Last month, when a democratic socialist, the race of New York City attracted national attention Zohran Mamdani achieved amazing victory On Andrew Cuomo, a former governor and political veteran in the Democratic primary, this is thanks to a relatively new voting system for rankings. Less attention is 28 New York City Council Competition Of the same ballot, no 10 of them received more than 50% of the votes.
In most places, including California, this confusing result will trigger expensive runoff for the top two in each game. But not in New York City, voters rank each candidate in the order of vote preference. If no one gets more than 50% of the first-choice vote, no matter which candidate gets the least first-choice vote, the voter who votes in the highest position is considered a supporter of his second choice. This process of elimination and merger continues until one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote.
Maybe Mamdani will win the primary against Cuomo, but he doesn't have to. This voting system reflects people's will without dragging down the campaign season or requires voters to go to polls.
Advocates say ranking-choose voting ensures that if your best option is cancelled, your vote will not be wasted. Supporters also believe The system discourages negative campaigns (but Fostering Cross-word), improve representation of women and people of color, promote more viable competition, reduce election costs, and eliminate the “spoiler effect” in voting.
Voting for rankings is getting attention, especially in U.S. cities. Now, 63 jurisdictions nationwide Use some form of ranking to choose voting, including 7 in California: Albany, Berkeley, Oakland, Redondo Beach, San Francisco and San Leandro.
polling show Great support for ranking votes among California city residents who own it and California city residents who most cities Increased diversity of governing bodies After implementation. These systems have saved California taxpayers money by eliminating expensive runoff elections.
What would happen if California implemented ranking options for state offices, or if the election in the city of Los Angeles was decided in this way? It works differently from New York.
Unlike New York, where party primary, most California jurisdictions hold nonpartisan elections, with all political parties taking place on the same ticket – known as Top or Jungle Elementary School. This means that when candidates lose in state or local primary, they cannot switch parties or vote for general elections as Cuomo does now.
California’s nonpartisan elections also mean that unlike New York City, candidate parties play a competitive role in the primary election. As a result, candidates sometimes strategically register before the ruling party runs in California Like Rick Caruso did in 2022. This may not necessarily change under a ranking-choice vote, but some candidates may be willing to adopt this strategy if they think they have a chance to get a voter’s second or third choice vote while being candidates for their preferred party.
There are two other key differences between the California election and the New York game, one at the local level and the other at the state level.
Locally, most jurisdictions, including the city of Los Angeles, general elections are held only if no candidate wins more than 50% of the primary election. Therefore, in most California games, ranking selection votes will eliminate the need for primary elections. This will save money in jurisdictions and may increase voter turnout, given that Traditionally, there are more traditional votes than the first election in the general election.
By contrast, California uses the first two main institutions in most state and federal races, whether it is a winning party affiliation or the edge of victory, which pushes forward the first two voters, which is the general election. Although this avoids expensive runoff, it often leads to one-party elections, especially in partisan areas. Ranking-chosen votes don’t stop this, but it may make underrepresented parties better progress in competitive matches.
Less well known whether rankings will change the political makeup of representatives if widely implemented in California. Strategic cross-border votes – Republicans and Democrats rank moderate candidates on the other side, which could lead to more centrist outcomes. Similarly, in a party-dominated region, second choice support for moderate candidates from other parties may transfer the controller to the center. Instead, in areas with many hard and hard voters, ranking-choose voting could push moderates to take more extreme positions to gain second or third choice support.
The combination of ranking choices with California’s nonpartisan system may result in unique strategic incentives and political adjustments that are unimaginable in the city of partisan primary.
The campaign style may also change. Candidates may reduce attacks and even align with like-minded competitors, Just like progressives do in New Yorkget the second choice vote.
These unknowns may cause some state and local leaders to hesitate to change the way we vote. After all, those who win offices through the current system are often the ones who most desire to change it. But hesitation should not mask the potential benefits: lower costs, wider participation, more representative outcomes and less separatist politics.
If California takes its increasingly expensive and polarized electoral system seriously, the ranking-choice vote deserves equal treatment.
Sean McMorris is a California Co-Career Program Manager, Transparency, Ethics, and Accountability.
