The Governor’s Working Group on Ranked-Choice Voting has begun discussing the merits and logistics of instant runoff voting, a procedure that could radically change how state elections are conducted.
Gov. Ned Lamont initially announced the working group on June 6 after endorsing state election reforms during his 2022 campaign. The group will focus on developing a legislative proposal to allow ranked-choice voting in caucuses, conventions, primaries, and certain municipal elections for political parties and municipalities.
“Ranked-choice voting is gaining in popularity across the country, but its pros and cons really haven’t been explored in Connecticut,” Sen. Cathy Osten, D-Sprague, said. “My hope is that this working group will collect the information necessary to make specific recommendations and hopefully improve voter turnout in Connecticut.”
In 2023, Connecticut legislators introduced a bill that would have given municipalities the option of using ranked-choice voting in municipal elections for single-winner offices. It also would have given political parties the option of using ranked-choice voting in presidential preference primaries.
That bipartisan bill, Senate Bill 389, received a public hearing in the Government Administration and Elections Committee. The committee did not take a vote to advance the bill before its deadline.
Osten, the co-chair of the committee, was present at the Tuesday afternoon working session, alongside Sen. Tony Hwang of Fairfield, her Republican counterpart. Both were co-sponsors of Bill 389.
The session consisted of presentations from three experts in ranked-choice voting: FairVote co-founder Rob Richie, Utah County Clerk Josh Daniels, and Director of Public Policy at the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center Ryan Kirby.
How does ranked choice voting work?
Connecticut operates its elections through a traditional plurality system: whoever receives the most votes wins. This applies to elections for state legislators, state executives and U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.
In a two-candidate election, this would require one individual to receive over 50% of the vote. But many elections in the state have more than two candidates on the ballot.
In an election with three candidates, for example, the winner would need to receive more than a third of the vote, meaning the winner might have not been voted for by two-thirds of the electorate.
In the 2018 gubernatorial election, Lamont received 49.4% of the vote and his challenger, Republican Bob Stefanowski, received 46.2% of the vote. About 4.4% of voters cast a ballot for another candidate.
If the state had used ranked-choice voting, the 4.4% of voters who opted for another candidate would have had their votes reallocated to their second choice, perhaps moving the needle more decisively toward Lamont or swinging in the opposite direction towards Stefanowski.
What could ranked choice voting mean for Connecticut?
Besides the physical change in ballots, where voters would rank the candidates in the order they want to see them elected rather than just casting a vote for one candidate, there are other subtle changes that could come Connecticut’s way.
An overwhelming majority of elections in Connecticut are decided by active unaffiliated voters. The option to be a voter’s second choice could broaden campaigns, causing candidates to not only reach across the aisle but dig deep into communities of unaffiliated in order to gain support, even if that support comes in the form of an “option two” vote.
“One thing we find is that ranked choice voting does reward candidates who can get out in the community,” Richie told the working group. “Knock[ing] on doors and earning second and third choices seems to come from building trust.”
Richie additionally brought up the necessity for ranked-choice voting when early voting is possible.
Connecticut began to allow early voting in 2024, and this year approximately 18,000 Connecticut residents chose to cast their ballots early.
Richie showed a graphic to the group that highlighted that in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary election, more than 3 million ballots were essentially “wasted,” having been cast for a candidate who later dropped out of the race.
“When you vote early, you don’t know someone’s going to drop out,” Richie said. “Early voting creates access, but it also creates that challenge.”
In a plural electoral system, these ballots are thrown out. In a ranked-choice electoral system, those ballots would be cast for their highest-ranked candidate still in the race.
Members of the working group raised questions about the delay in results with ranked-choice voting, financial viability and accessibility.
Hwang brought up a delay in results during the 2021 New York City mayoral Democratic primary, which used ranked-choice voting. With absentee ballots and affidavit votes in the mix, it took two weeks for the winner to be officially declared.
“One of the sensitivities is [that] lag in time undermines the trust in this process and increases frustration,” Hwang said.
Rep. Hilda Santiago, D-Meriden, questioned the accessibility and inclusivity of ranked-choice voting.
“I am reading that Latinos are more confused when they have more choices to make,” Santiago said, referencing a study conducted on the impact of voter confusion in ranked-choice voting. “This may create a bias in the system that privileges the preferences of white voters over those of Hispanics.”
Other studies find no correlation between race and ethnicity and voter confusion. Richie’s presentation also highlighted that under a ranked-choice system, more minority and female candidates were elected.
The details of accessibility in ranked-choice voting are to be discussed at a future meeting more thoroughly, according to Osten.
The working group will continue to meet throughout the summer to create a bipartisan implementation plan. The next meeting will take place on July 19.