As abstention emerged as the most selected “candidate” in last year’s General Elections 2025, some have pushed for a new voting system to reinvigorate interest in student elections. Could this be the answer to the growing student apathy toward voting?
What is ranked-choice voting?
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) is a voting system that allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. Essentially, voters will have the option to vote for multiple candidates instead of just one, ordered according to their preference.
An RCV-based voting system uses the voter’s full range of candidate preferences to determine a winner through a multi-round selection system instead of just declaring the candidate with the most votes as the winner.
In its multi-round election, the vote is evaluated in each round. If no candidate succeeds in reaching the necessary threshold, another round is initiated. The worst-performing candidate from the previous round is eliminated, and their votes are distributed to the remaining candidates in accordance with their secondary preferences. This would go on until a candidate earns enough votes to reach the winning threshold. By collecting preference rankings from voters, RCV enables the use of a strict criterion on vote share and ensures winning candidates hold office backed by the set plurality threshold.
For example, in a three-way race, Candidate A has 100 votes, Candidate B has 70 votes, and Candidate C has 40 votes. While Candidate A has the most votes, a majority of Candidate C’s voters actually prefer Candidate B over A since they found A’s platforms unappealing. When Candidate C’s votes are transferred to Candidates A and B in accordance with their secondary preference, Candidate B holds 107 votes over Candidate A’s 103 votes.
The push towards a new system
Sebastian Araneta (III, AB-POM) had RCV as his flagship platform when he ran for FAST2023 Batch Legislator during the General Elections 2025. Since then, he has continued his campaign for RCV as a law commissioner who helped draft recent amendments to the Omnibus Election Code (OEC).
Araneta argues that the primary issue behind the current system is that it splits the vote in a multi-candidate race, potentially allowing a candidate without a true majority to win the election.
The FOCUS2025 Batch Representative race during the 2025 Special Elections serves as an example. The two-candidate race between Santugon’s Cheska Cruz and independent runner Jerard Benitez concluded with Cruz’s victory despite a narrow five-vote margin.
“Benitez was very anti-party…[The] 65 people who voted for Jerard Benitez, do you think they would have voted for Cheska Cruz, the Santugon candidate? Probably not. They would have probably added to the abstain pool. But Cheska, with only a five-vote difference, won the election because of the vote split.” Araneta remarked.
Araneta also asserted that the current system harms new candidates, groups, and the USG because “[it elects] winners that lack true broad support…[while making] diverse voices that could help USG get credibility back…[get] left out.”
What’s the catch?
On the legislative side, Chief Legislator Aleia Silvestre told The LaSallian that the LA has not formally discussed a potential shift to RCV, with legislators holding mixed views on the matter.
Silvestre personally believes RCV is a viable solution against failures of elections and dwindling student participation. However, she states that thorough discussions need to be held before beginning a shift.
When asked regarding the legislative hurdles to implementing RCV, Silvestre believes that it will require amending Section 139 of the USG Constitution, which prescribes that all elected officials must attain a plurality of votes. If this interpretation holds, it would bar RCV implementation until Term 3 of the academic year 2028-2029, as the constitution was amended last USG General Elections 2025.
Although Araneta did not discuss the USG Constitution, the plurality definition is also carried in the OEC, and he believes it does not need to be changed.
“[In the section] it [describes] plurality as: one of the most votes win, [arguably] ranked-choice voting technically fulfills that mandate, does it not?… But either way, changing that is no problem. Just amending the OEC. That was always the plan anyway.” Araneta says.
DLSU Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Chairperson Samantha Lambino (III, AB-ISE) shared logistical reservations that make RCV implementation currently infeasible.
“Since we are following Online Election Procedure, which has been favorable in recent and current elections, implementing RCV is not something currently supported by our voting platform, Canvas…Although there has been a proposed method to implement it through the said platform, it may not be ideal security-wise.” Lambino explained. Lambino further posited that any change in the methodology of the election disparages the intention of structuring the elections to reflect the nation’s democratic processes within the university.
When questioned on the need to align student government institutions with their real-world counterparts, Araneta argued, “The goal is not to mimic the Philippine government…I mean, if that was the reason, we’d be a bit more corrupt, wouldn’t we?…[Student governments] do not have the obligation, nor do they have the desire to [mimic government structures].”
Lambino’s reservations, however, do not mean that the COMELEC is opposed to electoral reform. Lambino told The LaSallian that the commission is open to change, but maintains that any plan for a new voting system must go through sufficient trials and secure the support of the student body.