It is important to note that, in RCV, while voters have the option to rank multiple candidates, they are not required to do so (but a median of 68% of voters do rank multiple candidates). ^[19] In contrast, another system such as approval voting may be easier for voters to understand, but it lacks the ability to capture nuanced voter preferences through rankings. As a result, many voters may default to selecting only their top choice. Additionally, in approval voting, selecting multiple candidates can unintentionally reduce the chances of a voter's favorite candidate winning, since all approved candidates are treated equally. This is because the approval voting system does not distinguish between a voter's first-choice and lesser-preferred options. Therefore, if a voter's favorite candidate is less popular and they also approve another candidate, their vote helps both equally - increasing the chances of the less-preferred option overtaking the true favorite. With RCV, the ranking structure helps mitigate this issue - voters can safely express multiple preferences without undermining their top choice, making it rarely advantageous to abstain or only select one candidate.

It may be surprising, but changing something as simple as the way people vote can help reduce the growing political polarization and animosity amongst the US public. Because of the ranking system, candidates understand that they need broad support among the public to win, so they will attempt to appeal to a majority of voters rather than relying solely on their partisan base. This means that candidates' political campaigns tend to be more civil, and fewer adverts are focused on attacking opponents. This also means candidates may help endorse one another, suggesting to their voters that their endorsement should rank second, encouraging a more constructive electoral environment. This can be shown as recently as the 2025 New York Mayoral primary race (where RCV was used), where Zohran Mamdani and Brad Lander released a joint ad campaign asking voters to rank them first and second on the ballot, no matter the order, to amplify their shared values and help prevent Andrew Cuomo from winning. In New York, turnout has dramatically increased since RCV was introduced and the 2025 mayoral primary turnout exceeded 1 million voters which is highest seen in a mayoral primary election since the 1980s. ^[20]

Though it is rare to see RCV used in swing districts compared to solid red or blue ones, there are examples such as Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, which implemented RCV in 2018. Solid red states, such as Alaska, also use RCV statewide. Solid blue cities, such as San Francisco, Oakland, and parts of Colorado, also use it for local elections. While RCV is increasingly used in cities across the country, it is still very difficult to implement on a federal level. Major parties reject this type of voting system, as it is not in their interests. This is because, since candidates must appeal to a broad base to win, RCV improves the odds for independent third-party candidates to win since they can get second or third-choice support. However, in jurisdictions with RCV (like Maine or NYC), third-party victories are still extremely rare. The most notable example of a candidate recently experiencing a modicum of success is Al Gross, a nonpartisan independent in Alaska’s 2020 Senate race who performed well (41% of votes) but still lost. ^[21] It is also a voting system that is relatively unknown or confusing to many voters across the country. Additionally, due to the partisan nature of politics today, many people may be happy voting for one of the two major parties and won't care about introducing a different voting system.

Proponents of RCV will often say, in jurisdictions with runoff elections, that RCV can significantly reduce costs for the local government by eliminating the need for a separate runoff, even if its initial implementation is costly. There is little substantial evidence to support that claim, but candidates themselves can save money as there are no runoffs. During its implementation in New York in 2021, the initial one time costs were estimated to be between $100,000 and $500,000 for machines and computer programs, but what was very costly was the voter education. Mayor Bill de Blasio spent over $15 million on a voter education campaign to inform New Yorkers about the new system ahead of their first primary elections. This was used to inform the entire voting population of New York, which includes roughly 4.7 million citizens. Out of the $15 million spent, over $2 million was spent just to translate adverts into 18 different languages. ^[22] In this election, roughly 95% of New Yorkers who voted said that RCV was easy to understand and use, so it proved to be a successful campaign. ^[23] Research conducted by FairVote has shown that, although election costs in RCV cities have decreased after implementation, they have remained higher than in non-RCV cities. For cities currently using RCV, their election costs increased by an average of $0.42 per person. Therefore, while RCV may be associated with higher election costs, the impact appears minimal. What is interesting is that even before RCV was introduced, cities that went on to implement RCV still spent an average of 2.7 times more on elections than those other non-RCV cities (NewAmerica, 2021). ^[24]

Despite significant financial investments in RCV initiatives, there hasn't been much progress toward nationwide acceptance. RCV is still only available in 62 different jurisdictions, despite millions being spent on ballot reform efforts, voter education campaigns, and implementation initiatives. Predominantly hindered by political opposition by major parties, the high expenditures have not resulted in widespread expansion. The disparity between expenditures and the progress made underscores the complexity and difficulties that come with reforming electoral systems. It's evident that monetary costs have not been sufficient to drive large-scale change when it comes to electoral reform. That said, reform efforts still spend quite a bit less than the two-party system does. Wilsons Fountain is attempting to reduce reliance on major funding in electoral reform and candidate selection, inspired by the democratic principles promoted by James Wilson, one of the Founding Fathers who emphasized fair representation for all citizens. While RCV does not directly address the role of money in elections as Wilson’s Fountain does, it strengthens Wilson's core principle of equality by allowing voters to express a wider range of preferences, ensuring that elected candidates have broad support. When implemented through a modern, online primary platform, ranked-choice voting could help bring Wilson’s ideals into the digital age, expanding access and enhancing fairness in the electoral process.