It’s been a bad year for advocates of ranked-choice voting reforms.
Legislatures in five states banned the reform outright, as did voters in Missouri. And voters in four states — Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon — rejected referendums on adopting the new system. Only in the District of Columbia did a majority vote in favor of adopting the reform, and Alaskans chose to keep ranked-choice voting by a remarkably close 0.25% margin.
However, Democratic strategists and funders behind this year’s push for RCV may be able to learn from the losses. In three of the four ballot measure states, RCV initiatives were combined with a proposal for open primaries, flipping typical supporters to opponents. In Colorado and Nevada, where RCV was combined with open primaries, progressive groups joined the opposition, and business interests flooded the coffers of the PACs supporting the measures.
The pushback against ranked-choice voting (RCV) — which allows voters to rank candidates according to their preference instead of choosing just one — is typically part of a larger Republican-aligned effort to restrict voting rights by limiting voting by mail, banning ballot drop boxes, and raising the threshold for passage of popular ballot initiatives.
MAGA groups oppose the practice as likely to favor Democrats and moderate Republicans over their candidates. Indeed, “election integrity” groups associated with Leonard Leo and Cleta Mitchell have been attacking ranked-choice voting options in their larger sweep to restrict voting rights, and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the right-wing bill mill, has developed and circulated model legislation to prohibit it.
“Special interests are pushing a novel and complicated election process called ranked-choice voting,” ALEC’s model bill states. The group contends that the alternative voting system creates “a conflict between local and state election processes,” a claim legal scholars rebut. ALEC also highlights ranked-choice voting as systematically undermining the nation’s election systems in its annual “essential policy solutions” report for 2025.
At ALEC’s annual meeting in 2023, the custom hotel room keys featured anti-RCV branding. Key card sponsors gain access to lawmakers and VIP events at the conference, according to sponsorship materials obtained and reviewed by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD).
Red State Legislatures Ban RCV
Republicans, with some exceptions, have historically opposed ranked-choice voting. After former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (R) lost a special House election in 2022 — which was decided through ranked-choice voting — Republicans railed against it, with party leaders denouncing it as a “scam.” The Republican National Committee called for banning RCV “in every locality and level of government.”
Since then there has been a surge of interest in banning RCV for local, state, and federal elections. This year alone, bans passed in Louisiana (SB 101), Alabama (SB 186), Mississippi (SB 2144), Oklahoma (HB 3156), and Kentucky (HB 44), where the legislature overrode the governor’s veto of the bill. Previously, bans have been passed in Florida (SB 524, 2022), Idaho (HB 179, 2023), Montana (HB 598, 2023), South Dakota (SB 55, 2023), and Tennessee (SB 1820, 2022). Anti-RCV bills were introduced but never made it out of committee in Ohio and South Carolina.
In Missouri, the legislature paired RCV with a redundant measure to outlaw voting by noncitizens — which is already illegal in all federal elections — and sent it out to voters in what critics dismissed as partisan “ballot candy.”
In South Carolina (HB 4591, 2024), one of the bill’s two primary sponsors, Bill Taylor, is an ALEC member, as was the primary sponsor of the South Dakota bill (SB 55, 2023) that banned RCV.
Colorado
In Colorado, the failed effort to adopt ranked-choice voting — Proposition 131, which also would have eliminated single-party primaries — was primarily backed by Colorado Voters First, which received significant funding from industry and business interests.
Colorado Voters First received $2 million from Ben Walton, heir to the Walmart fortune; $600,000 from the Colorado Chamber of Commerce; $500,000 from Chevron; $100,000 from Kimbal Musk, Elon Musk’s brother; $496,000 from Voters for the American Center; and nearly $550,000 from private equity executives.
The largest donations came from Kent Thiry, a former healthcare executive who is board co-chair of Unite America, a large nonprofit that has spent significantly on ranked-choice voting ballot measures across the country. He donated a total of nearly $6 million to Colorado Voters First, while Unite America donated a total of $5.8 million.
Thiry has become a major player in Colorado politics, and has successfully fought for election reform ballot measures since 2016.
The main group opposing the proposition, Voters Rights Colorado, raised approximately $380,000, with its largest contributions coming from labor groups such as AFSCME and the National Education Association (NEA), as well as civic groups.
The coalition behind the no vote argued that the measure would disproportionately hurt progressive and pro-labor candidates, and most opposing groups were primarily concerned with the implementation of “jungle” primaries, not RCV.
The Colorado Working Families Party called the proposition “snake oil of the highest order” and expressed concern that it would “increase the role of big money in Colorado politics.”
The proposition risks “giving an even greater advantage to wealthy candidates and a bigger voice to special interests,” said Aly Belknap, Executive Director of Colorado Common Cause.
Some, however, worry about RCV more generally.
“There’s this feeling among progressives that ranked-choice voting is good for us, but here in Colorado, we fundamentally disagreed that Proposition 131 would help progressives, at least at the state level,” said Sean Hinga, deputy director of AFSCME Colorado. He believes the measure would “harm our ability to get labor candidates elected.”
AFSCME and Common Cause supported the RCV measure in Oregon.
Colorado voters rejected the RCV proposition 53.5% to 46.5%.
Idaho
Idaho’s Proposition 1 would have both instituted ranked-choice voting and ended closed primaries. The GOP-controlled legislature had tried to preemptively ban the measure from ever coming up for a vote, and the legislature had banned RCV the previous year. If it had passed, the ballot measure would have repealed the state law.
The initiative was supported by the Idaho Education Association and Idahoans for Open Primaries, which received $3 million from national PACs such as Unite America and a related group ($1.8 million), Article IV ($2.2 million), and Way Back PAC ($250,000), according to campaign finance disclosures.
Article IV, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit based in Virginia, is led by George Wellde III, a former Goldman Sachs investor. Working alongside Democratic operatives is the group’s treasurer, Cabell Hobbs, who has been the subject of a Federal Elections Commission complaint for helping a pro-Trump super PAC make illegal campaign contributions. Article IV is not required to publicly disclose its donors.
Way Back PAC, a hybrid PAC (also known as a Carey Committee), is based in Wyoming and mostly focuses on supporting independent and Democratic candidates in Western states.
The state GOP and many Republican representatives opposed the measure. Idaho Rising, the main opposition group, spent $321,000 on media advertising against the measure, according to its disclosures, and a constellation of smaller groups, including Secure Idaho Elections and Idaho Fair Elections, also worked to oppose it. One Person One Vote — a PAC that raised $250,000 in the four months it existed before the election — raised half of its funds from local Idahoan Larry Williams, the subject of a campaign finance complaint.
Nearly 70% of voters in Idaho voted against the measure.
Nevada
This year Nevada voters reversed their position on ranked-choice voting. In 2022, a majority of voters supported RCV, whereas this year, 53% voted against the proposition, known as Question 3, which was paired with a proposal for open primaries. Since the Nevada constitution requires voters to approve a ballot question twice before it is enacted, its failure to pass this year prevents it from becoming law.
Both state parties opposed the measure. The Nevada ACLU took no position on it.
Vote Yes on 3, the main group supporting the measure, received $13 million from Article IV, $6.4 million from Unite America, and $250,000 from Wynn Resorts, according to the group’s financial disclosures.
The opposition campaign, spearheaded by Protect Your Vote Nevada, raised approximately $2 million from a single group called Nevada Alliance, a progressive-leaning organization that is not required to disclose its donors.
Oregon
Nearly 57% of Oregon voters rejected Measure 117, which would have established statewide ranked-choice voting.
Yes on 117 PAC, the main group supporting the measure, spent nearly $9.4 million on the campaign, and received over $5.8 million from the 501(c)(4) nonprofit Oregon Ranked Choice Voting, by far the largest contributor to the PAC. It also received $2.8 million from Article IV, as well as funding from labor organizations and the Sierra Club.
The major group opposing the measure — Concerned Election Officials — raised a total of $1,380.
Alaska
Alaskans voted to retain ranked-choice voting — voting no on Ballot Measure 2 — by only 743 votes.
Yes On 2, the primary PAC advocating for repeal of RCV, raised approximately $117,000 between July and October, with the largest donations being $10,000.
The anti-repeal effort, led by No On 2, raised nearly $14 million between June and late October, including $5.5 million from Unite America PAC, $4.4 million from Article IV, and $2 million from Action Now Initiative, the action arm of the philanthropic organization Arnold Ventures.
Despite recent setbacks, the coalition advocating in favor of ranked-choice voting appears to be changing. Even where efforts to implement RCV failed, the donors backing various ballot measures illustrate just how varied the groups interested in pushing for this election reform are.
Sign up for our biweekly newsletter to stay updated with our latest work!
For all practical purposes, we are not allowed to have minor parties, because they are spoilers. Voting for them can result in the victory of the Party you do not like.
RCV is a simple solution. A Maine ballot initiative passed for this, and should be a model for the nation. Lacking RCV, just hold your nose and pick the least worst.
Republicans oppose democracy at every level, favor a one party, authoritarian state, so suppress real elections at every opportunity.
https://gopiswrong.net/irv.htm
SOME CURES FOR AUTHORITARIANISM & OTHER TYRANNIES: *+* Every year there’s one percent fewer elderly & one percent more younger voters. Win-Win Ranked Ballot has done way better in cities than states in ’24, while Missouri TYRANNICLY banned localities from adopting it, (despite not being able to stop parties from adopting it internally. *+* How it is possible that anyone for Freedom, or Democracy, or any good thing, (for themselves, their group’s, their nation’s or world’s), could not be for, Top Dead Center, Perfect Marriage of Freedom with an Eye for Justice & Justice With an Eye for Freedom, Ranked Ballot, (voters ranking candidates in order of preference, a sort of averaging of the opinions of all participating?), except from short-sightedness or privilege & poor character, is unimaginable. With all the many challenges we face, how could anyone not want the light-footedness of RB. It’s as if they did not bother even once to check out what the other side was saying about it. *+* At the start of their Revolution Within A Revolution, had the Bolsheviks adopted mere BILLS BROUGHT UP IN NUMBER OF COSPONSORS ORDER, (something in the personal self-interest of every legislator, while denying the franchise to their nation’s former oppressors, & their underlings), the world would have avoided a century of suffering, waste & war. *+* PUBLICLY INCENTIVIZED (& publicized) CAMPAIGN (& citizen comment) WEBSITES, would remove the last rationale of continuing neo-Bolshevik expansionism and Dictatorship OVER the Proletariat, that of usurpation of their revolution by monied interests, & freeing Legislators from constantly dialing for dollars, from being beholden to rich campaign contributors, & TO DO THEIR JOBS. Meanwhile, only BOTHERS of any district should be allowed to make campaign contributions in that district. *+* SHARING THE WORK (the workweek attached to the unemployment rate) would so increase the relative cost of all mechanisms of oppression as to make them prohibitive, create such prosperity as would amount to virtual GLOBAL reparations, give workers all the Unity & Liberation they could want, prevent an Organized Labor circular firing squad from chasing increasingly empty dollars into the ground, while dragging Freedom-Democracy along with them, end the NEED for most welfare (& its attendant bureaucracy), AND by ending the need for Compulsive Careerism & Unsustainable Growthism, planned obsolescence, foot-dragging & make-work, solve Global Warming. People work harder when they work for themselves, but hardest when there’s STW. *+* WOMEN’S EQUAL REPRESENTATION (half of all committees, from juries & boards of directors through SCOTUS and the Senate plus one of each House district’s TWO reps a woman) would be a tremendous SOFT POWER against all the all-male dictatorships. *+* FRUGALITY (percent of receipts budgeting, plus loans before incentives before subsidies before grants before projects, would end the debt & give us the economy & means to defeat authoritarianism. Both the Green & Libertarian parties support RB, so those with either should not attempt to take over the Forward Party, but give the Centrists a chance, lest they drag it down with them. RB takes its majority from the middle, after all. *+” ORGANIZED COMMUNICATIONS, (small randomly assigned discussion groups electing reps to higher and higher random levels, till one small group, most exactly in the middle, remains), by means of RB, & all on the web for the entire world to watch, would prevent the hacking of elections. *+* Win-Win Top Dead Center, Perfect Marriage of Freedom with an Eye for Justice and Justice With an Eye for Freedom, RANKED BALLOT, would give us all this. If America had guaranteed Ukraine’s security & Independence, at the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, in exchange for giving up the nuclear weapons on its soil, (perhaps European nations as well, if not NATO?), it should not be necessary for Ukraine to join NATO to get complete support, even troops. How shameless it would be to let Ukrainian Democracy fall. The Russian economy is the size of Texas’. No way Putin didn’t realize that the citizens of the West would never let their governments threaten their comfort by militarily invading Russia, (except in self defense). Had Germany had any of this, Hitler would have never come to power, (though Cosponsors Order is not a good fit with party centric, party-list systems). Would Putin & Xi have turned out the same? If Russia’s so great, why didn’t the rebellious Eastern Ukrainians just go live there? Were the original Soviets not Democracist? When did THAT stop? *+* All Powers To Their Lowest Appropriate Level. Nothing the state does should prevent private individuals from doing likewise, nor from entering into contracts with each other. The state should not be in the business of picking winners & losers. All this needs to be broadcast to all the world, including Russia, to show them the illegitimacy of Authoritarianism. *+* Let the Democracies offer to help inspect the aid coming into Gaza. Let there be a string of aid warehouses all along the border, to draw the noncombatants away from the contested cities. It goes to the insufficiency of the Two-Party and Virtual (party list) Two-Party Systems that they didn’t pay the freight for the Palestinians displaced by Israeli War of Independence to take the places vacated by the Jews returning to Israel, (instead of letting them to fester in refugee camps. *+* Tariffs brought on the Great Depression. How did such hokum get a pass? Isolationism is a greater threat than poor workers rushing the border for jobs & to escape the heat & violence. Euro-style (party-list) imitating Multi-Member District’s are UNNECESSARY (given plain RB’s great TRANSFORMATIVE power & STW), party-centric, counter-Women’s Equal Representation, & admittedly, (if you dig deep enough) an attempt to pre-ordained the result. *+* Let all for all this run for office, using an RB/Organized Communications based Advisory Board in their campaign, & promising a standing RB/OC Citizens Advisory Board if elected, ask all candidates their opinions on all this, write RB in in every search box, & on every ballot, (leastwise for their least important contests), &/or wear creamy orange. The USPS delivers discounted & selectively targeted bulk postcards. *+* Zoe Morgan Sydney, Movement for Fulfilled Freedom-Democracy EVERYWHERE, Albany NY, Planet Earth, Some Galaxy Speeding Away Into Nothingness
I’m curious that progressives and some minor parties couldn’t specify their opposition to ranked-choice voting and open primaries. Don’t they understand that the only way minor parties can break free of the “spoiler” role they occupy in plurality elections is if their supporters can give a 1st-choice vote to a preferred candidate, then cast a next-choice vote to help an acceptable candidate win. At least the Forward Party sees the value of RCV and is solidly behind it.
As for opposition to open (jungle) primaries, closed partisan primaries reinforce the most retrograde features of our current system. Just weeks after a long and grueling presidential campaign, partisans are already organizing efforts to “primary” Republican Senators who dare to question Donald Trump’s cabinet choices. It can only happen because early, low-turnout partisan primaries are dominated by a party’s most zealous voters. Closed primaries too often short-circuit the process and deny general election voters any role in who gets elected.
Minor parties have a point that open primaries can advantage higher-polling major-party candidates in competing for spots on the general-election ballot. A “top-four” bill in the North Carolina legislature (HB 851) has a unique provision. It exempts minor-party and independent candidates from the primary and allows them to access the general election by meeting the state’s existing petitioning requirements. It’s a model that should allay concerns of minor parties about the misnamed “jungle primary.”