How The MAD Act Modernizes American Elections
Title VI: Ranked-Choice Voting, STAR Voting, & $1 Billion in Grants to End the Spoiler Effect
Title VI does not mandate that any state change its voting method. Instead, it does something more effective: it makes change easy, funded, and reversible — while making the status quo harder to defend. The bill authorizes $1 billion over five years in grants for states and localities that voluntarily adopt either ranked-choice voting or STAR voting for any level of election. Grant amounts are determined solely by population — not by which method you choose — but if your method costs less to implement, you keep the savings for other election improvements. The bill builds in a continuous improvement cycle: after three election cycles, every grantee must review its method against alternatives, and dedicated Tier 4 grants fund evaluation, piloting, and transition to a better method if the evidence warrants it. The findings cite Arrow's Impossibility Theorem to establish that no voting method is perfect — which is the constitutional basis for treating election reform as an ongoing, evidence-driven process rather than a one-time fix.
5 Years in Grants
RCV & STAR Voting
Planning → Transition
Commitment Period
Ban Alt. Voting Methods
- Plurality voting is the problem: Elected officials can assume office without majority support. The system incentivizes negative campaigning, suppresses candidacy by qualified individuals, and creates a "spoiler effect" that punishes voters for expressing sincere preferences. Voters are forced to choose between voting their conscience and voting strategically — and the system treats both as the same thing.
- Alternative methods are already working: More than 50 jurisdictions across the United States already use alternative voting methods, serving approximately 17 million voters. Alaska and Maine use ranked-choice voting statewide. Federal courts have uniformly upheld these methods as constitutional, including in Dudum v. Arntz (9th Cir. 2011) and Baber v. Dunlap (D. Me. 2018).
- No perfect method exists — and that's the point: The findings explicitly cite Arrow's Impossibility Theorem (1951) — no ranked-order voting system can simultaneously satisfy all desirable fairness criteria — and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem — all deterministic systems with three or more candidates are susceptible to some strategic manipulation. Congress uses these foundational results to establish that voting method selection necessarily involves tradeoffs, and that ongoing evaluation and evidence-based refinement are essential.
- RCV and STAR are both better than plurality — the differences between them are smaller than the gap either closes: Congress finds that both methods represent substantial improvements over plurality voting on every major metric. The differences between them, while meaningful, are significantly smaller than the differences between either method and the status quo.
Voters rank candidates in order of preference. Tabulation proceeds in sequential rounds: the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated each round, and those ballots transfer to the voter's next-ranked continuing candidate. The process continues until a candidate receives a majority of remaining votes. Voters are not required to rank all candidates. Over a century of international use (Australia since 1918, Ireland for presidential elections). 90%+ voter comprehension in surveys. Satisfies the later-no-harm criterion — ranking additional candidates cannot cause your first choice to lose. Proportional representation variant (STV) available for multi-winner elections.
Voters score each candidate 0–5. The two candidates with the highest total scores advance to an automatic runoff, where each ballot counts as a vote for whichever finalist the voter scored higher. Equal scores = no preference expressed in the runoff. Peer-reviewed research shows 91–98% voter satisfaction efficiency (vs. 79–92% for RCV, 70–85% for plurality). Greater resistance to strategic voting (1:1 help/harm ratio vs. 3:1 for RCV). Immune to center-squeeze. No centralized tabulation required — implementable with software upgrades only, no new hardware. Two-phase tabulation regardless of candidate count.
$50K–$500K. No matching required. No adoption commitment. For feasibility studies, legal analyses, software assessments, cost projections, voter education planning. Available even in states that currently ban alternative voting methods — study the question without committing to an answer.
$100K–$25M, scaled by voting-age population. 25% match required (waivable for hardship). Requires enacted legislation or approved ballot measure. Grant amount is the same regardless of which method you choose — determined solely by population, not implementation cost. 75% federal / 25% state split.
Up to $50M per state. Competitive grants for statewide adoption across all levels of government. Priority for broadest range of elections, innovative voter education, phased implementation with evaluation, and states that have repealed bans on alternative methods. 25% match required.
$50K–$5M. Available after 2 completed general election cycles. Three uses: rigorous comparative evaluation of your method against alternatives; pilot programs to test a different qualified method in parallel; or full transition to a method the evidence shows better serves voters. No obligation to switch — evaluation is the purpose, not a predetermined outcome.
- Same grant, different costs, you keep the savings: Grant amounts are determined solely by voting-age population — not by which method you choose or how much it costs to implement. A state with 2 million voters gets the same grant whether it picks RCV or STAR. But STAR voting typically requires only software upgrades (no new hardware, no centralized tabulation), while RCV requires centralized ballot aggregation and potentially new equipment. If your method costs less than the grant, you keep the unexpended balance for other election improvements: voter registration systems, early voting expansion, cybersecurity, accessibility, poll worker recruitment — anything that makes elections better.
- Congress's stated intent: "It is the intent of Congress that these cost differences inure to the benefit of the adopting jurisdiction rather than resulting in a reduced grant, so that jurisdictions adopting more cost-effective methods receive a direct fiscal benefit that may be reinvested in election administration."
- No state is required to adopt anything: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any State to adopt a qualified alternative voting method for any election. The decision to adopt such a method is solely within the discretion of each State."
- No method is preferred over another: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to prefer one qualified alternative voting method over another. The selection among qualified alternative voting methods is solely within the discretion of each State."
- State and local elections are untouched: Nothing in Subtitle A requires any state to use any method for state or local office. States can adopt for federal elections only, state and local only (using Subtitle B grants), or all of the above.
- More protective provisions preserved: State law providing greater voter choice or more expressive ballot design than this title is not preempted.
- Primary method flexibility: States may use a nonpartisan primary (top-four or top-five) in combination with any qualified alternative method for the general election. States can use different methods for primaries and generals.
- After the commitment period, no strings: Once the 10-year / 5-cycle commitment expires, states may continue the method, discontinue it, or apply for new grants — with no repayment obligation regardless of what they choose.
- 19 states currently ban RCV or other alternative methods. Congress finds that these prohibitions deny voters the benefits of more expressive, representative, and competitive elections — and are "particularly contrary to the public interest" given the growing evidence base.
- Sense of Congress: States with bans "are encouraged to repeal them." This has no legal effect — it is a formal public statement of congressional disapproval.
- Planning grants remain available: A state ban does not make the state or any locality within it ineligible for Tier 1 planning grants. States can study the feasibility of alternative methods, evaluate the effects of repealing their ban, or conduct any other planning activity — with federal money — even while the ban remains in effect.
- Repeal unlocks full eligibility: Any state that repeals its ban becomes immediately eligible for Tier 2 implementation grants, Tier 3 comprehensive adoption grants, and Tier 4 evaluation and transition grants — on the same terms as everyone else. States that have recently repealed bans get priority for Tier 3 comprehensive adoption grants.
- No federal funds may be used to punish adopters: No federal agency may penalize, withhold benefits from, or discriminate against any state or locality that has adopted, is considering adopting, or has applied for a grant to adopt an alternative voting method.
- 10-year / 5-cycle commitment: States receiving Tier 2 or Tier 3 grants must maintain the adopted method for at least 10 years or 5 completed general election cycles, whichever is longer. This prevents states from taking the money and immediately reverting — but the commitment is to alternative voting, not to a specific method.
- Switching methods is not a violation: Replacing your adopted method with a different qualified alternative method is explicitly permitted during the commitment period — and does not trigger repayment. You must notify the EAC 12 months in advance and document the evidence basis for the transition. The commitment period continues from the original start date.
- Periodic method review every 3 cycles: After 3 completed general election cycles, every grantee must submit a performance review comparing its method against at least one other qualified alternative, covering voter satisfaction, Condorcet efficiency, ballot exhaustion/equal-preference rates, strategic vulnerability, candidate diversity, and administrative costs.
- Voter comprehension threshold: After the first general election under the new method, grantees must conduct a statistically valid survey disaggregated by race, ethnicity, age, disability, and language. If comprehension falls below 70% in any demographic group, a remedial voter education plan is required within 180 days.
- Graduated repayment for early discontinuation: If a state quits during the commitment period, repayment scales down over time: 100% if less than 20% of the period has elapsed; 80% at 20–40%; 60% at 40–60%; 40% at 60–80%; 20% at 80%+. No repayment if you switch to a different qualified method, if a court orders discontinuation, or if a subsequent federal law preempts you. 180-day cure period before repayment is triggered.
- One election, one contribution limit: RCV rounds and STAR's automatic runoff are treated as steps in tabulating a single election — not separate elections. This prevents the creation of additional contribution limits that don't exist under plurality voting. No separate "runoff election" contribution limit applies.
- Runoff elections eliminated: A state that adopts a qualified alternative method satisfies any state law requiring a majority or threshold for victory, or requiring a separate runoff election. The tabulation process inherent in each method identifies the candidate with broadest support — no second trip to the polls required.
- Military and overseas voters: The Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot gets alternative formats — ranking for RCV states, scoring for STAR states — prescribed by the Presidential designee in consultation with the EAC, with clear method-specific instructions.