Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) has gotten some traction in Connecticut thanks to Gov. Ned Lamont’s pledge to support electoral reform and thanks to State Sens. Tony Hwang and Cathy Osten who put forth a bill last year.

As the legislative season winds up, those in high places who are considering whether last year’s bill should be revisited are looking to a number of sources. One source is Attorney General William Tong. Unfortunately, Tong’s letter to the Speaker of the House of the Connecticut General Assembly in which he addresses the constitutionality of RCV may hold back the growing tide of voter advocacy.

His opinion is based on viewing current law as a door half closed instead of half open. At a time when our nation needs to hold fast to democratic ideals, such an opinion gives ammunition to partisan legislators instead of arming Connecticut’s voters with the tools for a sound representative democracy.

Tong states that the “greatest number” of votes means a plurality of the votes cast and that Ranked Choice Voting likely violates this election requirement. In his comprehensive review, he correctly disqualifies major arguments against RCV. However, his interpretation is restrictive to the detriment of our elections. Voters deserve better than that.

Plurality, when a candidate earns more votes than any other candidate, is the lowest bar by which a candidate can win. In plurality elections, when there are three or more candidates, it is possible to win with well under 50% of the vote. RCV elections require a majority, but because of the round-by-round calculation and transfer of each voter’s single vote each round based on an expressed preference, it is possible (like in plurality voting) that a candidate wins with less than 50%. However, data on RCV elections demonstrate that winners generally earn a higher percentage than that which is required in plurality elections. 

In Alaska’s 2022 RCV elections, for example, both Rep. Mary Peltola and Sen. Lisa Murkowski won over 50% of the total votes cast — not just the votes remaining in the final round of counting. In San Francisco, the RCV contest for district attorney resulted in a candidate with 51%. The same held true in the mayoral election in Takoma Park Maryland. In races with a very large field of candidates, as in New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary with thirteen contenders, voters may not rank all the candidates, but even in that race, winner Eric Adams, ended up with 43% of all votes —  not a majority, but still a plurality. What’s more, in New York’s first experience with RCV, under 15% of all ballots were exhausted by the final (eighth) round demonstrating a high use of candidate ranking among voters and a high rate of consensus for candidates moving into the final rounds.

Even under a majority threshold, Adam’s victory demonstrates how RCV improves consensus for winning candidates. According to a study by FairVote, 120 primary elections using plurality voting resulted in a nominee with less than 39% of total votes, compared to Adam’s 43% in the RCV contest. 

An extraordinary number of voters would have to fail to rank more than one candidate for an RCV contest to be won by someone other than a plurality winner. 

In other words, winners of RCV races also meet the standard of plurality elections and, to ensure meeting that low bar, legislation can be written accordingly.

RCV is used by over 13 million American voters in over 50 jurisdictions and allows voters to rank candidates instead of picking one. RCV requires candidates to campaign inclusively. Elections are won by building consensus.

Tong thoroughly identifies, and rightfully dismisses, usual criticisms of RCV. His concern is rooted in the issue of plurality. But where a door is left open, benefit should be given to freedom rather than restriction. Elections are the foundation of representative democracy and the strength of our vote should always be the top priority.

RCV is better than our current system that demands strategically anticipating the winner we can live with, even if we prefer another candidate. Plurality elections lower the bar and forces voters to pick one of two viable candidates. It deters new candidates from standing up to serve their communities.  

Connecticut is a state ripe for electoral reform. While the Democratic Party dominates, the largest voter identity is unaffiliated. According to a report in The Connecticut Mirror in 2022, the overwhelming majority of Connecticut elections are decided by active unaffiliated voters which eliminates the notion that unaffiliated voters are less interested in politics. Still, on average, over the past decade, less than 13% of elections have offered a choice outside the two major parties. In that same time period, the average percent of the vote earned by alternative candidates was just 4.42%. 

What does that say about our elections? A system that benefits from watering down civic responsibility with signs like “Vote Row A,” is indicative of a shift in values from representation to partisanship. RCV can reverse that trend.

RCV allows a broader range of points of view to be represented on ballots, expanding voter choice. Ranking candidates gives voters the freedom to ignore perceptions of viability and vote with integrity. 

In a representative democracy real choice should not be a bonus — it should be the standard by which we should judge our elections.

Tong is right that RCV in multi-winner elections could be burdensome, but the legislation proposed by Sens. Hwang and Osten excludes those. Additionally, our new voting machines are RCV capable. 

Let’s urge our legislators to open democracy up to more candidates, give voters more choice, and increase the power of elections to make full representation the standard in this representative democracy. It’s good for voters, good for candidates, and will lead to more inclusive and representative solutions for all.

Laura Del Savio lives in Redding.