Regarding the Constitutionality of Ranked-Choice Voting
<p>I'm just starting to get into law studies as a highschooler, and here in the USA, in the state of Maine specifically, they have a system of voting called "Ranked-Choice". Now, from what I can tell, ranked choice works like this:</p>

<p>Say we have 3 candidates running for an office, John, Jane, and Joe. John gets 23% of the votes, Jane receives 35% of the votes, and Joe receives 42% of the votes. Keep in mind these votes come from <em>the first choice</em> of all the voters. Since no one candidate has a majority vote, what happens next is that the candidate with the lowest amount of votes--in this case, John--is put out of the running. At that point, any voters who voted for John have their ballots recounted, and their <em>second choice vote gets added to that candidate's total.</em> Now, from what I can see, this violates the "One person, One vote" precedent set by SCOTUS, as the people who voted for the lowest minority <em>effectively get a second vote.</em></p>

<p>I may be right, I may be wrong, but anyone who can offer me some clarification would be appreciated, as after about 2 weeks of my own research, I am thoroughly stumped.</p>

<p>In an instant run-off, there are multiple rounds of voting (two, in this case).  In the first round, everyone voted for their preferred candidate.  In the second round, Jane's voters still vote for Jane, Joe's voters still vote for Joe, and John's voters vote for either Jane or Joe depending on their preferences.  So everyone gets a vote in every round.</p>
<p>To make an argument against this, you'd have to explain why this &quot;instant system&quot; is unconstitutional while conventional run-off elections, in which everyone votes again on a later day, are constitutional.  (Some states use this system if no candidate meets a 50% threshold;  for example, the <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/mississippi-senate-race-election-results-cindy-hyde-smith-wins-beats-mike-espy-live-updates/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">special Senate election in Mississippi</a> recently ended with a run-off.)  The only real distinction between these two systems is that Jane's and Joe's voters can't change their minds between the two rounds of voting.  So-called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpartisan_blanket_primary" rel="nofollow noreferrer">&quot;jungle primaries&quot;</a> used in California and Washington effectively work on the same two-round structure, and have been found to be constitutional.</p>
<p>If you want some legal precedent, in 2009 the Minnesota Supreme Court specifically refuted this argument in <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-supreme-court/1287774.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Minnesota Voters Alliance <em>v.</em> City of Minneapolis</a> (bolding mine):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The central premise of appellants' unequal weighting argument is that in the second round, first-choice votes cast for continuing candidates were exhausted in the first round and have no further opportunity to affect the election.   Appellants claim that, in contrast, voters who cast their first-choice vote for the eliminated candidate get a second chance to influence the election by having their second-choice votes, for a different candidate, counted in the second round.   Appellants assert that the same is true in subsequent rounds—voters for continuing candidates have exhausted their ability to affect the election, while voters who had selected the next eliminated candidate get yet another opportunity, as their next choice is counted.</p>
<p>Like the district court, we reject the central premise of appellants' unequal weighting argument:  that the vote for a continuing candidate is exhausted in the first round in which it is exercised and then is not counted and is of no effect in subsequent rounds.  <strong>On the contrary, the vote for a continuing candidate is carried forward and counted again in the next round.  Just because the vote is not counted for a different candidate in the new round (as is the vote originally cast for an eliminated candidate), does not mean that the ballot was exhausted, that the vote for the continuing candidate is not counted in the subsequent rounds, or that the voter has lost the ability to affect the outcome of the election.</strong>  See Stephenson v. Ann Arbor Bd. of Canvassers, No. 75-10166 AW (Mich.Cir.Ct. Nov. 1975) (rejecting a claim that an IRV system for election of mayor gave more weight to votes of some voters than others because those who voted for an eliminated candidate had their second choice counted while the second choice of voters whose candidate remained in the race were not counted).  Indeed, it is only because votes for continuing candidates are carried forward and combined with subsequent-choice votes of voters for eliminated candidates that any candidate can eventually win.</p>
<p>Moreover, this aspect of the IRV methodology is directly analogous to the pattern of voting in a primary/general election system.  In a nonpartisan primary election, each voter's vote counts in determining which two candidates survive to reach the general election.  In essence, those primary votes are the voters' first-choice ranking of the candidates.  As a result of the primary, all but the top two candidates are eliminated.  Then, in the general election, voters who voted for candidates eliminated in the primary are allowed to cast another ballot, which necessarily will be for a different candidate-presumably, their second choice.  This is no different than the counting of the second-choice votes of voters for eliminated candidates in instant runoff voting.  At the same time, in the general election, voters who voted in the primary for either of the two surviving candidates are allowed to vote again, and they are most likely to vote again for their choice in the primary (unless, perhaps, they were voting strategically in the primary and did not vote for their actual first choice in an effort to advance a weaker opponent for their first choice to the general election).  This is the equivalent of the continuing effect of the first-choice votes for continuing candidates in instant runoff.  A vote in the general election still counts and affects the election, even though it is for the same candidate selected in the primary.  Appellants attempt to distinguish the primary/general election system on the basis that those elections are separate, independent events, but the effect in terms of the counting of votes is the same.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>First a point of terminology, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ranked Choice Voting</a> (or Ranked Voting) refers to any of several systems in which votres rank several or all of the candidates in the order of their preference, and these rankings are used to determine the outcome. These systems include the Instant Runoff, Restricted Instant Runoff, the Single Transferable Vote, the Borda count, and some versions of the Condorcet method. See the linked Wikipedia article for details.</p>

<p>The question describes an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Instant Runoff</a> system, although most US jurisdictions employing this actually use a Restricted Instant Runoff system, in which voters can rank only a limited number of choices, often their first three preferences.</p>

<p>While this method has not yet been used to elect a member of the US Congress (such an election is now being challenged), it has been used in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting_in_the_United_States#Implementations_rejected" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a number of local elections</a>, and has been upheld as constitutional by several US courts, although there has been no Supreme Court ruling on the subject that I know of. </p>

<p>In <a href="http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/05/20/10-17198.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Dudum vs  Arntz</em></a> (2011) the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the use of restricted IRV in elections for various offices in the city of San Francisco, Mayor, Sheriff, District Attorney, City Attorney, Treasurer, Assessor-Recorder, Public Defender, and members
of  the  Board  of  Supervisors.  </p>

<p>The opinion in <em>Dudum vs  Arntz</em> gives a through description of this system of voting, and of other related systems, and of their advantages and drawbacks compered with a more traditional "first past the post" system.</p>

<p>The opinion in <em>Dudum vs  Arntz</em> considers challenges to this system on the grounds of claimed Equal Protection ("one person one vote") and  Due Process violations. The opinion did not find any of these challenges to have merit. In particular the opinion considered the claim that some voters are allowed by this system to vote "more than once" while others are not. The opinion said:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In  actuality,  all  voters  participating  in  a  restricted  IRV election are afforded a single and equal opportunity to express their preferences for three candidates; voters can use all three
  preferences,  or  fewer  if  they  choose.  Most  notably,  once  the polls  close  and  calculations  begin,  no  new<br>
  <em>votes</em>   are  cast.</p>
  
  <p>[The plaintiff's]  contention  that  restricted  IRV  threatens  to exclude  some  voters  from   voting   is  therefore  incorrect.  The contention sidesteps the basic fact that there is only one round of  voting  in  restricted  IRV.  </p>
</blockquote>

<p>...</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In  sum,  the  City’s  restricted  IRV  system  is  not  analogous to limitations on voting in successive elections, because in  San  Francisco’s  system,  no  voter  is  denied  an  opportunity to cast a ballot at the same time and with the same degree of choice  among  candidates  available  to  other  voters. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Plaintiff in <em>Dudum</em> argued that "exhausted" ballots are excluded from any effect in later rounds of tabulation, and so the voters who cast them are not allowed a vote. The opinion responded to this by saying:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In  essence,  a more  complete  explication  of  the  tabulation  process  demonstrates  that  “exhausted”  ballots  <em>are</em>  counted  in  the  election,
  they are simply counted as votes for losing candidates, just as if a voter had selected a losing candidate in a plurality or run-off  election.  </p>
</blockquote>

<p>...</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>[E]ven though last-place candidates
  could  no  longer  mathematically  win  the  election,  and  could not  obtain  further  votes,  one  could  clutter  the  tabulation  process by showing their votes on the tabulation tables even after they  had  been  proven  incapable  of  prevailing.  The  winner could then be defined as the candidate who receives a plurality of the  total votes cast
   (including votes cast for candidates mathematically eliminated in prior stages), as long as he also
  receives a majority of the votes cast for candidates who were not  mathematically  eliminated  previously.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The opinion quotes <em>McSweeney  v.  City of  Cambridge</em> ,  422  Mass.  648  (1996), which upheld against a similar challenge a Single Transferable Vote system (a variant of ranked voting used when multiple officials, such as members of a council, board, or legislature, are to be elected from the same district). The quoted passage is:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“[exhausted  ballots]  too are read and counted; they just do not count toward the election  of  any  of  the  nine  successful  candidates.  Therefore  it  is no more accurate to say that these ballots are not counted than
  to say that the ballots designating a losing candidate in a two-person, winner-take-all race are not counted.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The <em>Dudum</em> Court went on to say that:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In  short,  Dudum’s  contention  that  the  City’s  system discards votes is incorrect. Instead, the system “counts” all the ballots,  but  the  final  tabulation  recognizes  that  some  of  the ballots  ranked  only  losing  candidates.  Like  his  inaccurate
  comparison of the algorithm used in restricted IRV to a series of elections, Dudum’s “counting” argument reveals an at most minimal—and  perhaps  nonexistent—burden  on  voters’  constitutional  rights.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The plaintiff  Dudum further argued that;</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“some  voters—those  who  vote  for  continuing  candidates—only  have  one  vote  counted  in  ‘the  election’;  other  voters, however,  have  votes  counted  for  three  different  candidates.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The court responded that:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In  fact,  the  option  to  rank  multiple<br>
  preferences  is  not  the  same  as  providing  additional<br>
  votes,  or  more heavily-weighted votes, relative to other votes cast. Each ballot  is  counted  as  no  more  than  one  vote  at  each  tabulation
  step, whether representing the voters’ first-choice candidate or the  voters’  second-  or  third-choice  candidate,  and  each  vote attributed  to  a  candidate,  whether  a  first-,  second-  or  third-
  rank choice, is afforded the same mathematical weight in the
  election.  The  ability  to  rank  multiple  candidates  simply  provides  a  chance  to  have  several  preferences  recorded  and counted  sequentially,  not  at  once.  </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Every voter, the 9th Circuit court pointed out, has this same chance to express multiple preferences, and all voters are treated alike.</p>

<p>The court went on to say that:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The  burdens  Dudum
  identifies, however, are largely ephemeral, disappearing upon examination. The restricted IRV scheme does
   not  provide disparate opportunities for any voter to cast additional ballots or votes.  The  appearance  that  some  votes  are  not  “counted”  is just  a  product  of  how  the  algorithm  operates  for  efficiency’s
  sake; the result would be identical were the “exhaustion” feature  eliminated,  and  the  “exhausted”  ballots  recorded  and counted  throughout  the  process  for  what  they  are—votes  for losing  candidates.  As  the  votes  from  “exhausted”  ballots are
  taken into account in the election, as much as “wasted” votes ever are, the practical burden on voters is no different than in other  election  systems.  Finally,  Dudum’s  vote  dilution  argument  fails  as  well,  because  the  ability  to  rank  preferences sequentially does not affect the ultimate weight accorded any vote  cast  in  the  election.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The "one person, one vote cases", particularly<br>
<em>Anderson  vs  Celebrezze</em>,  460  U.S.  780,  787  (1983) and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Reynolds v. Sims</em>, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)</a>, were lagely concerned with making sure that each person's vote was weighted equally. The <em>Renolds</em> case held that legislative districts must be of nearly equal size, with Chief justice Warren saying that:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>These decisions did not deal with voting systems or methods, as long as each person's vote has the same weight, and is treated in the same way, as each other person's vote.</p>

<p>Everyone did have one person, one vote.  In the first round, everyone was counted on their first choice.  In the second round, everyone was counted on either their first or second choice, depending on whether their preferred candidate made the cut.  Everyone submitted one ballot.  (I'm of course discounting irregularities, which will always show up.)  I don't see where anyone's vote is more important than any other person's in determining the outcome.</p>

<p>Maine is using a specific type of Ranked Choice voting called Instant-Run Off Ballot.  Run-offs are a thing in the United States, as the Mississippi senate race went to a Run-Off ballot this year.  The difference between Mississippi and Maine is that Mississippi had to schedule a second ballot with the losing candidate eliminated and asked people to endure some more campaigning and a delayed knowledge of who will support them... and both candidates are now in a lame duck period that limits their ability to prep for the upcoming term.</p>

<p>There is also a problem in the first past (FPP) the post system.  If we look at your numbers in FPP, Joe is the objective winner, but that may not be reflected that Joe is supported.  We can say that 54% of the total population say No to Joe, and that John is a spoiler candidate, but we cannot say who John is spoiling, Joe or Jane.</p>

<p>If we are to say that of the break down of Joe's candidates is such that 75% name Jane their second choice (17.25% of total ballots cast) and 25% name Joe (5.75% of total ballots cast), this has an effect that confirms that Joe is not the best representative of the constituency's values and that even though Jane did not receive the votes, more people felt she would do a better job than Joe (52.25% vs. 47.75%) and by a wide margin for a close race.</p>

<p>If Joe gets the majority of John's votes in the Run off, Joe is the hands down more preferred candidate (63.25% vs. 40.75%) and confirms the initial ballot is picking the person that the majority believe will serve their interests.</p>

<p>Essentially, this is not a violation of One Person, One Vote.  Run Off Ballots are not new in the United States, and two have happened in as many years in addition to Maine (Georgia  in the 2017 special election, and Missippi in the 2018 Senate Election).  Maine's innovation was to allow the Run-Off to happen at the same time.</p>

<p>If we assume that a vote is essentially the answer to the question, Maines ballot is asking "Of the three candidates, which one is your favorite?  If we need to go to a runoff and your first choice is eliminated, who would you vote for in a runoff? If we need to go to another runoff and both your first choice and second choice are eliminated, who would you vote for in this run off?</p>

<p>Additionally, we can look at the Georgia for another reason why IRV votes preserve the the One Person One Vote.  In the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Georgia%27s_6th_congressional_district_special_election#Results" rel="nofollow noreferrer">first round of voting</a> the turn out was 192,569 voters.  In the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Georgia%27s_6th_congressional_district_special_election#Results_2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">second round of voting</a> the turn out was 260, 455.  This means that about 70,000 voters who "voted" not to vote got a second vote that was not afforded to the people who bothered to turn out in the original vote.  Further more, because of the anonimity of the vote, there's no way that all of the first round voters cast a ballot in a second round or if some first rounders stayed home and were balanced by additional first time second round voters.  In an IRV system, this problem is eliminated as only the First Round Voters would be allowed to vote in each subsequent round.</p>

<p>Tl;DR:  No, it's not a violation of One Person One Vote as one Person is allowed to answer the question(s) once.  IRVs are not triggered if in the first round Joe got more than 50% of the vote (because there is no combination of John Voters siding with Jane that can give Jane the win).  Non-Instant Run Offs and Instant Runoffs both eliminate a candidate and as the people to pick again.  The delay can cause increased turnout from the original vote which could be akin to Ballot Stuffing in an IRV.  Both IRVs and Runoff elections exist to confirm that a true majority support the winner of the first round over the loser of the first round, not to allow someone to vote twice.  In both cases, everyone is afforded the same amounts of times to vote on the candidate</p>

united-states constitutional-law voting