In the 2024 presidential election, Republican Donald Trump received 49.8% of the vote and Democrat Kamala Harris received 48.3%, with Independent Jill Stein receiving 2.13%. Under our American electoral system, Trump was deemed the winner of the election because he received the largest percentage of votes from any individual candidate, but he did not win the majority of votes, that is, more than fifty percent of the votes cast. Indeed, when combining the total number of voters who did not support Trump, the majority lies against him. The harsh reality of weak third parties is that voters who supported Stein or other candidates besides Trump or Harris were cut out of this important decision-making process.
Wellesley College Professor of Mathematics Ismar Volic writes in his book about the current voting system in the United States, “Making Democracy Count” that “All around us, people who have earned the support of only a minority of voters represent all of the voters.” This is a major problem because the will of the majority is inaccurately represented by these election results. My solution to this problem? Implement a nationwide ranked-choice voting system.
Under a ranked-choice voting system, voters would rank candidates in order of preference rather than casting a single vote for a single candidate. If no candidate secures a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and those votes are redistributed to the remaining candidates based on the voters’ next preferences. For example, in the most recent presidential election, voters would have been able to select Stein as their first-choice candidate, but their vote would ultimately go to a candidate with a higher likelihood of securing the presidency, in this case, either Trump or Harris. This elimination and redistribution process continues until one candidate achieves a majority, ensuring that the eventual winner has broad, demonstrable support across the electorate.
Referring to George W. Bush and Donald Trump, who won the presidency but not the popular vote in 2000 and 2016 respectively, Upper School History teacher Avi McClelland-Cohen, who teaches Poly’s Government and Politics class, said, “Presidents went on to win second terms, and given the benefits of incumbency, that suggests that four of the past seven presidential elections do not fully represent the popular will.”
This new reform would make our electoral process more democratic by expanding the power of voters to exercise their preferences. Rather than an all-or-nothing, winner-takes-all system, ranked-choice voting reflects the full spectrum of voter opinions. As a result, candidates would need to appeal not only to their base but also to the supporters of other candidates, fostering a more inclusive and representative political environment.
Moreover, by adopting ranked-choice voting, we would counter the discouraging trend of millions of eligible voters abstaining from voting because they feel their voices are inconsequential. Voters who don’t live in swing states often sit out elections because of the winner-take-all system. With ranked-choice voting, though, these secure blue and red states could become more competitive and, thereby, incentivize more people to vote. This approach reinforces the principle that every vote matters and revitalizes the democratic process by making it truly reflective of the nation’s diverse views.
Ultimately, shifting to ranked-choice voting would replace the rigid winner-takes-all approach with a method that genuinely honors the majority’s voice. This new process would ensure that every community is represented and every vote contributes to the final outcome, creating a democracy that is both fair and responsive to its citizens.
