An unexpected opportunity: Ranked-choice voting

Im Jang-hyuk

The author is a lawyer and the head of the political news department at the JoongAng Ilbo. 

An unexpected dividend emerged from the opening phase of the Democratic Party’s (DP) leadership race, which was dominated by bitter disputes over candidates exposing one another’s embarrassing pasts: the public debate over ranked-choice voting.

Unlike the current first-past-the-post system, ranked-choice voting asks voters to rank all candidates in order of preference. If four candidates — A, B, C and D — are running, a voter might choose B as the first choice, C as the second, D as the third and A as the fourth.

Suppose B, the voter’s top choice, finishes last in the initial count. B is eliminated, but if no candidate has won a majority of first-choice votes, the counting continues. The voter’s ballot is then transferred to C. If C is also eliminated in the next round, the vote moves to D. The process continues until one candidate secures a majority.

The DP has decided to narrow its preliminary race to three finalists, meaning the winner will emerge after at most two rounds of counting. In that sense, the system resembles a runoff election. Yet there are important differences. Ranked-choice voting requires only one election and multiple counts, whereas a traditional runoff requires voters to cast ballots twice.

Inside the DP, however, fierce arguments over how to interpret party rules adopted last year overshadowed serious discussion of the system’s advantages and drawbacks. Some dismissed the controversy as little more than petty maneuvering over which candidate would benefit.

Regardless of its origins, the DP's Aug. 17 convention, involving more than 1.5 million party members, has become a meaningful test of ranked-choice voting. Ironically, the experiment has gained significance because the contest is unfolding in a party sharply divided between supporters of President Lee Jae Myung and those aligned with Jung Chung-rae.

For candidates interested only in making a statement, the impact of the system may be limited. Those hoping to win, however, cannot ignore the second-choice preferences of supporters whose favored candidate is eliminated. Even the candidate who finishes second in the initial count could ultimately prevail depending on where the third-place candidate’s supporters turn.

A campaign based entirely on negative attacks may energize a loyal base, but it also risks alienating other voters. Under ranked-choice voting, such a strategy becomes far less effective.

In recent years, ranked-choice voting has gained support internationally as an alternative capable of easing political polarization. In Alaska’s 2022 special election for the U.S. House of Representatives, the system was used for the first time. Democrat Mary Peltola competed against Republicans Sarah Palin and Nick Begich III.

In the first round, Peltola won 40.19 percent of the vote, Palin received 31.27 percent and Begich captured 28.53 percent. Although Republican candidates together secured nearly 60 percent, the second count produced a different outcome. After Begich was eliminated and his supporters’ ballots were redistributed, Peltola won with 51.48 percent, while Palin finished with 48.52 percent.

Many of Begich’s supporters, who tended to be moderate conservatives, ranked Peltola ahead of Palin, a leading figure on the Republican right. Analysts attributed Peltola’s victory to her centrist positions. Although a Democrat, she distanced herself from environmental activists and supported development projects in Alaska, allowing her to attract conservative voters.

The spread of ranked-choice voting began in Maine in 2018 and later reached Alaska. The system has also been adopted in local elections in cities such as New York and San Francisco. Although previous attempts failed, debates continue in states including Nevada and Washington.

Political polarization in Korea has reached the level of an endless absurdist drama. In the June 3 local elections, voters once again demonstrated collective wisdom by denying any camp an overwhelming victory and warning political forces that rely exclusively on their most fervent supporters.

Yet political leaders appear unwilling to draw lessons from the results. The ruling party leader found justification for seeking another term despite losing Seoul, while the opposition leader has shown little self-reflection after surrendering Busan to the ruling party and independent candidates.

The two men share a conviction that political moderates are an illusion and continue to pursue partisan support rather than broader public opinion. Their similarities remain striking: One side ignores the harmful consequences of abolishing supplementary investigative powers, while the other clings to conspiracy theories about election fraud.

What if ranked-choice voting were introduced in presidential elections? If the system could make clear that governing requires more than appealing to conspiracy-minded supporters, perhaps figures such as Jung and the People Power Party's Jang Dong-hyeok could be drawn back toward politics’ natural territory of persuasion and compromise. The DP convention may become the first test of that hope.