More and more states are considering this more fair method of selecting elected officials.  At this point, only Alaska and Maine have full rank-choice voting.  It’s in some jurisdictions in Vermont, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, and California. This opinion piece (below) from the Indy Star favors Rank Choice Voting in Indiana

---

Opinion: Most Indiana elections aren’t competitive. Ranked-choice voting would help.

In a ranked-choice election, voters have the power to rank the entire field in order

Deb Otis and David Daley, Opinion Contributors to the Indy Star

If Indiana voters don’t recognize some of the names on their ballot in November, it’s not their fault. Not many Hoosiers had a say in selecting them.

Five congressional primaries in Indiana this year were won by candidates who earned less than 40% of the vote. According to a new study by FairVote, that’s more than any state in the nation. Two of those winners claimed victory with less than 30%; that’s tied with Arizona for most nationwide.

All but one of Indiana’s congressional districts have been drawn to lopsidedly favor one party or the other. That means the low-turnout partisan primaries effectively determine the winner. The number of voters in the May primary didn’t even pass 25%.

Just look at the two congressional primaries won in Indiana this May with less than 30% of the vote.

Stutzman and Shreve won fair and square under the rules. The trouble is that whenever two candidates compete in a race, it all but ensures that the winner falls far short of a majority. In these two primaries, upwards of 70% of members of their own party preferred a different candidate.

The third and sixth districts reliably elect Republicans to Congress. That makes the primary all the more important. And it’s where ranked-choice voting — already used in Maine and Alaska — could make a huge difference.

–In a ranked-choice election, voters have the power to rank the entire field in order. If any candidate wins more than 50% of the vote in the first round, they win, like any other election. If no one does, it triggers an instant runoff. The bottom finishers are eliminated one by one — until one candidate wins with a majority.

If your candidate remains in the race, your vote stays with them. If your candidate is eliminated, your second choice comes into play.

This gives voters much more power and control. In a local race with seven or eight candidates, where little to no reliable polling is done, it’s almost impossible for voters to tell who is ahead and to cast an informed ballot. Ranked-choice voting makes that possible.

It also changes the incentive structure for politicians. When a race can be won with 25% of the vote, it’s easy to ignore entire communities, go scorched earth on the rest of the field and merely turn out the voters who already agree with you.

In a ranked-choice voting race, where you need 50% to win, that’s a bad strategy. Instead, a winning candidate needs to appeal and talk to everyone. There’s less benefit to going negative when you might need to ask that candidate’s followers to be their second choice.

Then, once in office, politicians have less reason to fear a primary challenge from the extreme of either side, and more encouragement to work together to solve common problems.

A fraction of a fraction of Indiana’s voters shouldn’t choose everyone’s representative. After all, there’s nothing more American than choice and majority rule. Hoosiers on all sides of the political spectrum worry about our broken politics and polarized times.

Ranked-choice voting — and an appeal to those deep-rooted American values — would go a long way toward improving it.