Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) as a Trojan Horse to Undermine U.S. Governance
This paper examines Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) as a systemic deviation from the governance principles encoded in the United States Constitution. While RCV is often marketed as a modernization effort aimed at increasing voter choice and consensus, this paper argues that it functions as a regressive attack vector, undermining the foundational design of the U.S. compound republic. RCV erodes electoral clarity, incentivizes factionalism, degrades accountability, and shifts political dynamics toward a parliamentary logic inconsistent with American federalism and separation of powers. It introduces a layer of procedural complexity and psychological manipulation that can be exploited by power-seeking factions, both foreign and domestic.
Constitutional Architecture and Electoral Simplicity
The United States Constitution establishes a compound republic premised on separated powers, filtered majorities, and fixed terms of service. Elections are designed to provide a clear, binary choice in single-member districts, maximizing voter clarity and representative accountability. The structure ensures that sovereignty flows through clearly defined institutions, not coalitions, and that officials are chosen based on direct, geographically grounded majorities.
RCV distorts this clarity by introducing preference ranking and contingent outcomes. The initial vote count no longer determines the winner, but instead triggers a cascade of eliminations and redistributions. This obscures the mandate, dilutes majority power, and creates space for interpretative manipulation of the electoral result. In effect, RCV shifts the electoral focus from decisive selection to simulated consensus, privileging procedural gamesmanship over clear delegation of authority.
James Madison expressed concern over parliamentary instability and factional volatility in Federalist No. 62, observing that…
“the facility and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable... It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”
He saw long-standing majorities and steady procedures, not constant coalition reshuffling, as essential to effective governance. The implication is clear: a system that encourages shifting preferences, layered votes, and indecipherable outcomes is not one built for liberty, but for confusion and capture.
Attack Surface: Factional Fragmentation and Coalition Dynamics
RCV undermines the stabilizing function of the two-party system, which has historically served as a mechanism for filtering and consolidating diverse interests into coherent governing coalitions. Rather than promoting unity or ideological coherence, RCV incentivizes the formation of micro-parties and identity-based political movements that appeal to narrow, interest-driven voter segments. Each additional viable candidate fragments the electoral field, making it increasingly difficult for any single representative to claim a clear and accountable mandate. This dynamic mirrors the parliamentary systems of Europe, where coalition governments are often short-lived, fractured, and governed by backroom compromises rather than durable majorities.
In such a fragmented environment, parties prioritize short-term alliances over long-term platforms, and voters are encouraged to think tactically rather than substantively. Electoral outcomes become dependent not on the strength of ideas or leadership, but on intricate preference swaps, negotiated concessions, and opportunistic vote-trading. This creates an environment ripe for factional manipulation, elite capture, and perpetual renegotiation of power, all hallmarks of unstable governance.
By expanding the viable candidate pool beyond the binary choice, RCV reintroduces the problem Madison warned against in Federalist No. 10, the rise of factions capable of dominating the political process without a true majority. He cautioned that…
“a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens... can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.”
The constitutional structure he designed sought not to amplify factional power, but to restrain it through structural filtering, staggered terms, and geographic representation, features that RCV directly undermines.
Governance Implications: From Constitutional Republic to Parliamentary Drift
RCV accelerates a subtle transformation of American governance toward a pseudo-parliamentary model—a model in which executive authority is weakened, coalition-based representation becomes the norm, and legislative outputs reflect temporary alignments rather than enduring mandates.
Second-Choice Leaders: Candidates who are not the first-choice of any majority may win due to distributed second- and third-place rankings. Such leaders often lack a clear voter mandate and enter office with a fragile base of support. This encourages policy moderation not for the sake of stability, but out of necessity to hold together disparate factions—undermining decisive leadership.
Coalition Governance: Elected officials may enter office owing allegiance not to a coherent voter bloc, but to an alliance of political minorities stitched together by shared opposition rather than shared vision. This mirrors parliamentary coalition cabinets, where internal contradictions routinely paralyze policymaking and make governments vulnerable to collapse at any moment.
Procedural Governance: Emphasis shifts from principled legislation to procedural consensus-building, where political maneuvering takes precedence over constitutional principle. Bureaucratic and technocratic actors—who operate outside the direct accountability of the electorate—gain disproportionate influence, filling the vacuum left by diluted electoral mandates.
What emerges is a system prone to what James Madison identified as the dangers of shifting public passions. In Federalist No. 63, he warned…
"There are particular moments in public affairs when the people... may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn."
Madison's warning was not just about temporary errors of judgment, it was about the instability of systems that do not anchor authority in deliberate, majority-based, geographically distributed consent. RCV, by promoting constant rebalancing and coalition logic, decouples electoral outcomes from enduring majorities, moving the system away from republican order and toward parliamentary entropy.
Ranked Choice Voting functions not just as a procedural shift, but as a reintroduction of the parliamentary model the United States intentionally rejected in its founding. Under the British system of government, Parliament could shift power through coalition building and party realignment—power was fluid, not fixed. In contrast, the American Founders declared independence to escape a regime where legitimacy derived from a central, unrestrained legislative authority capable of overriding local governance and individual rights. The U.S. Constitution was designed to prevent that form of instability and overreach by embedding power within separated branches and geographically distributed representation. RCV undermines this design by mimicking parliamentary coalition logic, allowing electoral outcomes to be shaped by procedural aggregation of minority preferences. This represents not innovation, but a return to the very mechanisms the Founders overthrew.
Strategic Exploitation: RCV as a Governance Attack Vector
RCV introduces exploitable vulnerabilities in the electoral system that make it particularly susceptible to manipulation by both domestic and foreign actors. These vulnerabilities do not merely affect outcomes—they also erode public trust in the legitimacy and transparency of elections themselves.
Narrative Engineering: Media outlets, special interest groups, and political operatives can strategically shape public perception by influencing how voters rank candidates. Voters may be told to rank a candidate “just high enough” to edge out a more threatening opponent, or be misled into believing certain ranking combinations are mathematically superior. Disinformation campaigns can weaponize the complexity of RCV, confusing voters and suppressing clear, informed intent.
Simulation Exploits: Unlike traditional elections, RCV introduces multiple rounds of calculation that can be modeled and optimized in advance using data science and simulations. Campaigns with access to large datasets and predictive algorithms can engineer victory scenarios by targeting voters for specific second- and third-choice rankings. This enables candidates with weaker natural support to ride a wave of strategic rankings and artificially inflate their standing in later rounds.
Foreign Interference: RCV’s complexity opens a wider attack surface for foreign adversaries. Sophisticated actors can run disinformation campaigns that divide the vote, elevate spoiler candidates, or simulate grassroots enthusiasm for niche candidates in order to fracture coalitions. Because RCV introduces ambiguity in results and delayed tabulations, foreign propagandists can also amplify confusion and delegitimize the results as manipulated or opaque.
False Mandates: In RCV, a candidate who was never the first-choice of a significant portion of the electorate may emerge victorious due to accumulated lower-tier rankings. These outcomes allow candidates to claim a veneer of popular legitimacy while actually lacking a broad or deep mandate. The illusion of consensus, generated by mathematical artifact rather than genuine voter enthusiasm, becomes a tool for power consolidation without real public backing.
In all of these cases, RCV transforms elections from contests of principle and representation into contests of process and simulation—vulnerable to those most adept at gaming the system. The more complex the mechanism, the greater the incentive for exploitation by those with informational and computational advantages.
Contrast with Constitutional Mechanisms of Restraint
The U.S. constitutional framework implements layered checks on power that are designed to limit the concentration of authority, restrain momentary political passions, and preserve long-term republican stability:
Single-member district elections enforce geographic accountability, ensuring that each representative owes their mandate to a clearly defined constituency and cannot rely on diffuse, national popularity alone.
Fixed terms prevent factional rule by limiting how long any one faction or coalition can hold power, forcing regular resets through time-based electoral cycles.
Bicameralism and the Electoral College prevent national-scale mob rule by separating popular influence into different channels—House by population, Senate by state, and the presidency by an electorally filtered mechanism that balances scale with structure.
The presidential veto and judicial review serve as procedural backstops against unconstitutional or impulsive legislative initiatives, preserving the supremacy of the constitutional framework over popular whim.
RCV bypasses these restraints by reshaping electoral selection into a consensus-seeking simulation that undermines the clarity of delegation. Instead of producing a clear winner with a geographic and numeric mandate, RCV encourages simulated outcomes based on ranking redistributions and mathematical abstractions. The result mimics a parliamentary caucus, where leadership is assembled from partial preferences, temporary alliances, and post-election interpretation, rather than directly earned authority through clearly expressed voter will. In doing so, RCV erodes the very architecture of republican restraint and opens the door to coalition capture, ambiguous mandates, and procedural instability.
Systemic Ramifications: Entropy in the Constitutional Order
Over time, RCV encourages voters and parties to optimize for tactics rather than principles. Electoral strategies begin to resemble parliamentary deal-making, where the emphasis is not on articulating bold visions or defending coherent platforms, but on appealing to the widest spectrum of tolerable acceptability. The incentives for candidates shift dramatically: rather than focusing on conviction-based leadership, they are compelled to market themselves as unobjectionable second or third choices, weakening ideological clarity and dulling political discourse.
Voters are urged to vote strategically rather than honestly. Campaign messaging and activist networks begin to focus on how to "game the system" through rankings, encouraging people to elevate lesser-evil choices in order to block undesirable outcomes—detaching the act of voting from genuine representation.
Candidates campaign for second-choice votes, muting their convictions. In order to be a palatable backup option, candidates frequently suppress sharp distinctions, principled opposition, or controversial truths. The result is a growing uniformity of rhetoric and a decrease in ideological diversity within serious contenders.
Outcomes lack decisiveness, weakening the legitimacy of leadership. Leaders who win through reallocated rankings, rather than commanding first-choice majorities, face greater challenges in claiming a mandate. This undermines confidence in electoral outcomes and blurs the chain of political accountability.
This is governance drift—a slow transition away from the clarity, accountability, and durability designed into the U.S. system toward something more fluid, manipulable, and easily captured. The structural design of the American republic depends on principled conflict resolved through clear, final delegation of authority. RCV, in contrast, fosters a political environment in which outcomes are massaged, perception is gamified, and consensus is manufactured. It weakens the civic habit of holding elected leaders to their campaign convictions and replaces it with an engineered choreography of rankings detached from reality.
Preserving the Integrity of Constitutional Governance
Ranked Choice Voting may appear innovative, but its logic is alien to the constitutional republic model. It is a procedural Trojan horse that imports coalition logic, consensus illusion, and system ambiguity. Like the shifting alliances of parliamentary democracies prone to collapse, RCV promotes short-term electoral engineering over enduring delegation of authority. By injecting procedural opacity and simulative majorities into a system designed for direct geographic representation and durable mandates, it introduces instability under the guise of refinement. In the name of progress, it revives the ancient ailments of factionalism and democratic instability, conditions the Founders explicitly sought to avoid through a compound republic grounded in layered restraint and constitutional clarity.
To defend the American form of government, the people must resist such procedural regressions. The U.S. electoral system is not merely a mechanism for choosing leaders, it is a safeguard for liberty, purposefully structured to prevent the rise of fleeting passions, mob dynamics, and consensus illusions. Replacing its framework with consensus-driven simulations risks substituting constitutional government for popularity governance, and principled statesmanship for algorithmic appeasement. The price of such a substitution is high. Once the mechanisms of simulated consensus are normalized, they become exploitable, manipulable, and ultimately unaccountable to the people they claim to represent.
Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government, not a parliamentary one. A republic requires clear delegation of authority through majority rule, geographic representation, and fixed separation of powers. RCV simulates majority consent through layered preference math, which often results in victories without true majoritarian or geographic accountability, violating the spirit of republicanism. Under Madisonian logic and the structural principles of the Constitution, Ranked Choice Voting subverts the U.S. governance system design and should be treated as functionally unconstitutional.
At United States Lab, we are implementing the United States Constitution's compound republic governance model in web3. If you are interested in this research, please follow our R&D work.