[ad_1]
Last month, the Mayoral Race of New York City caught the public’s attention when Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani achieved a surprising victory over former governor and political veteran Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary thanks to a relatively new system of ranked optional votes. The same vote had little notice from the 28 contested New York City Council races, with 10 of whom neither received more than 50% of the vote.
In most places, including most California, such a nasty outcome causes expensive outflows between the top two finishers in each race. But it’s not New York City, where voters rank all candidates in the order in which they prefer to vote. If no one receives more than 50% of the first choice vote, then any candidate who receives the least number of first choice votes will be eliminated, and the voter with whom that person is in the top position will be counted as the supporter of the second choice. This process of elimination and integration continues until one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote.
Perhaps Mamdani won the primary for the spill against Cuomo, but he didn’t have to. This voting system reflected the will of people without asking voters to drag through the campaign season and spend extra time in the vote.
Supporters say that if your best choice is eliminated, ranked choice votes ensure that your votes will not be wasted. Proponents also argue that the system will block negative campaigns (and cultivate cross-endorment instead), improve representation for women and people of color, promote more viable competition, reduce election costs, and eliminate “spoiler effects” from voting siphons.
Ranked choice votes have gained traction, especially in US cities. Currently, 63 jurisdictions across the country use some form of ranked votes, including seven in California.
The votes demonstrate strong support for ranked choice votes among residents of California cities that have it, with most of those cities increasing the diversity of governing bodies after implementation. These systems are already saving money for California taxpayers by eliminating expensive leaked elections.
What will change if California holds a rank-option vote at its state office, or if a general election is decided in this way in the city of Los Angeles? It will play differently than in New York.
Unlike New York, which holds party primary elections, most California jurisdictions hold nonpartisan primary elections in which all parties run on the same ticket. This means that if a candidate loses a state or local primary, they cannot switch parties to participate in the general election vote or run as independent, as Cuomo can now.
Nonpartisan elections in California also mean that candidates’ party affiliations are different from New York City, playing a competitive role in primary elections. For this reason, candidates may strategically register with the dominant party before running in California, as Rick Caruso did in 2022. This does not necessarily change under ranked votes, but if some candidates think they have a chance to run as a candidate while winning the voter’s second or third player’s vote, they may feel less likely to adopt this tactic.
There are two other important differences between the California election and the New York race. One is at the local level and the other is at the state level.
Locally, most jurisdictions, including the city of Los Angeles, hold general elections only if the candidate has not won more than 50% of the main vote. Therefore, ranked optional votes would completely eliminate the need for primary elections in most California races. This will save money in your jurisdiction and will likely increase voter turnout.
In contrast, California uses the top two primary systems for most state and federal races. This promotes the top two voters to general elections, regardless of party affiliation or margin of victory. This avoids costly outflows, but in partisan areas, there is often one party election. Ranked choice votes do not hinder that scenario, but may give underrated parties a better shot of progress in competitive races.
What is less well known is whether ranked choice votes will change the political composition of representatives if they are widely held in California. A strategic crossover vote in which Republicans and Democrats rank opponents can lead to more centralist outcomes. Similarly, in areas controlled by one party, consistent second-choice support for moderate candidates from the other parties could move the master to the center. Conversely, in many regions of left or right voters, ranked electoral votes could allow moderates to adopt more extreme positions and gain support for second or third choices.
The combination of ranked choice votes and California’s nonpartisan system could create unique strategic incentives and political realignments that are unimaginable in the city in partisan primary elections.
Campaign style may also be subject to change. Candidates can even defeat attacks and alliance with like-minded rivals, as Progressive did in New York.
These unknowns may hedge states and local leaders who are hesitant to change the way we vote. After all, those who have acquired an office through the current system are not too keen to change it. But hesitation should not overshadow potential benefits. It’s cost reductions, wider engagement, more representative outcomes, and less divisive politics.
If California is serious about reforming its increasingly expensive and polarized electoral system, ranked choice votes are worth taking a close look.
Sean McMorris is the California Common Cause Program Manager for Transparency, Ethics and Accountability.
[ad_2]Source link
