What if voters didn't have to choose between voting for what they want and voting against what they fear?

Have you ever wanted to vote for one candidate but felt you couldn't?

Maybe your favorite candidate was an independent or third-party candidate. You believed that person best represented your views, but you also believed the candidate couldn't win. So you faced a choice: vote for the person you actually wanted or vote strategically for someone else to prevent the candidate you liked least from winning.

That is one of the fundamental limitations of the way we conduct many elections today.

North Carolina faces a second, related problem in partisan primaries. Under current law, a candidate seeking a single party nomination generally can win by receiving more than 30% of the votes cast. If no candidate reaches that threshold, the second-place candidate may request a second primary between the top two candidates.

In a crowded field, a candidate could therefore become a party's nominee with just over 30% of the vote—even though nearly 70% of participating voters selected somebody else as their first choice.

These may look like two different problems. They aren't. Both are consequences of asking voters to express only one choice. And that is not just theoretical. It happens in NC all the time.

The problem with "choose one"

Imagine four candidates (A, B, C, and D):

Candidate	% of Vote Received	Result
A	35%	Candidate A wins because A received more votes than anyone else. But 65% of voters selected someone other than A.
B	30%
C	20%
D	15%

 

Now suppose a voter prefers:    D → B → C → A

D is the voter's first choice, B is acceptable, and A is the voter's least preferred candidate.

If the voter believes D cannot win, the voter may decide: "I'd rather have B than A, so I have to vote for B." The election records a vote for B even though B wasn't that voter's first choice.

This is commonly called the spoiler effect or wasted-vote problem. If voters routinely abandon candidates they actually prefer because they believe those candidates cannot win, election results may understate genuine support for independent and third-party candidates.

North Carolina's 30% primary threshold

North Carolina's primary system presents a different version of the same challenge.

Under G.S. 163-111, nominations for a single office are generally determined by a "substantial plurality," defined as more than 30% of the votes cast. If nobody reaches that threshold, the highest vote-getter is nominated unless the second-place candidate requests a second primary, in which case the top two face one another.

Consider a hypothetical five-candidate primary:

Candidate	% of Vote Received	Result
A	32%	Candidate A wins with 32%, even though 68% of voters selected someone else as their first choice.
B	27%
C	18%
D	13%
E	10%

 

That does not necessarily mean 68% oppose A. Some may consider A their second choice. The problem is that the ballot doesn't tell us. If no candidate reaches 30%, North Carolina's system can produce a second primary, requiring another election, another campaign and another round of voting. The question is whether there is another way. What if the ballot asked one more question?

Instead of simply selecting one candidate, voters could rank their preferences:

Ranked Vote	Candidate	The ballot now communicates:	When voting, the voter can rank up to the number of candidates offered. If a voter only wishes to rank their top one, two, or three choices, that is allowed.
1	D	D is the person I want most.
2	B	If D cannot win, B is my next choice.
3	C	If B cannot win, I prefer C.
4	A	A is my last choice.

This is the basic concept behind instant-runoff voting, often called ranked-choice voting.

How an instant runoff works

Voters rank the candidates in order of preference. First-choice votes are counted. If no candidate reaches the required winning threshold, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and all ballots are counted again. If your first-choice candidate is still in the race, your vote continues to count for that candidate—just as it would in a traditional runoff. If your first choice has been eliminated, your ballot counts for your highest-ranked remaining candidate. This continues until a candidate reaches the winning threshold.

It is essentially a runoff conducted using the preferences voters already provided on their original ballots.

The Difference for the Voter

Consider someone who prefers:

Independent → Democrat → Republican

Under a traditional single-choice election, that voter may feel trapped. Voting for the independent may seem like throwing the vote away; voting for the Democrat may feel like abandoning the first choice. With ranked choices, the voter can potentially do both:

• Vote for the person you actually want first.
• Then identify who you would prefer if your first choice is eliminated.

The voter doesn't have to choose between sincerity and strategy. That doesn't guarantee an independent or third-party candidate will win. It simply gives voters a way to support that candidate without necessarily giving up their ability to influence the final contest.

A Different Kind of Primary

The same principle could apply to North Carolina's primary problem. Return to:

A — 32%
B — 27%
C — 18%
D — 13%
E — 10%

If voters had ranked their choices, E could be eliminated and the “instant run-off occurs”. D could then be eliminated, and so on.

Eventually, the election could come down to the strongest remaining candidates based not simply on their original first-choice totals, but on the broader preferences voters expressed. The important point isn't which candidate would necessarily win. It is that the election would use more of the information that voters voluntarily provided.

What about the second primary?

If the conditions for a second primary are met and the second-place candidate requests one, North Carolina voters may have to return to the polls for another election. An instant runoff could instead use the preferences already collected on Election Day:

One election. One ballot. Multiple rounds of counting.

No second trip to the polls would be required simply to choose again between the finalists. That could matter because turnout can change between elections. Campaign dynamics can change, and voters who participated in the first election may not participate in the second. Runoff elections ALWAYS have drastically lower turnout. So, it’s only a fraction of our electorate that actually picks the winner in a runoff.

Also, it costs taxpayers millions of dollars to host a separate runoff election. The instant runoff voting approach could save NC millions on average.

While some opponents to instant runoff voting may argue that “some people get to vote twice.” That’s not reality. When there is the need for a traditional runoff, everyone would be invited to go back to the ballot box and vote again. If someone’s top candidate was still on the ballot, the vote for that candidate may be cast again. So everyone’s vote is counted in the “run-off”.

How this changes our politics:

This is bigger than simply requiring a candidate to reach 50%—it changes the incentives of politics. When candidates can win with only 30%, their easiest path is often to energize the angriest part of their base by attacking everyone else. Instant-runoffs reward a different strategy. Candidates who may need to become someone’s second or third choice cannot afford to insult every voter who supports an opponent. They must broaden their appeal, find areas of agreement and give more voters a reason to consider them.

It also gives us a more honest picture of what voters actually want. People can support an independent or third-party candidate without fearing that they are helping elect their least-preferred candidate. Even if that candidate does not win, the major parties can see that bloc of support and must compete for those voters’ next choices. That reduces the spoiler effect and weakens the two major parties’ incentive to keep other candidates off the ballot. Instant-runoffs doesn’t just change how we count votes—it changes how candidates campaign, whom they listen to and how they earn support.

North Carolina has already considered the idea

This isn't entirely new to North Carolina. An instant-runoff voting pilot was authorized in 2006. Cary used it in 2007 for mayoral and three Town Council races, while Hendersonville used it in its 2007 and 2009 municipal elections. In 2010, ranked-choice voting was used in four judicial-vacancy elections: one statewide Court of Appeals race and three Superior Court races. The pilots helped reveal practical weaknesses: North Carolina lacked IRV-compatible software. So later-round tabulation was slow and required manual sorting or spreadsheet processing, and voter education was limited.

The General Assembly has previously authorized instant-runoff voting pilot programs. In 2025, H.B. 541 proposed an optional "top-two, same-day primary runoff" using ranked preferences when no candidate reached the 30% threshold. Its stated goals included giving nominees broader support and avoiding expensive, low-turnout second primaries.

There has also been a recent legislative fight over ranked-choice voting. H.B. 958 contained a provision that would prohibit ranked-choice voting. Amongst others, the NC Forward Party successfully petitioned legislators on both sides of the aisle to remove the ban on IRV from the final bill.

That history demonstrates that North Carolina is actively debating what voters should be allowed to express on a ballot.

There are legitimate questions

Instant runoff isn't a magic solution. Ranked ballots can be more complicated than traditional ballots. Voters need clear instructions, election officials may need to update their software for the tabulation systems, and ballot design matters.

Voters who do not rank enough candidates can also end up with ballots that no longer count in a later round if all of their ranked candidates have been eliminated.

Those are legitimate implementation and voter-education questions. They deserve serious attention.  Yet, Instant run-offs are used by nearly 20 million Americans already, and in countries around the world (Ireland, Australia, India, New Zealand and others), with strong voters support for it.  So we can acknowledge the complexity, but also not overstate the implementation.  And complexity doesn’t change the  underlying question:

Which system gives voters the clearest, fairest and most meaningful opportunity to express their preferences?

What is a vote supposed to mean?

This debate ultimately isn't about Democrats, Republicans, independents or third parties. It is about what we want a vote to communicate. A traditional ballot asks: "Who do you choose?"

A ranked ballot can ask: "Who is your first choice—and who would you choose next if your first choice cannot win?"

A voter may genuinely believe:

• "This person is my first choice."
• "This person is my second choice."
• "This person is acceptable."
• "This person is my last choice."

Why shouldn't the ballot be capable of communicating that? If voters have to spend their time asking, "Who can actually win?" or "Who do I have to vote for to stop the other person?", part of the election becomes a prediction exercise rather than an expression of preference.

Vote for What You Want

This is where the Forward perspective becomes especially powerful. A healthy democracy should make room for disagreement, new ideas, independent candidates and third parties. It should give voters the freedom to say: "This is what I actually want." rather than forcing them to say: "This is the person I am voting for because I am afraid of the other person."

Instant-runoff voting isn't the only possible solution. Reasonable people can disagree about whether ranked-choice voting is the best system, how many candidates voters should rank, which elections should use it, and how it should be implemented.

But perhaps the first question should be simpler: Should voters be allowed to express more than one level of preference? Because when a voter can say:

• First choice: who I really want.
• Second choice: who I could live with.
• Third choice: who I could settle for.
• Others?: Never getting my vote

A ranked ballot captures considerably more information about voters’ preferences than a ballot allowing only a single choice. It also changes candidates’ incentives: they may need to earn second- and third-choice support from voters who prefer someone else. Research has found evidence that ranked-choice elections can reduce negative campaign rhetoric. That is the real promise of instant runoffs—not simply a different way to count votes, but an incentive for candidates to build broader support

Not a particular political outcome. Not an advantage for one party. Not a guarantee that a particular candidate will win. Rather, the possibility of giving voters more choice, more voice and more confidence that their ballot actually says what they intended it to say.

A democracy should not ask voters to choose between voting for something and voting against something. It should give them the opportunity to do both when that's what their preferences require. Voters should be able to vote for what they want—not merely against what they fear.

That is not a partisan principle. It is a principle of voter choice.