'Michigan deserves better than this untested, convoluted experiment'

BY KEVIN KIJEWSKI
JULY 8, 2025

 

The Michigan Board of Canvassers just allowed ranked choice voting (RCV) to get one step closer to appearing on the November 2026 ballot.  However, the push to impose RCV in our elections threatens to undermine the clarity and fairness of our democratic process. While proponents claim RCV fosters fairness and reduces polarization, the reality is that it complicates voting, confuses citizens, and risks eroding trust in our electoral system. Michigan deserves better than this untested, convoluted experiment.
 

At its core, RCV replaces the simple, time-tested “one person, one vote” system with a multi-round ranking process. Voters must rank candidates in order of preference, and if no candidate wins a majority, the lowest vote-getters are eliminated, redistributing their votes until a winner emerges. Sounds innovative, right? But dig deeper, and the flaws become glaring. For one, RCV demands more from voters – more time, more research, and more mental gymnastics. In a state where voter turnout already hovers around 65% in presidential elections, asking Michiganders to navigate a complex ballot risk alienating those already skeptical of the process.
 

The data backs this up. In jurisdictions like Maine and New York City, where RCV has been implemented, studies show higher rates of “ballot exhaustion” – when voters don’t rank enough candidates, and their votes are discarded. A 2021 New York City election saw nearly 15% of ballots exhausted by the final round, effectively disenfranchising thousands. Michigan’s diverse electorate, from urban Detroit to the rural Upper Peninsula, deserves a system that’s intuitive, not one that punishes those who can’t or won’t rank five candidates for county clerk.
 

Proponents argue RCV reduces negative campaigning and encourages candidates to appeal to a broader base. But this assumes a utopian world where politicians play nice. In practice, RCV can amplify strategic voting and backroom deals. Candidates may form alliances, urging supporters to rank specific rivals lower to game the system. This isn’t speculation – it has happened in places like Australia, where RCV is common. In Michigan, where political divides run deep, RCV could exacerbate mistrust, as voters wonder whether their rankings were manipulated by shadowy agreements.
 

Then there’s the cost. Implementing RCV requires new voting machines, software upgrades, and extensive voter education campaigns. A 2018 estimate from Maine pegged the cost of RCV at $1.5 million annually for a state half Michigan’s size. With Michigan’s budget already strained – with our crumbling roads and underfunded schools – diverting millions to overhaul elections is a tough sell. Why fix what isn’t broken? RCV introduces variables that could delay results and invite legal challenges, as seen in Alaska’s 2022 RCV election, where tabulation errors sparked numerous recounts and lawsuits.
 

Perhaps the most troubling aspect is the potential for RCV to distort outcomes. In a traditional election, the candidate with the most votes wins – clear and democratic. RCV, however, can crown a candidate who wasn’t the first choice of the plurality, leaving voters feeling their voices were overridden. A 2019 study of RCV in San Francisco found that 20% of elections resulted in “non-majority winners,” fueling perceptions of unfairness. 

As President Donald Trump said in a rally in Alaska in 2022, “You could be in third place, and they announce that you won the election. It’s a total rigged deal.” In a swing state like Michigan, where elections are often razor-thin, this could deepen divisions and erode confidence in governance.  In fact, a 2024 Pew Research survey said 60% of Americans already seriously question election integrity and RCV would make the crisis of election confidence worse.
 

Advocates for RCV often frame it as a cure for polarization, but Michigan’s problems – economic stagnation, urban-rural divides, distrust in institutions – won’t be solved by tweaking how we vote. We need leaders who listen, not systems that overcomplicate. The beauty of our current system lies in its simplicity: you pick your candidate, cast your vote, and the winner takes office. RCV, with its algorithms and eliminations, feels like a solution in search of a problem.
 

Michigan’s voters are smart enough to choose their leaders without being forced to rank them like a high school popularity contest. Let’s keep our elections clear, fair, and accessible. Ranked choice voting may sound good, but in practice, it’s a step backward for democracy. We should reject it outright.
 

Kevin Kijewski is an attorney in Birmingham, MI that is seeking the Republican nomination for Michigan Attorney General.  You can follow him on X (formerly Twitter) using @KevinKijewski