Question 2 - Ranked-Choice Voting

Summary

This proposed law would implement a voting system known as "ranked-choice voting," in which voters rank one or more candidates by order of preference. Ranked-choice voting would be used in primary and general elections for all Massachusetts statewide offices, state legislative offices, federal congressional offices, and certain other offices beginning in 2022. Ranked-choice voting would not be used in elections for president, county commissioner, or regional district school committee member. Under the proposed law, votes would be counted in a series of rounds. In the first round, if one candidate received more than 50 percent of the first-place votes, that candidate would be declared the winner and no other rounds would be necessary. If no candidate received more than 50 percent of the first-place votes, then the candidate or candidates who received the fewest first-place votes would be eliminated and, in the next round, each vote for an eliminated candidate would instead be counted toward the next highest-ranked candidate on that voter's ballot. Depending on the number of candidates, additional rounds of counting could occur, with the last-place candidate or candidates in each round being eliminated and the votes for an eliminated candidate going to the voter's next choice out of the remaining candidates. A tie for last place in any round would be broken by comparing the tied candidates' support in earlier rounds. Ultimately, the candidate who was, out of the remaining candidates, the preference of a majority of voters would be declared the winner. Ranked-choice voting would be used only in races where a single candidate is to be declared the winner and not in races where more than one person is to be elected. Under the proposed law, if no candidate received more than 50 percent of first-place votes in the first round, the rounds of ballot-counting necessary for ranked-choice voting would be conducted at a central tabulation facility. At the facility, voters' rankings would be entered into a computer, which would then be used to calculate the results of each round of the counting process. The proposed law provides that candidates in a statewide or district election would have at least three days to request a recount. The Secretary of State would be required to issue regulations to implement the proposed law and conduct a voter education campaign about the ranked-choice voting process. The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2022.

A "YES" vote would create a system of ranked choice voting in which voters would have the option to rank candidates in order of preference and votes would be counted in rounds, eliminating candidates with the lowest votes until one candidate has received a majority.

A "NO" vote would make no change in the laws governing voting and how votes are counted.

Arguments

"Ranked choice voting puts more power into the hands of voters, where it belongs. By allowing us to rank candidates, it gives us more say at the ballot box. You will never feel your voice isn’t heard or your vote doesn’t count. We deserve a government that works for “We the people,” not for special interests or the establishment and its hand-picked candidates.", in support of Question 2 (Learn more)

"Ranked Choice Voting is simple, fair and easy. On your ballot, you can vote for just one candidate like you always have, or you can rank your first choice, your second choice and your third choice, just like you rank things in order in your everyday life. If your favorite candidate can’t win, your vote is instantly counted for your second choice so your vote matters more.", in support of Question 2 (Learn more)

"Voters could be confident that if their favorite candidate can’t win, their second or third choice would still count toward determining the winner. Candidates wouldn’t be pressured to bow out early to avoid splitting the vote. Party primaries could be relied on to produce a candidate with broad support.", in support of Question 2 (Learn more)

"One of the challenges of people trying to run as a third-party or independent is that people say if you vote for that person, you’re wasting your vote or they’re a spoiler. That’s not fair. With ranked-choice voting that goes away because people can vote for who they like and who they want to vote for rather than picking who they dislike less. It opens up our democracy to those voices. It’s something that’s needed.", in support of Question 2 (Learn more)

"By requiring the winner to reach more than 50 percent of the vote, ranked choice voting ensures the winning candidate is the one with the broadest appeal to the majority of voters. The ability to mobilize the broadest and deepest appeal across the electorate would replace the ability to target a passionate minority constituency, which may be extreme or non-representative from the standpoint of most voters as the key to winning.", in support of Question 2 (Learn more)

"If we truly want to provide voters with choices, we need structural reforms to diminish the prospect of ballots full of uncontested races. ... A 'no' vote on this year’s ranked choice question will require advocates to build a coalition with proponents of other reforms designed to generate competitive elections. If the question is approved, we will not see meaningful reforms, but instead will get ranked choice in a state where 78 percent of the races are uncontested.", in opposition to Question 2 (Learn more)

"Runoff elections would work fine, where there would be a second election day and the highest two vote-getters would advance to that. That allows the voters the ability — which ranked-choice, or instant-runoff voting, doesn't allow you — to have an understanding of who the final two \[candidates] are to make the determinations.", in opposition to Question 2 (Learn more)

"Frequently hailed as a way to give voters more choice and reduce polarization, ranked-choice voting is, in fact, a complex and confusing process that threatens to reduce voter participation and distort election outcomes. ... Massachusetts voters should be leery of complicated bureaucratic schemes that can reduce voter participation, increase opportunities for corruption, and lead to unforeseen, difficult-to-explain results.", in opposition to Question 2 (Learn more)

"To think that a person could go into the ballot booth and choose up to seven of those people and be able to truly differentiate them, it’s hard to believe.", in opposition to Question 2 (Learn more)

Measure Details