Ranked-choice voting presents an unusual policy landscape: it's simultaneously spreading and being actively prohibited across the country. As of March 2026, 49 American jurisdictions use RCV in public elections or have adopted it for upcoming elections, reaching nearly 14 million voters across 22 states and Washington, D.C., according to FairVote tracking. At the same time, 19 states have passed laws banning RCV's use statewide, with Indiana becoming the most recent addition in February 2026, when Governor Mike Braun signed a bill explicitly prohibiting any election from being determined by ranked-choice voting.
This isn't simply expansion versus stagnation, it's active, ongoing growth in some jurisdictions running directly alongside active, ongoing prohibition in others, making RCV one of the more genuinely contested live electoral reform battles in the country right now.
Under RCV, voters rank candidates by preference rather than choosing just one. If no candidate wins an outright majority of first-preference votes, the last-place candidate is eliminated and their votes are redistributed to those voters' next-ranked choice, repeating until one candidate has a majority. Locally, adoption efforts have succeeded considerably more often than they've failed: of 72 local ballot measures to adopt RCV tracked since Ballotpedia began recording them, voters approved 57 (79.2%).
Statewide adoption has been a closer fight: across 12 state-level ballot measures since 1965, the average vote share for adoption was 45.7%, meaning statewide measures have failed considerably more often than local ones. Alaska's 2024 vote to repeal its existing top-four RCV system came within a fraction of a percentage point, receiving 49.9% support for repeal, meaning the existing system survived by an extremely narrow margin.
FairVote and other RCV advocates point to specific turnout research: one 2024 study found voters in RCV jurisdictions were 17% more likely to participate in municipal elections compared to non-RCV areas, and New York City's 2021 primary, held under its newly adopted RCV system, saw the highest turnout in over 30 years. The Minneapolis-St. Paul area reportedly saw a 10% turnout increase after implementing RCV.
At the federal level, competing bills remain stalled in committee on both sides: the Fair Representation Act and a companion Ranked Choice Voting Act, both reintroduced in December 2025, would establish RCV for U.S. House and Senate elections starting in 2030, while the Preventing Ranked Choice Corruption Act, introduced in April 2025, would prohibit federal RCV use entirely. Neither has advanced past committee as of early 2026, mirroring the same deep disagreement playing out at the state level.
RCV supporters generally argue it produces winners with genuine majority support, reduces the influence of vote-splitting among similar candidates, and can increase civility since candidates have an incentive to court their opponents' supporters for second-choice rankings, pointing to the turnout research and high local approval rates as evidence of real, popular success. Opponents generally argue RCV adds genuine complexity to ballots and vote counting, that eliminated-round redistribution can produce results that feel unintuitive to voters used to simple plurality counting, and some specifically frame the reform, as reflected in the "Preventing Ranked Choice Corruption Act" title, as vulnerable to public confusion or manipulation, though this framing itself is contested. The fact that 19 states have moved to ban it entirely, rather than simply declining to adopt it, reflects a notably more active, organized opposition than most electoral reform proposals typically face, worth noting as a distinct feature of this particular debate.
Want the core arguments from both sides, side by side?
See the Left vs. Right Breakdown on Ranked-Choice Voting →