The same complaint comes from all sides of the political spectrum every election season — two choices is not enough.

Perhaps neither Democrats nor Republicans match your views. Campaigns often feel like soulless machines existing only to garner as many votes as possible rather than movements based on specific policies and beliefs. Many voters feel like politics is merely choosing the lesser of two evils.

In short, our country’s political system is broken and no single repair exists. However, one policy change can help fix all of these problems — ranked choice voting.

In most United States elections, voters receive one vote to choose between several candidates. Although major races always contain more than two options, only the Democratic and Republican parties have seen chances of victory for the past several decades.

Voting for a third-party candidate is typically considered a waste.

Ranked choice voting redefines how elections work. Instead of choosing just one candidate, voters rank their top choices, usually with a maximum of five. 

If a candidate receives more than half of first-choice votes, they immediately win, according to the Alaska Division of Elections. If not, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. If you voted for the eliminated candidate, your second-choice vote is counted instead. This process repeats until a candidate reaches at least 50% of votes. 

Some people criticize ranked choice voting for being too complicated. These concerns have little basis in reality, according to Michael Minta, a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota and board member for FairVote Minnesota, who advocates for ranked choice voting.

According to Minta, ranked choice voting is fairly intuitive and if voters are given time to understand the system, it becomes easy.

Minta said some people worry voters will only rank their first choice even when given several options. Although this happens occasionally, most voters rank multiple choices.

Votes with only one choice are still counted unless the candidate is eliminated, meaning they function exactly like a single vote in our current system, according to the Alaska Division of Elections.

Ranked choice voting can help reduce party polarization, according to Minta. The U.S. has become increasingly divided, and it is not merely a matter of policy differences. Politicians know sowing division and portraying the opposite side as evil helps them win.

“We don’t want politicians to lose sight of why we send them to Washington or the city council chambers,” Minta said. “We want them to solve problems, we don’t want them always bickering over who’s going to win the next election.”

According to Minta, ranked choice voting cannot eliminate radical candidates, but it reduces polarization by giving moderates a better path to victory. Winning an election is no longer just about being your supporters’ first choice. Being moderate enough to get second-choice or third-choice votes from other sides of the aisle can help too.

Samuel Wierzbicki, a voter from the historically-battleground state of Wisconsin, said he supports ranked choice voting to reduce party polarization.

“A lot of people don’t totally align with one political party or the other,” Wierzbicki said. “A lot of people are in the middle or agree with certain aspects of one party and certain aspects of another. And the polarization makes it harder for those people to choose a side.”

Minta said ranked choice voting also eliminates the risk of voting for third-party candidates and gives them better chances of victory. 

“A lot of people are fearful of voting for third-party candidates because they fear their votes are not going to count,” Minta said. “But with ranked choice voting, you don’t have to worry about that wasted vote issue anymore because your vote is going to count either way. If you don’t get your first choice, you get your second choice.”

Imagine you are a conservative but prefer independent candidates over Republicans because you do not like Donald Trump. In our current system, you might vote for Trump anyway because you know the other candidates have little chance. 

Or, if you vote for an independent, you could end up with a liberal candidate winning simply because conservative voters were divided.

With ranked choice voting independents and the Libertarian party can be ranked as first and second choices, and as long as Trump was the third or fourth choice, conservatives would have the same chance of winning.

Arad Rahimaghaei, a second-year student at the University, said he supports ranked choice voting because it makes third-party candidates more legitimate.

“I think it’s better because you have representatives of all the parties in there,” Rahimaghaei said. “It’s not just two.”

Minta said ranked choice voting is already successfully implemented in several states, cities and counties and brings numerous other benefits. Several Minnesota cities elect local government positions with ranked choice voting, including Minneapolis.

According to Minta, this allows some small elections to eliminate primaries, since multiple candidates from each party can exist on the final ballot. Primaries are expensive and see low voter participation so this is a net positive. 

Ranked choice voting can also increase voter turnout.

“Look at Faribault, Minnesota,” Minta said. “We have a study that shows there is increased voter participation in elections that have ranked choice voting.”

Alaska has statewide ranked choice voting, but several lawmakers have proposed removing it due to flimsy excuses, such as it causing confusion, according to Minta. The real reason major parties dislike ranked choice voting is it does exactly what it is supposed to do — help voters agree on moderate candidates rather than dividing themselves. 

Ranked choice voting poses a threat to our country’s failing two-party system, and politicians know it.

There is no easy fix to the political chaos in our country, but implementing ranked choice voting is a strong first step.