Ranked voting lowers the temperature of American politics | Meredith Sumpter

Polling suggests 79% of voters think the U.S. is in a political crisis, and 64% say our political system is too divided to solve the nation’s problems.

Part of the solution lies in how we elect our leaders. We should give voters more choice in elections, lower the temperature of our politics and give lawmakers incentives to work together. Ranked choice voting and proportional representation would make politicians deliver for their constituents.

With ranked voting, voters can rank candidates in order of preference: first, second, third and so on. If your first choice doesn’t have a chance to win, your ballot counts for your next choice.

This simple change moves elections away from today’s “us vs. them” mud-slinging, and instead rewards candidates who run positive, issue-based campaigns that appeal to more voters.

That’s because candidates need to earn a majority of voter support to win a ranked election -- giving them reason to talk to voters outside their base. Candidates also have incentives to find common ground with their opponents -- because they may need to earn second- or third-choice support from voters ranking their opponent first.

In New York City’s ranked primary this summer, mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani “cross-endorsed” with rival Brad Lander -- meaning Mamdani and Lander encouraged voters to rank them both. The pair released joint ads, held joint campaign events, and made TV appearances together. In Alaska, Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Democratic Congresswoman Mary Peltola endorsed each other.

“The skill you need to win in a ranked choice election … that’s the kind of personality you want in politics," conservative political theorist Yuval Levin recently said. 

The collaboration of ranked voting reverberates beyond Election Day. Following the latest elections in Alaska, bipartisan majority coalitions formed in both houses of the state legislature -- with Republicans, Democrats and independents working together on education, public safety, business opportunities and a balanced budget.

Proportional representation could have an even greater impact. Already used in most democracies around the world, proportional representation is just what it sounds like.

Instead of having just one representative, a district elects several members in line with their share of the vote. For example, if about 60% of votes go to conservatives and 40% go to liberals, then about 60% of seats go to conservatives and 40% to liberals. In a five-member district, conservatives would win three seats and liberals two.

Compare that to our current elections, where one group of voters elects its favorite candidate and everyone else gets nothing. Rural Democrats and urban Republicans might make up 40% of the population in their districts. They should have a voice, but their preferred candidates are nearly always defeated.

This lack of representation fuels polarization and frustration.

When most districts are “safe” for one party, elected officials win by appealing to smaller, more partisan primary electorates. They have little incentive to engage with anyone outside their party base. Meanwhile, voters who live in a safe district feel like their vote doesn’t really matter -- especially if their district is safe for the party they oppose.

If Congress were elected with proportional representation, every district would become a swing district. All our votes would matter, and our voices would be heard. Democrats, Republicans and perhaps even independents would represent each district. Leaders from different parties would have new incentives to cooperate.

Ranked voting and proportional representation would put voters back in the driver’s seat and encourage agreement. They offer a path away from America’s poisoned politics and toward a productive democracy that is again working in the public’s interest.