Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Texas could avoid another high-cost, low-turnout runoff, say RCV advocates

Texas primary, Jessica Cisneros yard sign

The Democratic primary between Jessica Cisneros and Rep. Henry Cuellar is among a handful of races headed for an expensive runoff.

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Texas kicked off the 2022 primary season on Tuesday and, as expected, multiple high-profile races are headed to runoff elections. But the state could have saved millions of dollars by switching to an alternative system known as ranked-choice voting, according to a new analysis.

The Lone Star State requires candidates to receive a majority of the primary vote in order to advance to a general election. And when more than two candidates seek a nomination, it becomes possible no one will reach that threshold in one round of voting. That’s what happened this week in races for attorney general, lieutenant governor and a handful of U.S. House races.

But if Texas used ranked-choice voting, also known as instant runoff, there would be no need to spend millions on an extra round of voting, when turnout historically drops dramatically, say the RCV backers.


Primary voting is often a low-turnout affair, particularly in non-presidential elections. In Texas, just 13 percent of the voting-age population cast a ballot in the 2018 primaries. And just 2 percent voted in the democracy primary for governor that year. An early look at numbers from this year’s primary indicates turnout to be up slightly.

But even in 2020, a presidential election year, less than a quarter of the eligible population participated in the primary. That year, the state had to conduct a runoff in the primary contest for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate. That statewide round of voting resulted in 4 percent turnout.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

A 2021 analysis of election spending in Texas, conducted by FairVote and Third Way, estimated that each county had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to conduct the runoff, at least $6 million in total.

An updated study by Fair Vote and Ranked Choice Voting for Texas argues that eliminating the runoff round would save the state $6.4 million and ensure more people have a say in the final primary results.

“Texas taxpayers are paying more money to make fewer people’s voices count. Ranked-choice voting would solve the problem of expensive, low-turnout primary runoffs and a drawn-out campaign season,” said Harriet Wasserstrum, chair of Ranked Choice Voting for Texas. “With RCV, cities and counties will save money and Texans’ votes will count. Ranked choice voting has been proven to work across the country and it’s time to bring it to Texas.”

In an RCV election, voters rank their preferred candidates on one ballot. If a candidate receives a majority of first-place votes, they win the race (in this case the primary). But if no one gets more than 50 percent, the candidate with the fewest first-place votes is eliminated and that person’s support is instantly redistributed to voters’ second choices. The process continues until someone has a majority.

“The nation's first primary of 2022 dramatically demonstrates why ranked-choice voting has become our nation's fastest growing reform,” said FairVote President and CEO Rob Richie. “Voters deserve a faster and cheaper outcome than a separate low-turnout runoff 12 weeks later. They want better elections than being limited to a single choice in a crowded field."

Ten states, primarily in the South, conduct runoff primary elections, although North Carolina’s threshold for a first-round victory is 30 percent rather than 50 percent and Vermont only has a runoff in the event of a tie.

More than 40 jurisdictions have used RCV in recent elections, according to FairVote.

Read More

We Need to Rethink Polarization Before It Becomes a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

An illustration to symbolize two divided groups.

Getty Images / Andrii Yalanskyi

We Need to Rethink Polarization Before It Becomes a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

It’s time to rethink the notion that we Americans are too polarized to work together and get things done. And it’s time to get clear-eyed about what’s really holding us back and what it will take to help us move forward together.

A few years ago, I engaged cross-sections of Americans from all across the country in 16 in-depth focus groups about how they were feeling about their lives, the country, and our future. These conversations resulted in the report Civic Virus: Why Polarization is a Misdiagnosis.

Keep ReadingShow less
Even in victory, Republicans should listen to their opponents

An illustration of someone listening and someone speaking.

Getty Images / Leolintang

Even in victory, Republicans should listen to their opponents

In the wake of Donald Trump’s election, many people have discussed Democrats’ mistakes—from being “out of touch” and insulting, to focusing too much on Trump, to Biden’s “arrogance” in running again. It’s good for political parties to ask tough questions about how their approach may be driving people away and how they can better serve people.

As Republicans continue to celebrate their victory, will they be brave enough to ask themselves similar questions?

Keep ReadingShow less
Honor The Past Without Shame: Anniversaries Pass, Trauma Remains

An illustration of a clock surrounded by clouds.

Getty Images / Artpartner-images

Honor The Past Without Shame: Anniversaries Pass, Trauma Remains

Even as the wildfires of California continue, having affected an estimated 200,000 residents and resulted in 27 deaths, the memory of the Northridge Earthquake of January 1994 and the mass devastation and destruction afterward still linger three decades later.

The fires raged recently on the anniversary of the earthquake in the San Fernando Valley in California, when 33 people died and 7,000 were injured with a damage cost estimated up to $40 billion. The loss of life, livelihood, and long-term lingering trauma experienced has been widely recognized by mental health professionals and the lay community as well.

Keep ReadingShow less