Dear John, This year, many of our nation’s largest cities elected their leaders using outdated and broken election methods. In some cities, single-choice voting in crowded fields elects leaders whom most voters oppose. Others hold runoffs where turnout plummets from the initial election, meaning a smaller group of voters makes the final decision on who wins. These local offices don't get as much attention as national ones, but they’re critical in our daily lives – making decisions on housing, education, public safety, and more that affect millions of people. Doing local elections right matters. It’s no wonder that candidates and elected officials in cities like Chicago and Denver have endorsed ranked choice voting (RCV). Here are just a few examples of the worst city elections this year: - Chicago: The Chicago mayoral runoff led to five extra weeks of negative campaigning. In the initial nine-way contest, flip-flopping in the polls made it difficult for voters to figure out which candidates had the best shot at making the runoff, and therefore whom they should strategically vote for.
- Houston: Turnout dropped in all nine Houston races that went to a runoff, including the mayoral race, in which turnout dropped by 20%.
- Phoenix: Phoenix held runoff elections five months after its initial Election Day. With such a long wait, turnout dropped by 40% in the mayoral election, and 52% in the District 8 council race.
- Philadelphia: Philadelphia uses a partisan primary and general election system, but due to the political leanings of the city, the Democratic nominee is essentially guaranteed to win the general election. The soon-to-be mayor won the Democratic primary with just 33% of the vote, leaving 67% of voters unrepresented.
- Dallas: Dallas held a runoff election for one city council seat and turnout declined by 51%.
- Denver: With seventeen candidates competing to be Denver’s mayor, the two candidates who advanced to the runoff won less than 50% of votes combined, meaning most voters did not see their favorite candidate on the decisive ballot two months later.
Ranked choice voting would solve all of these problems. It picks winners with broad support. It facilitates positive campaigns because candidates don’t want to alienate voters ranking their opponents Number 1. It’s a better, faster, and cheaper alternative to runoffs – allowing all voters to weigh in on the final decision between candidates upfront, without having to return to the polls at a later date. RCV is already used in the largest city in seven states; some of our nation’s most important metropolises like New York, San Francisco, and Salt Lake City have replaced runoffs with RCV and reaped the benefits. Other large cities deserve RCV too; it’s a simple change that gives voters better choices and a stronger voice. FairVote will continue to track all types of local, state, and federal elections in 2024, from those that use ranked choice voting to those that would benefit from adopting it. If you’d like to learn more about how RCV leads to better elections, check out FairVote’s blog. Sincerely,
Deb Otis
FairVote Director of Research and Policy | 
