Ranked-Choice Voting: A Progressive Choice for California
Graphic produced and owned by Davis Political Review Graphic Design Team
American-style elections are simple: the candidate who wins the most votes, wins the election. This is commonly known as “first past the post” plurality election. However, many cities, counties and localities around the country are experimenting with other types of electoral systems. One of the more popular alternative options is ranked-choice voting. Recently, SB 212 was brought to Governor Newsom’s desk. The bill would have made it easier for cities to adopt and experiment with ranked-choice voting by removing the charter requirement currently needed to implement the new system.
Ranked-choice voting is a very popular system used in local elections in chartered California cities, such as Oakland, San Francisco and Davis. This electoral process has voters rank candidates from their most to least favorite. If a candidate wins a majority of first-place votes in the first round, then they automatically win the race. But if nobody wins a majority, then a series of run-off elections take place. The candidate who wins the fewest first choices gets eliminated, with their second-choice candidates receiving those votes until someone wins a majority. Voters generally like ranked choice voting because it is simple, doesn’t require strategic voting and encourages positive campaigning.
SB 212 was passed overwhelmingly in both the Assembly and the Senate. However, Newsom decided to veto it. The governor has always had disdain for ranked-choice voting. In 2002, as a San Francisco supervisor, he was against Proposition A, which changed the electoral system in San Francisco to ranked-choice voting. His reasons for vetoing SB 212 were that it would lead to voter confusion and that ranked-choice voting would not necessarily lead to more democratic elections.
Newsom is factually incorrect in his concerns over ranked-choice voting. While ranked-choice voting seems like it would be a complicated process, it is an extremely simple and popular process among voters. In fact, in 2017, voter turnout surged in four cities who recently adopted ranked choice voting. The notion that this voting process would be an intimidating task doesn’t make any sense. It is natural for people to have transitive preferences, and it makes sense that they would want to express those preferences on the ballot. Data suggests that 90 percent of voters who use ranked-choice voting would describe the system as simple.
One of the reasons why voters like ranked choice voting so much is because they do not need to vote strategically. They get to vote for the candidate they like the best, because they know that even if their favorite candidate isn’t likely to win, their subsequent choices will be taken into account.
Ranked-choice voting also encourages positive campaigning, which voters much prefer to the usual mud-slinging. Candidates are encouraged to reach out to all voters because even if they aren’t the voter’s first choice they still want to be their second. Sometimes candidates will even campaign together and build a coalition to get more first and second choice votes. In many cities with ranked choice voting, voters reported friendlier campaigns.
Because of the rise in positive campaigning, candidates are less inclined to spend large sums of money running expensive negative ads. Rather, candidates are encouraged to build strong grassroots campaigns that include all voters. This has the effect of greater democratic elections and governing because all the voter’s policy concerns are being taken into account, rather than just a small plurality.
Voters appreciate that ranked choice voting is cheaper to administer than other common electoral systems that require two rounds such as primaries or two-round majority. Because the locality is only administering one election, allowing for a shorter election cycle, it costs less tax payer dollars to administer. Furthermore, the primary elections before the general often have limited turnout, so there is no point in continuing the two rounds of voting when ranked-choice voting allows for better turnout in one election.
Ranked-choice voting increases diversity within politics by making office more accessible to racial minorities and women. The success rates of candidates of color doubled in California cities after ranked choice voting was implemented. The system creates an electoral atmosphere that is friendly to underrepresented voters and candidates and encourages their political participation. Ranked choice voting reduced concerns about wasted votes, allows for a shorter election cycle, and takes into account minority voices through grassroots campaigning.
ASUCD elections use ranked-choice voting; however, voter turnout in ASUCD elections has been quite low, with only 6.7 percent of undergraduates voting in the most recent election. This may not be a result of the ranked-choice voting, but instead due to the fact that many UC Davis students are apathetic toward campus politics. The 6.7 percent voter turnout is a consistent percentage with several past fall elections. Perhaps if students were more educated on ranked-choice voting and more interested at large, there would be higher turnout in elections.
Citizens around the country are continuing to learn the benefits of ranked-choice voting and are demanding that their localities ditch the old plurality electoral system. In 2018, Maine became the first state to adopt ranked choice voting for federal elections. This was a major win for the reform and it has captivated the attention of high-profile politicians, such as Elizabeth Warren.
Newsom often touts himself as a bold, progressive Californian. It is unfortunate that he decided to abandon that label when it came to passing SB 212. Hopefully, with overwhelming support for ranked-choice voting from most of California's legislators and the rising support at large for the system, California will eventually join the rest of the country in adopting ranked-choice voting.