent pushback by voters following the Ann Arbor mayoral election illustrates the imbalance in voter preference in the RCV tally system. This is due to the phenomena known as exhausted ballots, or inactive ballots. Under RCV, ballots can become “exhausted” or invalid. Nevadans have already suffered from elections issues; do we really need to make things even more complicated.  

According to the Equal Voting Coalition, “It all comes down to voter intent. The system should not corrupt voter intent. The system should count your vote and, if possible, be able to make a difference, and help you gain representation, but in Ranked Choice Voting, that’s not necessarily the case.” Due to the complexities of RCV, this would deeply impact Nevadans’ preference to choose the right candidate for the job.  

Why Nevada Should be Wary of Adopting the RCV System 

In November 2024, Nevada Question 3, the Top Five Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative, will be on the ballot in Nevada as an initiated constitutional amendment. This will introduce a new method of electoral voting in the state that opponent Emily Persaud-Zamora, executive director of Silver State Voices, states will make “casting a ballot more time-consuming, more complicated, and more confusing for voters … It will inevitably lead to increased error.”  Ballots being “thrown out” or disregarded due to voter mistakes or misunderstandings are a primary cause.  

If the repealed system in Ann Arbor is any indication, the RCV voting method is utopian in concept, although flawed in application. The state of Nevada ought to be wary and learn that the outcome of the Michigan election illustrates the risks. Protect the integrity of your vote! Vote NO on Question 3 to keep our elections straightforward and effective. Stick with Nevada Policy to stay up to date on this critical issue.