Dem
47
GOP
53
Ranked-choice voting was on the ballot in a number of states on Nov. 5 and lost almost everywhere. The only place it "won" was in Alaska, where the referendum was about terminating it, not starting it. And the proposal to get rid of RCV almost carried. Supporters of the idea are now thinking about what to do next.
In all the states where it was proposed, the idea was to have open primaries with the top few candidates advancing to an RCV general election. The number of advancees varied by state, usually around four. Supporters say that open primaries will reduce partisanship because candidates will have to worry about getting second-choice votes from the other party.
It could be that supporters of RCV overreached. All of the proposed amendments did two things. First, they created nonpartisan open primaries. Second, they instituted RCV in the general election among multiple candidates. One of the reasons people may not like the idea of open primaries is the California experience, in which it often happens that the general election features two Democrats, leaving Republicans out in the cold. (Sometimes it's two Republicans, but that's rarer.)
A possible alternative to the amendments is to continue with partisan primaries, but have RCV in the general election. In practice, this would require the winner to have an absolute majority, and would allow people to show support for their minor party true favorite, without jeopardizing the results. If Florida had had RCV in 2000, it is very likely that most of the 97,488 people who voted for Ralph Nader would have chosen Al Gore as their second choice. Then they could have sent a message that they preferred Nader, but when forced to choose between Gore and Bush on the second round, they preferred Gore. Then he would have been elected president, with all the consequences of that.
Most Southern states have something akin to this. If no candidate for the Senate or House gets an absolute majority on Election Day, there is a runoff 2 months later. RCV is an alternative name for IRV—Instant Runoff Voting. If IRV (i.e., RCV) were in place in the Southern states, they wouldn't have to run a second election in January. They would just redistribute the votes of the minor candidates a few days after Election Day and save the trouble and expense of a physical runoff. It is certainly an idea and might be more saleable to people who like partisan primaries. (V)