This op-ed was written by Linn-Benton Community College’s Civil Discourse Program. To learn more about the program, you can visit its website here and its guidebook here.
Oregon Measure 117 is to introduce ranked-choice voting (RCV) into primary and general elections for federal and state executive offices beginning in 2028 in the state. You can read more about the measure on Ballotpedia.
Why you should vote “Yes” on Measure 117.
By Garrett Merchant, Norah Steed, and the Civil Discourse Program.
As United States citizens, we regard the ability to participate in democracy with almost religious deference. Understandably, voters may feel wary of efforts to change that system. However, this November, Oregon voters will decide whether or not to adopt a new democratic system: ranked choice voting (RCV). This procedure has already gained state-wide acceptance in Maine and Alaska and is used in smaller localities in 16 other states, including Oregon. RCV has the potential to counter partisan division, decrease “wasted” votes, and increase trust in democracy. RCV doesn’t undercut our current democratic system. If anything, it perfects the spirit of the system.
According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, “four in five (82%) voters, including equal percentages from both parties, are worried about the state of America’s democracy – including 40% who say they are very worried. […] While two in three (67%) voters say it is very important for Democrats and Republicans in Congress to work together to pass bipartisan legislation on the economy, three in five (59%) voters are not confident that members of either party will cross the aisle to do so.”
The reality is political candidates are “highly ideologically polarized. In other words, they believe in and vote for different sets of policies, with little overlap.” This leads to a divisive political climate that prevents even the basic, integral work from being completed. A democracy should serve all its constituents equally, regardless of their political party or demographic. RCV may be the fix many hope for, allowing constituents to begin voting out representatives who do not represent them.
The current system disincentivizes voters from casting their ballots for third-party or less popular candidates due to the “spoiler effect.” As Blair Bobier, secretary of Oregon Ranked Choice Voting Advocates shares, “It gives voters more power. You get to vote honestly, it gives you more choices. You don’t have to worry about voting for the lesser of two evils, there’s no ‘spoiler’ candidates, there’s no wasted votes.”
Under RCV, voters would have the opportunity to choose multiple candidates, ranking them in order of preference and allowing voters to set backup choices in case their first pick doesn’t have a significant enough majority. This process also increases the diversity of candidates and perspectives.
RCV also requires an absolute majority, meaning that for a candidate to win, they must receive at least 50% of the votes, not just the largest percentage. Currently, if a vote split 45%, 40%, 15%, the candidate who received 45% of the votes would win, even though 55% of the voting population voted against that candidate.
Consider the most recent gubernatorial election in Oregon. Numerous polls showed there were three competitive candidates during the spring and summer of 2022. The final results gave Tina Kotek the victory with less than 50% of the vote. We can only wonder if the results would have been different (or if more popular third-party candidates would have run) had RCV been in place.Ranked choice voting lifts the moderate voice above the partisan din. It encourages people to vote according to their personal preferences without worrying about other people’s votes rendering their votes inconsequential. It ensures that all elections are decided with an absolute majority. RCV has been tried, tested, and proven to be successful in other states and localities, including Benton County. The state of Oregon is ready for a change. We are ready for ranked choice voting.
Why you should vote “No” on Measure 117.
By Travis Overvig, Ryland Bickley, and the Civil Discourse Program.
Oregon Measure 117, which seeks to implement ranked-choice voting (RCV) statewide, may sound like a step toward more democratic elections, but in practice, it introduces complications that outweigh the potential benefits. While the system’s theoretical appeal lies in ensuring majority-backed candidates, real-world scenarios show that it may not be the best choice for Oregon.
One of the main challenges of RCV is the complexity it introduces, often leading to voter confusion and disenfranchisement. In Alaska’s 2022 special election, for example, over 11,000 ballots were disqualified because voters only selected one candidate. This issue, known as “ballot exhaustion,” leaves many voices unheard. Ballot exhaustion occurs when a voter’s ballot is no longer counted in the final tally because it doesn’t rank any of the remaining candidates. Whether it’s a deliberate choice or a result of voter fatigue from ranking multiple candidates, the effect remains the same: A significant portion of voters are effectively excluded from deciding the outcome. This undercuts RCV’s promise of electing candidates with a true majority.
Oregon’s voter participation is already an area of concern. In the 2022 election, only 66.9% of eligible voters turned out — the lowest turnout since 1998 — despite the convenience of mail-in ballots. Adding more complexity to the voting process is unlikely to increase participation. Instead, it could discourage people from voting altogether, particularly those who are already struggling to engage in the current system.
RCV also introduces logistical challenges, such as updating voting machines, printing more complex ballots, and adjusting how votes are counted to handle multiple rounds of elimination, which could delay results and further erode trust in Oregon’s electoral system. In an already fragile system, these delays may heighten concerns among voters.
The financial costs are equally troubling. By 2027, Oregon would need to spend over $5.6 million to launch RCV, with ongoing expenses for training, public outreach, and software updates. Local governments would also face millions in costs for upgrading voting machines and managing more complex ballots. In contrast, Oregon’s current system delivers clear results without these added expenses.
Oregon’s proposed RCV system also doesn’t make much sense. For one, it calls for eliminating the candidate with the least first-place votes – not the least total votes – if no one wins the initial count. Here’s the problem: In the Alaska election referenced above, this resulted in the most popular (and moderate) candidate, Nick Begich, becoming the first to be eliminated.
Begich was leading in head-to-head polls against both Sarah Palin and Mary Peltola, but he received the least first-place votes (53,810 compared to Palin’s 58,973 and Peltola’s 75,799). That resulted in him being eliminated from the election, despite a whopping 81,253 second-place votes (far more than Palin’s 31,611 and Peltola’s 19,024).
The most popular candidate became the first off the ballot – that’s not democratic, and it showed how RCV is still catering to the USA’s political polarization in its current state.
Oregon’s proposed RCV will also not implement the usual primary system accompanying the change. Most states add an open primary where voters from every party, as well as independents, choose the top candidates to appear on the final ranked-choice ballot. That also means multiple members of one party can appear on the final ballot.
However, Oregon is keeping its closed primaries. Despite RCV’s promises of reducing partisanship, the election will once again be decided by registered Republicans and Democrats and come down to just two candidates.
RCV is an interesting idea and one that could work someday (or through a similar system such as STAR voting). However, Oregon needs better turnout, a stronger voting infrastructure, and a smarter system before making the proposed changes of Measure 117.