Americans are increasingly dissatisfied with the plurality voting system, citing concerns about limited choice, lack of representation, and declining trust in democratic institutions. While the system is straightforward—each voter selects one candidate per race, and the candidate with the most votes wins—its simplicity comes at a cost. Plurality voting often fails to capture the full spectrum of voter preferences and can result in winners who do not represent a majority of voters. In primary elections, where turnout is often low, winning candidates frequently receive less than 50% of the vote, advancing to the general election with only a fraction of public support. This problem is exacerbated in races with multiple candidates, where voters must decide how to “split their vote,” and whether to vote sincerely or strategically to avoid "wasting" their vote on a less viable option. As a result, many voters feel compelled to support the most electable candidate rather than the one who best aligns with their views, leaving them with a nominee that does not fully capture their true preferences. In 2022, 8 out of 10 such candidates went on to win their general election (CES 2024 , p. 18). 

In general elections, plurality voting reinforces two-party dominance, discourages third-party candidates, and incentivizes straight-ticket voting. The winner-take-all nature of plurality voting importantly limits not only electoral competition, but also diversity of political representation. Voters often default to relying on familiar party labels or incumbency cues when determining who to vote for rather than engaging meaningfully with individual candidates or policy positions. As a result, elections become less about genuine voter preferences and more about strategic calculations, where voters are encouraged to choose the candidate they perceive as most viable rather than the one who best represents their views—a phenomenon otherwise known as strategic voting. Without a real voice in elections, voters have grown increasingly disconnected to the electoral process. Polling consistently shows that many Americans choose not to vote because they dislike the available candidates, highlighting a fundamental issue: if voters feel their choices do not matter, satisfaction with democracy declines.

In response to these concerns, many states and localities have experimented with alternative voting systems designed to better reflect voter preferences and increase participation. Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), for example, allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, potentially reducing the "spoiler effect" and encouraging more diverse candidate fields. As of 2025, 51 jurisdictions in the U.S. have implemented RCV in some form. Proponents argue that these systems enhance voter expression and produce more representative outcomes, yet critics point to potential downsides, including increased ballot complexity and the issue of "exhausted ballots"—votes that do not count in the final tally because all ranked candidates have been eliminated. Studies show that as the number of candidates increases, so does the number of exhausted ballots. For instance, a 2015 study of four local RCV elections found that between 9.6% and 27.1% of ballots were ultimately discarded in the final round of vote counting.

Moreover, RCV is shown to impose added cognitive burden for voters. While plurality voting is simple and familiar, alternative methods require more decision-making and often demand a greater level of political knowledge. Because the ballots are both new to voters and require more research on behalf of the individuals at the ballot box, alternative methods like RCV also take significantly more time than plurality voting and lowers voter satisfaction, which has implications for high-turnout elections. Voters must assess multiple candidates, understand ranking mechanisms, and anticipate how their vote will transfer in subsequent rounds. Research suggests that in high-turnout elections, such as presidential races, added complexity can lower voter satisfaction and potentially deter participation.

These trade-offs raise fundamental questions: How do different voting systems shape voter perceptions of democracy? Do systems that provide more choices enhance voter engagement, or do they inadvertently create confusion and dissatisfaction? How do these changes influence long-term political participation?

Through two large-scale survey experiments with nationally representative samples, CES is conducting new research to address these questions and investigate how alternative voting methods affect voter satisfaction, trust in elections, and perceptions of representation. Our findings provide critical insights into how election reforms impact democratic engagement at the individual level.

This brief is the first in a series that explores the intersection of voting systems and voter experience. Join us as we examine the implications of electoral design on voter participation, representation, and attitudes toward democracy.

Ryann Alonso is a Research Assistant at CES. They are a MPP student at the McCourt School of Public Policy and a graduate from the University of Arkansas in 2018 with a BA in Political Communications, and a Truman Scholar.