Ranked-choice voting is on the rise in the U.S., with two U.S. states and 45 U.S. cities now using some version of it.

This November, Missourians will have the opportunity to ban it.

Advocates of ranked-choice voting argue that it solves the problems of other voting methods, while detractors counter that it makes elections unnecessarily complicated.

Here in the U.S., plurality voting is the most commonly used system to elect people to serve in government. Using this method, whichever candidate has the most votes after a single round wins. Proponents of plurality voting point out that it is easy to understand and implement.

One problem arises, however, when there are several people running for office. In those cases, the vote could be split several ways, and the overall winner may not actually be very popular.

Some places that have experienced these sorts of results have chosen to adopt an electoral system aimed at ensuring that winners have majority support, such as runoff voting. However this method can lead to several rounds of elections (particularly if it’s also used during the primaries), which can be expensive for governments to organize. Plus, it requires voters to take additional time off work and other duties, which can reduce voter turnout.

In hopes of ensuring that winners have majority support while minimizing the downsides of runoff voting, some places have adopted ranked-choice voting.

The way this system typically works is that voters rank candidates in order of preference. A candidate can win outright by receiving the majority of first-preference votes. If that doesn’t happen, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated, and voters who picked that candidate as their first choice will have their next choice counted. If there still is not a winner, then the candidate with the next fewest votes is also eliminated. This process continues with candidates eliminated one-by-one until one candidate has obtained a majority.

Proponents of ranked-choice voting argue that it takes less time and money versus runoff voting because all votes are cast on one day on one ballot.

Given that voters get to rank multiple candidates, another potential benefit of ranked-choice voting is that it can encourage moderation among candidates as they vie for voters’ second, or subsequent, preferences.

Because ranked-choice voting is a different system than most Americans are familiar with, one potential problem is confusion. Some critics incorrectly claim that ranked-choice voting lets voters cast more than one ballot per person, but in fact each voter gets just one vote.

With that said, voters who are unfamiliar with ranked-choice voting may run into issues. For example, ballots filled out incorrectly, such as by marking the same preference twice, can be considered invalid. Also, failing to rank all of the candidates may result in a ballot being ignored in later rounds of counting.

But teaching people how the system works can reduce such problems.

Already outlawed in Missouri, noncitizen voting ban will appear on statewide ballot

At present, both Maine and Alaska have adopted versions of ranked-choice voting. In 2020, Maine re-elected Republican Susan Collins to the U.S. Senate. In 2022, Alaska reelected Republican Lisa Murkowski to the U.S. Senate. Both Collins and Murkowski are often considered among the most moderate members of Congress.

This is not surprising because in order to win under ranked-choice voting, candidates need to be broadly popular. A moderate Republican, for instance, would get votes from Republicans, but they might also be the second or third choice among some Democrats because those Democrats would likely prefer a moderate Republican over a far-right Republican.

Similarly, a moderate Democrat would get votes from Democrats, but they might also be the second or third choice among some Republicans because those Republicans would likely prefer a moderate Democrat over a far-left Democrat.

For example, in the 2022 special election for Alaska’s at-large congressional district, Alaskans chose to elect moderate Democrat Mary Peltola over far-right Republican Sarah Palin. Peltola is the first Democrat to serve as Alaska’s representative in the U.S. House since 1972. In her two years in office, she’s voted against her own party more than nearly every other Democrat.

On Nov. 5, Missourians will have the opportunity to vote on Amendment 7. If passed, this amendment would do two things: (1) it would ban noncitizens from voting, and (2) it would prohibit the use of rank choice voting.

First of all, here in Missouri, it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote.

Second, when deciding whether or not Missouri should prohibit ranked-choice voting, one should first think about who this change would benefit.

Recall that rank choice voting makes it easier for moderates to win and more difficult for politicians at the extremes to win. Whether this is good or bad depends upon whether you consider yourself a moderate Democrat/Republican or an extreme Democrat/Republican.

For far-left Democrats or far-right Republicans, voting ‘yes’ on Amendment 7 is probably in your best interest, as Missouri would keep plurality voting, which favors the type of politicians you support.

For moderate Democrats or moderate Republicans, voting ‘no’ on Amendment 7 is probably in your best interest. It does not mean that Missouri will adopt rank choice voting. It would, however, leave the door open for Missourians to one day adopt it should we so choose, and at that point, moderate politicians would have a better shot at winning.

Americans often think that the best way to influence change is to win the game by ensuring that our preferred politician wins the election.

However, politicians come and go, and an often-overlooked way to influence the game is by changing the rules of the game itself.

Do you like the current rules? Or, at some point, would you like to change them? Amendment 7 gives you a choice.