On January 6, 2021, it became evident that American politics had completely entered a new realm of hostility, disagreement, and conflict as never seen before. This instance of political violence represented the transformation into a new political landscape in which the deepening schism between Americans has become a true threat, elucidating the urgent and drastic need for reform. Research shows that both the American public [1] and our nation’s lawmakers are becoming increasingly polarized, with Democrats and Republicans further ideologically divided, more politically extreme, and increasingly hostile toward the other side [2]. Partisan antipathy within the American public produces numerous consequences: from growing partisan isolation [3] to a lack of trust between members of opposing parties [4] to even an increase in political violence [5], it is evident that the growing trend of hostility toward those in one’s political out-group is not only distressing but also dangerous. Similarly, the trend of polarization is conspicuously evident in Congress, with frequent legislative gridlock, a lack of compromise, and more members moving toward the extremes of the political spectrum [6]. 

While there are several factors contributing to the increase in polarization, one less studied area is the role of America’s antiquated electoral scheme. The United States employs the single-member district plurality voting system (SMDP) in which one representative per district is elected to the state or national legislative bodies once they receive a plurality of votes. As no majority is required, candidates may be elected with exceedingly narrow margins or with a very low percentage of votes if votes are split among numerous candidates. Though not originally mandated by the US Constitution, single-member districts were officially instituted by Congress in 1842 by the Apportionment Act, a measure that ironically sought to promote partisan fairness by combating one-party domination [7]. While the single-member district plurality voting system may have been appropriate almost 200 years ago, today it encourages polarization by fostering negative political rhetoric amongst candidates and preventing third-party representation [8]. However, potential electoral reforms such as ranked-choice voting (RCV) would help to mitigate these concerns and would reflect a more modern conception of democracy. Shifting from the current single-member district plurality electoral system to ranked-choice voting would help to remedy the increasing polarization by limiting negative and extreme political rhetoric and providing more feasible opportunities for smaller group/third-party representation. 

While there are debates as to whether political elites or the general public drive polarization, it is evident that the single-member district plurality voting system is a factor in maintaining high levels of partisan antipathy. One of the key ways in which it does so is through its promotion of both negative and extreme political rhetoric. As the voting system does not require a majority of votes and promotes a “winner take all'' system, parties frequently embrace campaigns that circulate negative rhetoric about their opponents in order to boost their own vote share. For example, one study found that increasing negative political ads toward a candidate’s opponent by just 1% can increase that candidate's vote share by .025 percent [9]. This strategy of negative political rhetoric as a means of garnering votes is becoming increasingly utilized by politicians: another study found that 85% of Americans agree that political rhetoric has become “less respectful” over the last several years [10]. The first-past-the-post nature of the SMDP voting system inherently urges that candidates be solely focused on boosting their vote share, therefore cultivating an environment where candidates are more likely to highlight the weaknesses of their opponents rather than promoting their own qualifications. As single-member districts are essentially a zero-sum game in which one’s victory is the other’s loss, campaigns are frequently negative and toxic, therefore driving polarization amongst both voters and political figures alike.

The same can be said for the single-member district plurality system’s encouragement of politically extreme rhetoric.  In a system where candidates are encouraged to do whatever it takes to get as many votes as possible, they are more frequently driven to the extremes of the political spectrum, subsequently facilitating “us vs them” attitudes that antagonize those of the political outgroup [11]. Studies show that appealing to the political extremes can be a useful strategy in winning votes, especially among an already polarized electorate [12]. Evidence of this phenomenon is apparent throughout both local and national politics, with political extremists such as Marjorie Taylor Greene in Congress demonstrating how departing from the political center can result in recognition and political success. With one winner and no need for a majority of votes, the SMDP system encourages candidates to employ tactics that work, and both negative and extreme political rhetoric have proven to be advantageous in gaining votes.   

In addition to encouraging negative and extreme political rhetoric, the single-member district plurality system likewise promotes polarization by limiting third-party representation. Duverger's Law explains that political systems that produce only one winner lead to the dominance of a two-party system, therefore explaining why smaller parties struggle to gain representation in the United States [13]. Third-party representation in both the House and Senate is extremely rare, there has never been a US president with a third-party political affiliation since the Republican Party became a major party, and unless majorly concentrated in one geographic area, third and smaller parties seldom win representation at the local level. For example, the Libertarian Party and the Green Party, the third and fourth most popular parties in the US, only maintained 0.6% and 0.19%, respectively, of registered voters in 2022 [14]. Furthermore, no Green Party member has ever been elected to a federal office, and only 8 members have served at the state level. The single-member district plurality system targets smaller parties that struggle to reach a plurality of votes, and likewise even discourages candidates from these parties from running for fear of splitting votes away from one of the two major parties. Limiting third-party representation drastically encourages polarization by forcing citizens to firmly align with one of the two parties, therefore perpetuating the lack of ideological diversity and strengthening “us vs. them” attitudes. 

Evidently, the SMDP electoral system is an undeniable factor behind the increasing polarization throughout America, and there are multiple electoral reforms that would work to mitigate this consequence. One of the most feasible solutions is ranked choice voting, a measure that allows voters to rank their preferences for the candidates. This system necessitates that the winner receives a majority of votes: if no candidate wins over 50% of the votes, the candidate who received the least votes is eliminated, and those who indicated that candidate as their first choice will subsequently have their vote count for their second choice. This process repeats until a candidate receives a majority of the vote. For example, imagine a hypothetical election between a Blue, Green, Red, and Pink party. First, voters would rank their candidate preferences, perhaps putting Green first, Blue second, Red third, and Pink fourth. Now imagine that the Green Party won 40% of the votes, the Blue Party won 25% of the votes, the Red Party won 20% of the votes and the Pink Party won 15% of the votes. Since no party received the majority, the Pink Party is eliminated, and those who put the Pink Party first then have their second choice votes counted. Now imagine that this leaves the Green Party with 45% of the votes, the Blue Party with 30% of the votes, and the Red Party with 25% of the votes. Once again, as there is no majority winner, the Red Party is eliminated and those who indicated it as their first choice then have their second choice vote count. Finally, the Green Party receives 51% of the votes and is subsequently elected. Rather than one candidate being able to win even if they did not receive a majority of the vote or if they won by a slim margin, ranked choice voting ensures that every vote counts.  

One of the key benefits of ranked choice voting is that it helps to combat negative and extreme political rhetoric throughout election cycles. Candidates are encouraged to engage in civil campaigning as each candidate is likewise vying for second-choice votes as well as first-choice votes. Evidence of this is apparent in many cities that have already implemented RCV, such as New York City, which voted to implement ranked choice voting in 2019 [15]. Subsequently, New York City’s 2021 mayoral race exemplified a noticeable shift in campaign rhetoric, with candidates directly stating their personal second choices [16], issuing collaborative advertisements [17], and centering their campaigns on their own merits rather than their opponents’ shortcomings. Furthermore, the election of Congresswoman Mary Peltola in Alaska’s 2022 Congressional Special Election indicates that voters prefer this positive rhetoric as Congresswoman Peltola’s positive campaign centered upon local issues bested Sarah Palin’s campaign that maintained intense negative rhetoric surrounding her opponents. By encouraging candidates to reject toxic campaigning that villainizes their opponents, ranked choice voting helps to deter politicians from driving polarization.  

In addition to limiting negative campaigning, ranked choice voting would likewise combat polarization by increasing third-party representation. As previously described, in the SMDP system, voters often refrain from voting for third-party candidates for fear of splitting the vote, even if they align more with that candidate. However, in a ranked choice voting system, voters are free to vote for their preferred candidate without this fear and do not have to base their votes on who they believe has the best chance of winning. This likewise influences who runs for office, as candidates from less represented groups are often pressured not to run for fear of taking votes from candidates with a stronger likelihood of winning. These less represented groups tend to be women and people of color, and the implementation of ranked choice voting has actually proven to increase their representation in elected offices. For example, a 2020 study highlighted that women have won 48% of all municipal ranked choice elections [18], a 2019 report explained that people of color hold office at a higher rate under ranked choice voting [19], and a 2016 report indicated that RCV increases descriptive representation for women and people of color [20]. Additionally, as this system provides a greater variety of political candidates, voters have the potential to choose the candidate that they most align with, rather than being forced to vote for a candidate due to a “lesser of the two evils” mentality or fear of splitting their party’s vote. By providing the opportunity for smaller groups and parties to gain representation and by not confining voters to one of the two major parties, ranked choice voting will undoubtedly help to limit polarization. 

The United States’s current single-member district plurality electoral system is irrefutably driving polarization. The antiquated system encourages negative campaigning, rewards extreme political rhetoric, and supports the two-party system's dominance: it is well beyond time to implement reforms. Ranked choice voting provides a feasible alternative to this system that would subsequently work to limit polarization. With a structure that allows voters to rank their candidate choices, RCV encourages politicians to refrain from spreading polarizing rhetoric and cultivates real opportunities for smaller groups and parties to gain representation, therefore challenging the dominance of the binary system. Already implemented in numerous states and cities across the country, ranked choice voting is an entirely viable, and necessary reform to America’s electoral system.