Surreal illustration of a voting booth as a Mobius strip, representing paradoxes in ranked-choice voting.

Can Voters Regret Their Choices? Unveiling Paradoxes in Ranked-Choice Voting

Lena Voss in Politics & Policy September 2025 • 4 min read.

"Explore the surprising flaws of ranked-choice systems and how they can lead to unexpected and seemingly unfair election outcomes."

Ranked-choice voting (RCV) is often touted as a superior method for conducting elections. Instead of simply voting for one candidate, voters rank the candidates in order of preference. This system aims to elect candidates with broad support, avoid spoiler effects, and promote more civil campaigns. But is it foolproof?

Recent research has revealed some unsettling paradoxes within ranked-choice voting systems. These aren't just theoretical oddities; they're real-world scenarios where the outcome defies common sense. Imagine a situation where a candidate gains more votes but loses the election, or where a voter's preferred candidate loses because they participated in the election. These are not hypothetical scenarios, these are documented events from actual elections.

This article delves into the fascinating, and sometimes frustrating, world of ranked-choice voting paradoxes. We'll explore specific examples from Scottish local government elections, where these anomalies have been observed firsthand. By understanding these paradoxes, we can better assess the strengths and weaknesses of ranked-choice voting and whether it truly delivers on its promise of fairer elections.

What are Monotonicity Paradoxes in Ranked-Choice Voting?

Surreal illustration of a voting booth as a Mobius strip, representing paradoxes in ranked-choice voting.

Monotonicity paradoxes occur when changes in voter preferences that intuitively should help a candidate actually hurt their chances of winning. There are several types of monotonicity paradoxes:

Upward Monotonicity Paradox: A winning candidate is shifted higher on some ballots, yet this change causes them to lose the election.

Downward Monotonicity Paradox: A losing candidate is shifted lower on some ballots, yet this change causes them to win the election.
No-Show Paradox (or Abstention Paradox): Voters who prefer a losing candidate to a winning one find that their preferred candidate wins if they abstain from voting altogether.
Committee Size Paradox: A candidate wins when a certain number of seats are available but loses when the number of seats changes.

These paradoxes highlight a fundamental challenge in ranked-choice voting: it's not always the case that increased support leads to a better outcome for a candidate. The complex interactions of vote transfers and eliminations can create counterintuitive results.

Are Ranked-Choice Voting Paradoxes a Deal-Breaker?

The discovery of these paradoxes doesn't necessarily mean that ranked-choice voting should be abandoned. All voting systems have potential flaws and vulnerabilities. However, understanding these paradoxes is crucial for informed decision-making. It allows us to weigh the benefits of RCV against its potential drawbacks and to consider safeguards that might mitigate these paradoxical outcomes. Ultimately, the goal is to create election systems that are both fair and representative, even if they aren't perfect.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

What is Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) and how does it work?

Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) is an election method where voters rank candidates in order of preference rather than simply choosing one. This system aims to elect candidates with broad support. In RCV, if no candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed to the voters' second choices. This process continues until a candidate achieves a majority. This contrasts with traditional voting systems where the candidate with the most votes wins, even if they don't have a majority.

What are Monotonicity Paradoxes in Ranked-Choice Voting and how do they impact election outcomes?

Monotonicity paradoxes in Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) occur when changes in voter preferences, that intuitively should help a candidate, actually hurt their chances of winning. There are several types: * **Upward Monotonicity Paradox:** A winning candidate is shifted higher on some ballots, yet this change causes them to lose the election. * **Downward Monotonicity Paradox:** A losing candidate is shifted lower on some ballots, yet this change causes them to win the election. * **No-Show Paradox (or Abstention Paradox):** Voters who prefer a losing candidate to a winning one find that their preferred candidate wins if they abstain from voting altogether. * **Committee Size Paradox:** A candidate wins when a certain number of seats are available but loses when the number of seats changes. These paradoxes demonstrate that in RCV, increased support doesn't always guarantee a better outcome for a candidate. The complex interactions of vote transfers and eliminations can lead to counterintuitive results that defy common sense.

Can a candidate lose an election even if they gain more votes under Ranked-Choice Voting? Explain.

Yes, a candidate can lose an election even if they gain more votes under Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) due to what is known as the Upward Monotonicity Paradox. This occurs when a winning candidate is ranked higher on some ballots. Ideally, this should help the candidate, but because of the way votes are transferred and candidates are eliminated in RCV, it can paradoxically cause the candidate to lose. The specific outcome depends on the pattern of voter preferences and how votes are redistributed during the elimination rounds. This highlights a core issue in RCV: the outcome is not always directly proportional to the overall support a candidate receives.

What are the potential benefits of Ranked-Choice Voting despite the existence of paradoxes?

Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) aims to offer several benefits despite the potential for paradoxes. It seeks to elect candidates with broader support, which can lead to more representative outcomes compared to systems where a candidate can win with a minority of votes. RCV also aims to reduce the 'spoiler effect,' where a third-party candidate can draw votes away from a major candidate and change the election's outcome. Additionally, RCV may promote more civil campaigns because candidates need to appeal to a wider base of voters, not just their core supporters. These advantages must be weighed against the potential for paradoxes and the complexity of the system.

Are Ranked-Choice Voting paradoxes a reason to abandon the system, and if not, what should be considered?

The existence of Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) paradoxes isn't necessarily a reason to abandon the system entirely. All voting systems have flaws. Instead, it's crucial to understand these paradoxes to make informed decisions. This involves weighing the benefits of RCV, such as electing candidates with broad support and reducing spoiler effects, against the potential for paradoxical outcomes. Furthermore, it's essential to consider safeguards that might mitigate these paradoxes. Ultimately, the goal is to create election systems that are fair and representative, even if they are not perfect. This requires ongoing evaluation and potentially adjustments to the RCV process to address any identified weaknesses and ensure election integrity.