Ranked Voting

Summary

Make group decisions by having people rank options instead of picking just one favorite. This captures detailed preferences and finds solutions most people can accept.

Context

Teams need to make decisions with multiple good options. Simple majority voting or loudest voice approaches may not show what the whole team wants or lead to the best outcomes.

Problem

Traditional single-choice voting can lead to polarization, strategic voting, or solutions that satisfy only a small majority while creating strong opposition from others. This approach misses chances for solutions that more people can accept.

Solution

Have people rank all options in order of preference, then use counting methods to find the option with the strongest overall support. This captures the full range of preferences and tends to find solutions that are broadly acceptable rather than just strongly preferred by some.

Forces

• Individual Preferences vs. Group Consensus - Need to respect different viewpoints while making decisions
• Simplicity vs. Detail - Simple voting is faster but ranked voting captures more information
• Majority vs. Broad Acceptance - Majority winners may create losers, broad acceptance builds commitment
• Strategic vs. Honest Voting - Ranking systems reduce reasons for strategic manipulation

Implementation

1. Present Options: Define a clear list of options that don’t overlap
2. Independent Ranking: Each person ranks all options in order of preference
3. Anonymous Submission: Collect rankings individually to reduce influence
4. Count Results: Use counting method right for the situation
5. Share Results: Explain how the winning option came from everyone’s preferences

Common Counting Methods

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV):

• Eliminate option with fewest first-choice votes
• Reassign those votes to next preferences
• Repeat until one option has majority

Borda Count:

• Assign points based on rank position (1st = n points, 2nd = n-1 points, etc.)
• Sum points for each option
• Highest total wins

Single Transferable Vote (STV):

• Calculate quota for winning
• Transfer surplus votes based on next preferences
• Eliminate lowest candidates and transfer votes
• Continue until positions filled

Examples

Backend Framework Selection:

• Options: Spring Boot, Micronaut, Quarkus, Helidon
• Process: Team members rank all four options independently
• Aggregation: Apply Instant Runoff Voting to find most broadly supported choice
• Result: Quarkus wins with balanced first-choice support and overall acceptability

Product Feature Prioritization:

• Options: User authentication, advanced search, mobile app, reporting dashboard
• Process: Stakeholders rank features by value and urgency
• Aggregation: Use Borda Count to weight preferences across all participants
• Result: Priority order reflects collective judgment rather than single advocate’s push

Team Process Selection:

• Options: Scrum, Kanban, hybrid approach, custom process
• Process: Team members rank options considering team dynamics and project needs
• Aggregation: STV to ensure final choice has broad team support
• Result: Hybrid approach emerges as compromise with widest acceptance

Related Patterns

• Nominal Group Technique - Can use ranked voting to aggregate independently gathered preferences
• Structured Experiments - Can use ranking to prioritize which experiments to run
• Decision-Making Patterns - Provides systematic approach to incorporating diverse input
• Psychological Safety Practices - Creates environment where honest ranking is safe

Sources

• Electoral system research and voting theory
• Group decision-making methodology
• Organizational psychology research on preference aggregation