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? 🤔

  • morgan423@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 hours ago

    First past the post voting is the sole issue that is keeping legitimately contending third parties off of our ballots.

    Installing ranked choice voting (or one of its very close cousins) is the the number one reformation change that can be made to give the people their voices back. So of course, the powers that be are terrified of it… no surprises here.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      There are other issues, too, like North Dakota getting 2 Senators representing 783,926 people while California gets 2 Senators representing 38,940,231 people, or a ratio of almost 50 to 1.

      • morgan423@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Plenty of issues overall, sure, but I’m speaking specifically about the statistical inability to vote for third parties and have it mean anything.

  • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    6 hours ago

    There was a STRONG effort to ban (or at least end) RCV here in Alaska, and it failed, but barely. They even did the super misleading wording, too, in order to make it unclear if the measure banned RCV or supported it.

    I was always so confused by the adamant support that was being shown by general people, though. Like, I get why both Dems and Republicans would be against it: they want to be the only two players in the game. But why any general people would want less choice is beyond me. And it’s funny, because the staunchest proponents (at least where I am) were conservatives, when (again, where I live) RCV basically drove out the Democrats. There were Progressives, there were “centrists,” there were Libertarians, and then there was Republican/MAGA. Dems didn’t even get enough support to be on the ballot. So their hated Libs were wiped off the board entirely for being so ill-liked, but they want to get rid of that system? I just don’t get it.

      • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I feel like it can kind of be confusing to understand how the process works for it.

        But it is not even remotely confusing as to what you do. Choose, from most to least, who you want. It’s that simple. You want to get into how those votes are tallied, do a little dive, there’s plenty of videos very simply explaining it. If you don’t, and just want to be able to go vote? Just go vote. If even ranking them is too complicated because you have a worm in your brain, just choose one and ignore everything else.

        It might be complicated to tally, but it is not complicated to do. It’s just people being duped by the Big 2 parties to not want choices.

    • Ledericas@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 minutes ago

      the gop specifically, they know thier VOter suppression and gerrymander all BS, and would be negated if that happened.

    • Bravo@eviltoast.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      It’s not just the USA that’s in dire need of it. The UK should also adopt it. First Past The Post (FPTP) voting encourages polarized extremism. Because it functions on a Ricky Bobby-esque “if you’re not first, you’re last” philosophy that punishes moderates for being moderate.

    • nico198x@europe.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      15 hours ago

      well, to be fair, shitty electoral systems should be banned, like FPTP, because they aren’t representative. what’s happening here is sadly the opposite.

      • iglou@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        It still shouldn’t be banned, it should be up for debate when picking a system. Explicitly banning a system is pretty much anti-democratic by nature.

        • nico198x@europe.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 hours ago

          No it is not. Agreeing on that it should be banned is a democratic choice. It is an anti-democratic system not fit for purpose in 2025. our understanding of electoral science and maths is much more advanced now. FPTP should NEVER be on the table.

      • Saleh@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        FPTP is fine in many small scale applications. How should a town of 5,000 people elect their mayor otherwise?

        • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Ranked choice is still better though… scale doesn’t really matter here, the point is to let people vote for who they want, not for who they think might win.

          • Saleh@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 hours ago

            On that level you often only have two, one or sometimes no candidate.

            There is no need to enforce a more complicated system that needs to be explained to everyone, risks more people accidentally voting different than they wanted or invalidating their vote by misunderstanding the rules.

            I have helped with elections in Germany where the parliament has two votes. One for the local candidate FPTP and one for a party, where the parties proportional rates are then assembled in the parliament. I had to explain people the votes and what they do all the time. Because the two votes are on one paper it is a mess to count, as you can’t just stack them easily because of the possible combinations.

            When it gets to state and national levels having proportional systems for parliaments and ranked choice for single candidates i am all for it. But there is no point in pushing for a more complicated system for smaller elections.

            • Bravo@eviltoast.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              or sometimes no candidate

              How does FPTP help in that scenario?

              risks more people accidentally voting different than they wanted

              Can you describe how that might happen?

            • Zexks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              10 hours ago

              It’s not anymore complicated. This is the exact argument that got it banned in my state. Because some people think we’re too stupid to count to 2. No if there are only 2 candidates you vore for one or the other and if you really want to be special you can rank them even if it won’t matter. This is not a difficult concept.

            • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 hours ago

              Yeah that makes sense. I guess once people get used to ranked voting in large elections, then you could have it in small elections too. Thanks for the reply.

    • throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Pre-empts local laws preventing sub-divisions of the State (Cities, Towns) from enacting their own election system that would use “ranking” as a method of determining candidates winning or losing.

      Renaming the system will not bypass the ban.

  • MetalMachine@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    This is democrats and Republicans not wanting people to vote for their candidate of choice because they have to constantly play the game of the lesser of two evils

      • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        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.

        5/6 are Republican shitheads however.

        • JackFrostNCola@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          12 hours ago

          This is the reality of the ‘both sides…’ arguments, yes both sides are guilty of doing despicable things but the scales are very heavily tipped in one direction.
          Unfortunately with how far americans have legislated and tightened the stranglehold on control of the ‘democratic’ process, i dont see this ever being undone… ‘willingly’…

        • 13igTyme@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          While Kansas has a Democratic governor, I wouldn’t call it a blue state. State Congress is likely all red. This was likely a ballot measure and the people voted on it. The governor just put into law what the people voted on. Nothing more.

          • Zexks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 hours ago

            So I looked into this being from Kansas it kind of pissed me off. Turns out she won with like 49% where the Rs got only 47 and two different third parties took about 4%. So Rs were pushing for it thinking those that cast third party would put them next over the Dem, while calling them wasted and spoiled votes. So this was proposed by the Wichita mayor under the guise that RCV was too complicated for people to understand, and likely kelly signed the ban because of fear she might lose her minor majority. Total fucking bullshit politics as usual.

            • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 hours ago

              So this was proposed by the Wichita mayor under the guise that RCV was too complicated for people to understand, and likely kelly signed the ban because of fear she might lose her minor majority. Total fucking bullshit politics as usual.

              Sounds like them. Capitulating to Republicans because of fear.

              • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                Yes it was. California had a Republican in charge the people liked and kept around. Only really because he was an actor.

                If Schwarzenegger was a random nobody, he wouldn’t have won the recall.

  • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 day ago

    We voted for it at the county level here in CA. That was back in 2020. San Diego county voted to use RCV, as did several other counties in CA. The county registrar of voters is refusing to change from FPTP, and is waiting to see how the lawsuits turn out.

    Even if your state hasn’t banned it, they will fight you tooth and nail not to change it.

    • throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I get why Gen alpha use “Ohio” to describe something bad now

      God damn Skibidi Ohio polititians with no rizz, no cap fr fr, voters with brainrot smh

      (sorry for the use of Gen alpha brainrot language)

      • ZephyrXero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        I know a number of Gen alpha kids. None of them use those phrases. They are Gen Z terms.

        The oldest Gen Alpha kids are 11 and turning 12 this year

          • ZephyrXero@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            19 hours ago

            How many 13 year old gen-Z do you know though? A fifteen year time band encompasses a lot of people (because these are just marketing tools in reality)

            • throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.worksOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              19 hours ago

              Yea these terms are quite loosely defined. I had the mental image of people around my age group in mind. Like around 2000 to 2005 birth year.

              Don’t know any 13 year olds, who are I guess technically “Gen Z”. So I guess I should use the term “Post 2005 Kids” instead. 😅

      • ExtantHuman@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yeah, obscenely gerrymandered Republican supermajority in the state legislature really sucks.

    • Guns0rWeD13@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      12 hours ago

      seeing so many upvotes on this comment made my morning.

      remember, we can plan anonymously online by posting plans in the form of if/then scenarios. example: if i were trying to put the richest american oligarchs in check, i would first need a list of who they are widely disseminated to the masses.

      i’m not advocating that, i’m just saying IF that’s what i were trying to do, that’s how i would do it.

  • LilB0kChoy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    127
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Tl;dr

    I was curious so I had to go look and see what states banned it. I was shocked, shocked I tell you to see the states that banned it are:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia, Wyoming
    

    Edit to add:

    • Chozo@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      65
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      As a Texan, it’s a relief to finally not be included on one of these lists for once.

    • Quibblekrust@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Why did you add like a hundred spaces in front of the list of states? That makes it a code block that requires tons of horizontal scrolling to read. I didn’t even recognize it as such at first.

      You know Lemmy has spoiler syntax, right? If that’s what you were going for?

    • jaybone@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      You’d think it would be democrats worried about another Bernie Sanders coming along.

      What is it the republicans are worried about with RCV?

      • JeremyHuntQW12@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        2 days ago

        The left wing vote is split, so the Republicans can win just by getting the largest number of votes with first-past-the-post.

      • LilB0kChoy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 days ago

        I don’t know because they shouldn’t be.

        Republicans like Senator Tom Cotton and Donald Trump have garnered headlines for stating their opposition to ranked choice voting after election results didn’t turn out exactly as they hoped. Their preferred candidates, Sarah Palin in the House and Kelly Tshibaka in the Senate, didn’t win. Both are Republicans. So, they claim (loudly) that RCV is biased against Republicans or “rigged.”

      • ExtantHuman@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        The magas only gained their stranglehold on the party, despite being a minority, due to the neocons splitting their primary ballots.

        • ZephyrXero@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          19 hours ago

          They gained their stranglehold from 20+ years of systematic takeover. The Tea Party became MAGA. It didn’t happen over night

    • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      For those non-USians reading this, the pattern is: states which tend to vote Republican and thus have majority Republican governance. So called “red states”.