As Michigan stands at a crossroad on whether to adopt Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) statewide, voters and policymakers ought to pause and ask: what problem is RCV truly solving — and at what cost? The case against this change is stronger than many realize, especially here in our state.
One of the first and most serious concerns is the increased complexity for voters. Under RCV, instead of simply marking a preferred candidate, voters must rank candidates in order of preference. Proponents argue this gives more choice. But for many voters, this introduces a new layer of confusion — especially when mixed with Michigan’s already lengthy ballots covering federal, state, county, township, school, and special-district races.
The Michigan Association of County Clerks, a bipartisan group of election administrators, unanimously opposed the ballot measure this year, citing “inconsistency, voter confusion, voter fatigue” and the fact that “Michigan voters already face some of the longest and most complex ballots in the nation.”
The association further worries that adding RCV to only some contests — while other races remain under the current system — will heighten confusion. What we risk is a system where a portion of voters perhaps unintentionally mis-fill ballots or simply feel alienated by the complexity.
Timeliness matters. Michigan voters are accustomed to receiving a sense of the outcome on election night. With RCV’s multi-round counting and reallocation of ballots, the winner may not be known for days. That delay creates fertile ground for doubt, speculation, and a weakening of public confidence in the electoral process.
For instance, Alaska is one of the few states that offers rank choice voting. Their election results seem to always take several days to tabulate and their population is one-sixth the size of Michigan. I can’t imagine how long it would take to determine results here.
County clerks agree saying it would take drastically longer” to determine winners, a delay that “erodes the public’s trust by fueling uncertainty and misinformation.” In a state as politically pivotal as Michigan, we cannot ignore the fact that timely transparency is part of maintaining legitimacy.
It’s not just the initial count — the process of audits and recounts under RCV becomes more complex. Instead of a simple tally of ballots, there are rounds of elimination and reallocation. That makes transparent verification harder. Some critics argue that RCV poses risks to auditability. If our system becomes more complicated without adding clear benefits, we are introducing unnecessary risk.
“Ballot exhaustion” is the term for when a voter’s ranked choices are all eliminated in successive rounds — leaving their vote uncounted in the final tally. Some research suggests this phenomenon occurs with greater frequency under RCV. Opponents argue that this undercuts majority rule and could disenfranchise voters who do not rank many candidates — a demographic that may include less engaged voters or those from disadvantaged communities.
Michigan’s election infrastructure already bears unique challenges: long ballots, fragmented jurisdictions, and an electorate used to a relatively straightforward “choose one” vote. Introducing RCV could overwhelm not just voters, but election officials and clerks trying to administer the system.
The Michigan clerks’ association specifically cited conflicts with existing state law and the Michigan Constitution as reasons for opposition. They argue that the proposed constitutional amendment to permit RCV would require sweeping change across many election-process rules – a heavy lift with significant risk.
Proponents of RCV say it gives more voice to voters, promotes more moderate candidates, and reduces “spoiler” problems. But the evidence is more mixed. Choosing a more complex system does not guarantee more representative outcomes. In fact, it could do just the opposite. It is possible a winner could be announced without a majority of the electorate voting for that person.
I harken back to Alaska. In the last U.S. Senate campaign, the winner of the Republican primary lost to the incumbent in the general election. That wouldn’t have happened if RCV hadn’t been in place. The incumbent would have been eliminated in the primary.
Amendments to how we vote should be made with great care. Michigan does not lack for opportunities to improve our existing electoral processes — auditing, reducing ballot length, improving voter education, modernizing equipment — without completely upending the voting method. If the current system is flawed, throwing in RCV adds risk rather than certainty.
At a time when trust in elections is fragile, Michigan should not rush into adopting ranked-choice voting statewide. The added complexity for voters, the delays and uncertainties in counts, the audit and recount risks, and the potential for disenfranchisement are all serious concerns. Without a clear guarantee of improved outcomes — and given the specific context of Michigan’s election system — the prudent choice is to maintain the current system, focus on improving what already works, and avoid the unintended consequences of change.
