After the 2016 and 2020 elections, public concerns about election security spiked due to foreign interference and insider threats against American elections. Voting systems used to count votes are one potential vector of such an attack. Any voting system used in elections is vulnerable to programming errors, hacking, or malicious interference. Election officials must conduct robust post-election audits to ensure votes are recorded and tallied as cast and to help restore public confidence in elections.

The “gold standard” of election audits, risk-limiting audits (RLAs) are the most efficient auditing type (regardless of voting method), and can be implemented through ballot comparison, ballot polling, or hybrid auditing methods in single-winner RCV contests. RLAs are reliable and efficient, but they are uncommon in the United States, and have almost never been used in ranked-choice voting (RCV) elections. With RCV gaining popularity, implementing RLAs in ranked-choice races will help ensure quality RCV elections. This report will provide an overview of RLAs in RCV elections and how to expand their use in RCV.

Ranked-choice voting (RCV) uses a round-by-round count of ballots to eliminate the candidates with the least support and to ensure that the candidate with majority support wins. Ranked-choice voting reduces wasted votes and encourages people to vote sincerely, rather than strategically. 

In any election, however, one thing remains the same: the public – voters, candidates, parties, and the media – will have an intense interest in learning the results. Because RCV uses a new method to identify who won, the process for releasing results in RCV races can be especially important to minimize confusion, to convey results in a way that gives people the information they need, and to ensure the outcome is trusted and understood.

FairVote and the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center have analyzed results from hundreds of RCV contests. Based on that experience, we recommend the following tried and true tips:

1. Release a preliminary round-by-round tally on Election Night

2. Continue to release preliminary tallies as more votes are counted

3. Conduct vote total checks with each release of preliminary results

4. Include ballots with write-in candidates as a single batch in the first round

5. Publish the full ballot record so that anyone can verify the result 

6. Make use of existing tools for visualizing RCV results

7. Clearly communicate expectations, timelines, and results

Following these best practices – to the extent permitted by state law – can help instill public confidence in the electoral process and its outcome.

RCV Clips is back with the first episode of our new season! In recognition of Hispanic Heritage Month, guest host Tiffany Montemayor is joined by multimedia journalist Juan Diego Ramirez to discuss their experiences of being Latinidad while working on American democracy issues, and the importance of connecting with all cultures and communities.

Resources mentioned in this episode:

• Nationly podcast: immigrantlypod.com/nationly
• DACA: www.uscis.gov/DACA
• CIELO: mycielo.org/
• Alaskan language assistance: www.elections.alaska.gov/language-assistance/
• Yup'ik-translated RCV explainer video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWFMDezO9k4

In any election, a small percentage of voters will mark their ballots in a way that makes their intent unclear to either the scanners, hand-eye counters, or both. Determining a voter’s intent, and making sure it is counted correctly, is one of the most important responsibilities a jurisdiction has when administering elections. Each jurisdiction across the country should have some form of voter intent guide to help make sense of these ballots. These guides use the statutes, rules, and regulations governing elections in a jurisdiction to determine what constitutes a valid vote. As more and more jurisdictions adopt ranked choice voting (RCV), it is important to understand the new ways that voters can mark their ballots. 

This voter intent manual is designed to cover all of the various rules that jurisdictions can adopt and reference example jurisdictions that have adopted the stated rule. This guide uses best practice grid ballots (unmarked and correctly marked samples below) with a variety of markings to show the various ways a voter can cast their ballot that would need to be resolved. Each rule is explained and then followed by various ballots with a description of how that ballot would be interpreted under that rule. While these examples do not include every single possible variation of ballot use by a voter, they are a useful tool for visualizing the rule and how it should be applied.