Get our newsletters

Ranked Choice Voting gives voters more choice Crowded primary fields leave voters unsatisfied and unrepresented


The winners of Tuesday’s Republican primaries are likely to come away with a small plurality of votes. By some polling estimates, eventual winners today may have as little as 25% of the vote. In the case of Mehmet Oz, the frontrunner of the senatorial primary, a staggering 46% of Republicans view Mehmet Oz unfavorably.

That’s a problem with today’s system: A wide field of candidates splits the vote in so many pieces that it becomes impossible to tell who the voters truly prefer. There’s a simple solution to this: Ranked Choice Voting ensures that the winner of each primary has the support of a broad coalition of voters. If no candidate has 50% support, it sets off a series of instant runoffs until a candidate comes out with at least 50% of the vote.

It is a reform that has been successfully used across party lines, including in the Virginia gubernatorial race, the New York City mayoral race, cities across Utah, and dozens of other elections in the United States and abroad.

MarchOnHarrisburg is advocating for Ranked Choice Voting across Pennsylvania, and has policy experts ready to answer questions on how this simple reform would ensure that unpopular candidates do not end up winning today’s primaries.

One advantage to Ranked Choice Voting is that it doesn’t force voters to vote ‘strategically.’ MarchOnHarrisburg Executive Director Rabbi Michael Pollack said, “I’m disappointed by how my vote today did not actually represent how I feel. In one race, I felt pressure to vote for my third choice candidate only because I didn’t want my fourth choice candidate to win. I wish we had RCV so my vote could more accurately reflect my voice.”

Join our readers whose generous donations are making it possible for you to read our news coverage. Help keep local journalism alive and our community strong. Donate today.