Frequently Asked Questions

Consensus Choice Voting gives voters real choices of candidates by first holding an open qualifying election—without party restrictions—to determine at least four of the strongest candidates. In the general election, voters rank these candidates in order of preference (instead of choosing a single candidate) to select a winner who represents the broadest, fairest balance of voter preferences from across the electorate.

The general election can be viewed as a two-step process. The first step is for voters to cast a ballot and the second step is to calculate the results. 

Step 1: Voting: When voters cast a ballot, they rank candidates in order of their preference. Voters are not required to rank all the candidates, and they may rank multiple candidates as tied.

Step 2: Tabulation: The goal of the tabulation process is to determine the Consensus Choice, that is, the candidate who has the broadest support from across the electorate. To do so, compare each pair of candidates by counting the number of voters who prefer one over the other. The candidate preferred by more voters in a given head-to-head matchup wins that matchup. The candidate who wins all head-to-head matchups is the Consensus Choice and therefore wins the election.

According to Gallup, most Americans (61%) are dissatisfied with the way democracy is working in the United States and 85% of Americans say U.S. political systems need major changes. 

Democracy is at a breaking point. Division, conflict, and toxic politics have become the norm because leaders are rewarded for stoking fear and division rather than working together to find solutions to important issues. The problem isn’t just political rhetoric—it’s baked into the rules of our election system. No society that rewards its leaders for dividing it can long survive.

Our current voting system actively encourages toxic political behavior. When candidates only need to win over their party’s base, they have no incentive to appeal to a broad range of voters. Instead, they benefit from attacking and alienating those outside their faction. This creates a vicious cycle where politics becomes more extreme, and voters feel more divided than ever.

Consensus Choice breaks this cycle by changing the rules so that candidates must aim to earn the support of majorities of voters in comparison to each of the other candidates, not just their base. It removes the structural incentives for division and replaces them with incentives for compromise and coalition-building. If we want leaders who work for all of us, we need a system that rewards bringing people together—not tearing them apart.

Consensus Choice creates the possibility for more candidates to run for office, and it ensures fairness and equal opportunity in competition, just like in sports tournaments where every team is given the chance to play all other teams and the team with the best record is the winner. Similarly, under Consensus Choice, candidates compete head-to-head and each voter’s rankings are used to decide who wins each matchup. 

Under Consensus Choice, every voter’s preference is counted in all candidate comparisons and each voter's full ranking matters equally in every head-to-head matchup, ensuring no individual's voice is disproportionately influential or overlooked.

Short answer: nope!

But the more candidates you rank, the more say you will have in each head-to-head comparison.

To determine the Consensus Choice, that is, the candidate who has the broadest support from across the electorate, compare each pair of candidates by counting the number of voters who prefer one over the other. The candidate preferred by more voters in a given head-to-head matchup wins that matchup. The candidate who wins all head-to-head matchups is the Consensus Choice and therefore wins the election.

In almost all large-scale elections, the process of comparing pairs of candidates will identify the Consensus Choice, a single candidate who wins all their head-to-head matchups. In the unlikely event that no Consensus Choice exists, the ultimate winner can be determined by one of the following resolution methods:

• Margin of Loss Resolution: If there is no Consensus Choice, the candidate whose largest head-to-head loss is smallest is declared the winner.
  

• Number of Wins & Margin of Loss Resolution: The candidate with the most head-to-head wins is declared the winner. In the event that multiple candidates tie for most head-to-head wins, the tie is broken in favor of the one whose largest head-to-head loss is smallest.
  

• Instant Runoff Resolution: If there is no Consensus Choice, Instant Runoff Voting is used to determine the winner.

A Majority Cycle occurs when no single candidate is majority-preferred over every other candidate in head-to-head comparisons. In a Consensus Choice election, the goal is to find the Consensus Choice—a single candidate who wins all their head-to-head matchups. However, in some cases, voters' rankings can create a situation where Candidate A is majority-preferred over Candidate B, B is majority-preferred over C, and yet C is majority-preferred over A—creating a cycle with no clear winner. A Majority Cycle can also happen in Instant Runoff Voting elections and would need to be settled through a resolution mechanism.

To learn more about resolution of cycles, see What happens if there is no Consensus Choice?

Unlike IRV, Consensus Choice Voting that uses a Margin of Loss resolution or Number of Wins & Margin of Loss resolution allows “overvotes”, “skipped ranks”, and “overranks” (if a voter ranks the same candidate at multiple ranks, we use the highest rank for the purposes of head-to-head comparisons). Thus, we don’t have to throw away the votes that IRV does.

Even jurisdictions that use Consensus Choice with Instant Runoff resolution can allow ballots with overvotes, skipped ranks, and overranks for the purposes of determining the Consensus Choice. Those ballots might be disqualified only in the highly unlikely event that there is no Consensus Choice and the Instant Runoff resolution requires their disqualification. 

So no matter what form of Consensus Choice is used, more votes are counted.

• More Choices, Fewer Wasted Votes – You don’t have to vote “strategically” or worry about spoilers.

• Better Leaders – Politicians can’t just pander to their base; they have to win broad support.

• Less Division – Candidates and campaigns will have incentives to focus more on solutions and common ground, instead of fear mongering and division.

No. You already rank things every day—movies, restaurants, job candidates. Consensus Choice Voting works the same way. Instead of picking just one candidate, you rank them in order of preference. That’s it.

The counting process is conducted by teams of professional public servants who run elections. When ballots are counted, they ensure the election rules are followed and that the elected candidate accurately reflects the collective preferences of the voters.

No. In fact, our current system is what gives some votes more power than others—especially in swing states and safe districts where some votes barely matter. That’s why a vast majority of 2024 races for Congress and state legislatures were decided by low-turnout or meaningless primary elections.

Consensus Choice Voting fixes that by making sure that every voter’s preference carries the same weight in deciding the winner. No individual person’s vote is more important than anyone else’s.

Right now, politicians win by dividing us—stirring up their base while ignoring or attacking everyone else.

Consensus Choice changes the rules of the game to incentivize candidates and campaigns to appeal to a wider audience. To win, they can’t just fire up their most loyal supporters—candidates have to reach out to multiple majorities of voters in order to win pairwise matchups against other candidates. This makes it harder for extreme candidates to succeed.

No, complete unanimity is an unrealistic standard of consensus. A more realistic standard of consensus is given by what social choice theorists call a Condorcet winner, a candidate who defeats every other candidate head-to-head. As Elkind et al. write, “[A] Condorcet winner, when one exists, presents an acceptable compromise between different voters’ preferences. We say that an election is a consensus election if it has a Condorcet winner.” In this spirit, we call the Condorcet winner the Consensus Choice.

Partisan Primaries and Plurality-Winner 

While election systems vary by state and even local jurisdictions in the United States, many states and jurisdictions use a system of partisan primaries followed by plurality-winner general elections. Under this system, representation is awarded exclusively to the candidates receiving the highest number of votes, irrespective of the margin or proportion of overall support. At first glance, such a system is straightforward: each voter casts a ballot, and candidates with the most votes win the election. The electorate generally expects the winning candidate to align with the beliefs, values and policy preferences of the largest voting bloc in the candidate’s constituency. 

However, partisan primaries followed by plurality-winner general elections are particularly susceptible to partisan extremism. They can also lead to unfair results that further drive the toxic politics rampant in our country. In closely contested elections where there are only two candidates, the voters represented by the losing candidate (which could be up to half the electorate) could have no effective representation. And, candidates can even win an election without receiving the majority of the vote, as Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton did. 

Such systems can lead to elections where voters don’t really have a choice, and the outcomes are essentially predetermined. Candidates have minimal incentive to engage in cross-party coalition-building or outreach to opposing voter groups, often leading to contentious political environments where it’s difficult to productively solve problems and govern. In elections with districts that lean in one partisan direction, candidates only have to appeal to their partisan base to win. Take for example, a 60/40 district, where 60% of voters align with one party and 40% with another. The predominant use of primary elections and a plurality general election create an incentive for candidates to focus on appealing to the 60% to win, even if it means ignoring or denigrating the 40%. In this case, the only real competition happens in the primary election.

Instant Runoff Voting

Under Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), voters rank candidates in order of preference. Initially, only first-choice votes are counted. If no candidate has a majority (>50%), the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated, and votes for that candidate are transferred to the voters’ next-ranked candidates. This process repeats until one candidate receives a majority of the remaining votes.

Under Consensus Choice, voters rank candidates similarly, but instead of using sequential elimination rounds, we use rankings to directly compare each candidate against every other candidate in head-to-head matchups. The candidate who wins against every other candidate individually is declared the winner.

Consensus Choice selects the candidate with the broadest support across the entire electorate.

As a result, Consensus Choice discourages divisive campaigning because winners must appeal broadly, not just to a faction or a particular base of supporters.

Example:

• IRV: Candidate A initially leads but doesn't have a majority. Candidate C is eliminated, and votes transfer primarily to Candidate B, making B the winner—even if Candidate D (already eliminated) could have beaten B head-to-head.

• Consensus Choice: Candidate B might have the most pairwise wins against all others directly, immediately making B the winner without needing multiple rounds of eliminations.

Why it matters: 

Because it eliminates candidates one at a time, Instant Runoff may eliminate a candidate early who would have broader appeal overall.

Consensus Choice encourages candidates to build broader support among voters to reduce toxic polarization. Under Instant Runoff Voting, the winning candidate only needs to beat the last remaining competitor head-to-head, which doesn't necessarily mean that the IRV winner has majority support when compared to other candidates.

In short, IRV focuses on sequential elimination rounds, while Consensus Choice evaluates comprehensive head-to-head comparisons to select the candidate most broadly supported by the electorate.

Yes—and that’s a good thing. Right now, parties have the power to pick the candidates and voters can only say “yes” or “no.” This allows the parties to game the system by picking candidates who will gin up their base or donors, even if most voters don’t actually like the candidates.

With Consensus Choice, the parties will have to recruit candidates who can win broad support, meaning more practical, solution-oriented leaders. It also makes room for independent and third-party candidates to compete without “spoiling” elections.

Over 40,000 polls online have used a form of Consensus Choice Voting. In politics, voting with ranked ballots has been adopted in places like Alaska, Maine, Utah, Virginia, Ireland, and Australia. Major organizations—like the Academy Awards—use a form of ranked choice to ensure more fair outcomes. It’s likely your favorite movie star has won an Oscar because of ranked-choice voting systems. Consensus Choice Voting takes what works best from these systems and improves on them to eliminate unfair results and ensure that every vote matters equally.

Changing how we vote isn’t easy, but it’s possible. Reform efforts are already underway in several states and many cities.

The first step is raising awareness and building public support. If you want a system that puts voters—not politicians—in charge, you can help by learning more, spreading the word, and joining our efforts to make Consensus Choice a reality.

Yes, Consensus Choice Voting aligns with constitutional principles and the original vision of the Founding Fathers. In “The Real Preference of Voters”, legal scholar and Better Choices Advisory Board member Edward B. Foley shows that James Madison, one of the primary architects of the U.S. Constitution, recognized the value of a voting system based on the principle of Consensus Choice. Madison wrote about an electoral structure that would reflect “the real preference of the voters,” ensuring that the most broadly supported candidate would win.

Foley argues that adopting a system based on the principle of Consensus Choice would strengthen Madisonian democracy by preventing the rise of authoritarian demagogues who manipulate partisan primaries and win elections despite lacking broad public support. By ensuring that election outcomes truly reflect the will of the electorate, Consensus Choice Voting would reinforce core democratic principles such as political equality and majority rule, making it both constitutional and necessary to protect representative democracy.

Preferential Equality is a core fairness principle for voting systems. As explained in “Characterizations of Voting Rules Based on Majority Margins,” co-authored by two Better Choices board members, Preferential Equality requires that if either of two voters switch their rankings between two adjacent candidates, their impact on the election result is identical, regardless of which voter makes the switch.

This principle is important for voting systems because it ensures that no individual voter has an outsized influence compared to another voter when ranking candidates in head-to-head comparisons. Some voting methods, like Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), can violate Preferential Equality by producing different results depending on which voters switch their rankings, leading to inconsistent and potentially unfair outcomes.

By adhering to Preferential Equality, Consensus Choice Voting ensures that all voters’ preferences are treated equally, preventing distortions that can arise when certain voters’ rankings carry more weight than others. This approach reinforces fairness, balance, and trust in the electoral system.