RCV trends: Four states ban RCV in 2025, bringing the number of states with bans to 15.
(Okay idk why it says 15 up here then later says 16, somebody on that site probably didn’t update the title text)
As of April 30, five states had banned RCV in 2025, which brought the total number of states that prohibit RCV to 16.
- Gov. Mark Gordon (Republican) signed HB 165 on March 18.
- West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey (Republican) signed SB 490 the March 19.
- Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly (Democrat) signed SB 6 into law on April 1.
- North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong (Republican) signed HB 1297 on April 15.
- Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Republican) signed HB 1706 which became law on April 17.
Six states banned RCV in 2024.
Why YSK: If you’re a US-American, its time to pay attention to State and Local politics instead of solely on the Federal. There is a trend in conservative jurisdictions to stop progress in making elecoral systems more fair. Use this opportunity as a rallying-cry to pass Ranked-Choice Voting in progressive jurisdictions, and hopefully everyone else takes notes. Sometimes, all you need is a few states adopting a law to become the catalyst for it to become the model for the entire country, for better or for worse. Don’t allow anti-RCV legislations to dominate, counter the propaganda with pro-RCV arguments. Time to turn the tide.
Edit: fixed formatting
Edit 2: Added in the map so you don’t have to click the link:
See the pattern? 🤔
It occurs to me that the electoral system might be used in Pres elections to work (very slightly) in that direction. What if a number of associated candidates made a pact that their electors, if elected, would vote for whichever of the pact makers got the most popular votes overall? Like if Sanders and Biden and Harris were in a pact like that of Democrats (named chosen of unlikely future candidates). People could vote for whichever, avoiding split-the-vote tactics. If Sanders won a state, but Harris got more pop votes nationwide, his electors would instead vote for her. Complicated maybe, but it wouldn’t need any constitutional changes, and might make disasters like a Trump win less likely. Dumb idea?
You need a lot of states to change their laws. Some states ban faithless electors unless the candidate they pledged for dies. So unless we’re yeeting the candidates off a building in order to stop fascism, you can’t change your electorsl votes.
Also, if you’re method of avoiding fascism is by relying on the electors to keep their promise, you’re ending up with disaster.
In the 1800 US presidential election, the system at the time was that 2 votes are cast by the electoral college, the one with most votes is the president and the with the second-most votes becomes president (stupid system, right?). Electors of the Jefferson-Burr ticket was supposed to have one of their electors vote for Jefferson, but not Burr, so that Jefferson has just 1 vote more than Burr, making Jefferson President and Burr vice-president.
But NONE of the electors did that. They all voted for both, which resulted in a tie, resulting in a contingent election. (They later added an amendment to make Pres and VP two separate vote counts, which we have today)
I don’t have faith in Electors to make good plans. Although Electors are handpicked hardcore supporters of a candidate, sometimes their fanaticism can make irrational decisions, including even ignoring instructions from the candidate they supposedly support. (For example: Some Sanders supporters did not vote Biden in the General election, even when Sanders endorsed Biden)