Federal Ban on Ranked-Choice Voting: The 'One Vote One Choice Act' Limits State Election Methods

The aptly named One Vote One Choice Act is straightforward: it bans states from using Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in all federal elections, effective immediately upon enactment. This means that for races like President, Senator, or Representative, voters will no longer be able to rank candidates by preference (first choice, second choice, etc.). Instead, the bill mandates a return to—or continuation of—traditional plurality voting systems for these federal contests.

The Federal Mandate on Your Ballot

This legislation is essentially a federal intervention into how states manage their own elections. Section 2, the core of the bill, explicitly prohibits the use of RCV for federal offices. If you live in a state that currently uses RCV for federal races, or one that was considering it, this bill shuts that option down entirely. The goal is uniformity, ensuring that every federal election across the country is decided by a single-choice vote, where the candidate with the most votes wins, regardless of whether they achieve an absolute majority.

For the voter, this means less flexibility. RCV was designed to reduce the “spoiler effect”—the fear that voting for a third-party candidate helps the candidate you dislike the most win. If you’re a busy professional who values having more nuanced choices on the ballot, this bill takes that tool away. You’re back to the strategic voting dilemma: vote for your favorite candidate who might not win, or vote for the lesser of two evils who can actually compete.

Who Feels the Change?

This ban has two major impacts. First, it affects voters who prefer RCV because it allows them to express support for multiple candidates without feeling like their vote is wasted. They lose that option. Second, it affects state election officials. The bill restructures parts of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to fit this new ban, forcing state administrators to ensure their systems comply with the federal mandate. If a state has invested time and money into implementing RCV for federal races, they now have to scrap those systems or at least carve out the federal races and run them under a different method.

While proponents might argue this simplifies election administration and ensures consistency, the practical reality is that it restricts state autonomy. States often serve as laboratories for democracy, trying out different voting methods to see what works best for their population. This bill tells them they can’t run that particular experiment for federal offices. It sets a precedent where the federal government dictates the specific mechanics of voting, overriding local preferences and reforms aimed at increasing voter satisfaction and representation. If you’re someone who believes states should have the flexibility to tailor their election methods, this bill represents a significant loss of local control.