As Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) gains traction at the federal, state, and municipal levels, it has earned increased attention in the national spotlight.

For the first time, the Nevada caucuses implemented ranked choice voting (RCV) in its successful early voting process—prompting Vox to label RCV a “winner” of the caucuses.

With over 70,000 early votes cast, the 2020 Nevada caucus looks set to dwarf 2016 (84,000 participants) and even 2008 (118,000 participants) in size—a major win for democracy. This is, in part, because of the use of RCV in early voting.

With a still-crowded field in the Democratic presidential nominating contest, the most informative polls are those which ask respondents for more than just their first choice. 

In “Making Sense of the Iowa Debacle,” Michael Brendan Dougherty writes for the conservative-leaning National Review that instant-runoff voting (also known as ranked choice voting) emerged from the Iowa caucuses as a process-winner.

As Nevada prepares to host what many believe may be the last presidential nominating caucuses, Iowans have advice on what Nevada and Iowa might do in the future.

Following the New Hampshire primary, entrepreneur Andrew Yang and Sen. Michael Bennet dropped out of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary.

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is once again making headlines. This week, the New York Times jumped headfirst into explaining why RCV is surging in popularity. The NYT’s Jacey Fortin gives an in-depth look at the history of Ranked Choice Voting, how it works, and who supports it.

The Economist published results from a ranked choice voting poll which indicated a final showdown between Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, with Biden eking out a win.

This week the New York Times endorsed two candidates for the Democratic nomination for president: Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. The decision to endorse two candidates with different bases of support has drawn a number of critics. But setting aside whether Warren and Klobuchar were the best candidates to support, the Times editorial board’s decision reflects an important insight: the primary season is designed to allow parties to build consensus around a nominee chosen out of a large field.