Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

RCV and approval voting go head-to-head in Seattle

approval voting in Seattle

Seattle is home to an unusual fight over voting systems.

upload.wikimedia.org

Advocates for changes to the voting system agree that plurality balloting needs to be replaced with something better. But there’s disagreement on which of the “better” systems is best.

And usually the backers of different proposals, whether intentionally or not, stay out of each other’s way, working in different cities and states. But there’s an odd situation developing in Seattle, where supporters of ranked-choice voting are hoping to compete with a ballot measure to institute approval voting in America’s 18th most populous city.


In June, Seattle Approves, a nonprofit organization pushing for approval voting, secured enough petition signatures to put the proposal on the ballot in November.

"Seattle’s leaders must represent everyone," said Sarah Ward, co-chair of Seattle Approves. "Initiative 134 will make Seattle’s elections as representative as possible, so that its leaders represent the entire electorate. This initiative puts voters first.”

But Washington for Equitable Representation, a coalition of organizations pushing for RCV across the state, including for federal elections, wants the Seattle City Council to offer a “parallel” option in November. A member of the city council has taken the first step to making that happen by introducing a bill to put RCV on the November ballot.

“As proposed in Seattle, approval voting could be a voting rights disaster. Affluent voters already wield disproportionate power in our politics, and under approval voting, those affluent voters would have the power to pick the two candidates for the general election, presenting a false choice to the more diverse, representative voters that show up in November. That’s not democracy,” said Kamau Chege, executive director of the Washington Community Alliance and a member of WER. “Seattle voters deserve ranked-choice voting, which would level the playing field and guarantee everyone the freedom to pick their first-choice and backup-choices.”

Logan Bowers, another co-chair of Seattle Approves, is concerned that the decision-making process is being hidden from the public.

“The whole process is secret because the ethics laws prevent them from having public deliberations. For example, if the deliberations were public, they could consult voting experts on the construction of the alternative,” Bowers said. “But we know the council is deep underwater with the general public and if history is any guide, it’s pretty common for elected officials to help themselves rather than help the voters when drawing districts or writing voter law.”

Under the approval voting system, voters may mark as many names as they wish on a ballot with the person who receives the most support winning the election. In Seattle’s case, approval voting would be used for primaries and the two candidates with the most votes would advance to the general election regardless of party.

The system’s backers say approval voting is superior to RCV because the ballot is simpler to use and to implement.

In an RCV system (also known as instant runoff voting), voters rank candidates by order of preference. If no one receives a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and that person’s support is redistributed to voters’ second choice. The process continues until someone has a majority of support. RCV’s supporters say it guarantees the winner has received backing from the majority of voters, results in more representative elections and encourages less divisive campaigning because candidates need to appeal beyond their base.

In traditional plurality or “first past the post” voting, the candidate with the most votes wins even if they do not get a majority of support.

Approval voting is currently used for municipal elections in Fargo, N.D., and St. Louis. Ranked-choice voting is used statewide in Maine and Alaska, in New York City and San Francisco, and about 50 other cities.

FairVote, a national nonprofit organization that advocates for ranked-choice voting and is allied with (but independent from) the Washington coalition, is focused on an “affirmative case” for RCV.

"Just this year, RCV legislation has been debated in nearly half the states, while RCV is being used by Democrats and Republicans in important contests in states like Alaska, Maine, and Virginia. There will also be at least sevenRCV measures on the ballot in cities and counties across the country in November,” said Will Mantell, press secretary for FairVote. “There's no shift in strategy towards approval voting or effort to undo its implementation in St. Louis and Fargo, though it may face challenges in winning and sustaining its wins.”

According to Mantell, the push for RCV in the Emerald City isn’t a reaction to the approval voting initiative.

“In the case of Seattle, there is a deep, long-standing, and diverse coalition supporting RCV, and we aren't surprised that they have city council allies who want to see RCV presented as an option to voters," he said.


Read More

A male senior stands in the shadow of a Social Security card with bite missing.

Social Security faces automatic cuts in 2032 and Medicare in 2033. New polling suggests that gives Democrats a powerful election issue. Here’s the case.

DNY59 / Getty Images

Will the Debt Crisis Engineered by Republicans Succeed in Cutting Social Security and Medicare?

Overview

The Republican Party’s long game to reduce administrative state entitlement spending centers on creating a debt crisis to provide an excuse for limiting such spending. It may soon pay off. That strategy involved a quarter-century of engineered tax cuts responsible for the stunning rise in sovereign U.S. debt, threatening an eventual economic crisis.

Social Security benefits are projected under current law to be automatically cut in 2032. And Medicare benefits are projected to be automatically cut in 2033. Congressional Republicans intend for those automatic cuts to occur, opposing new taxes to prevent cuts. And they are using the ballooning national debt as an excuse to also oppose new general revenue spending to prevent benefit cuts.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Chinese President Xi Jinping (L) and U.S. President Donald Trump followed by Chinese first lady Peng Liyuan and U.S. first lady Melania Trump arrive for a state dinner at the White House.

Chinese President Xi Jinping (L) and U.S. President Donald Trump followed by Chinese first lady Peng Liyuan and U.S. first lady Melania Trump arrive for a state dinner in the East Room of the White House on September 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

When Leaders Disagree, Ceremony Plays an Important Role

When Chinese President Xi Jinping arrived at the White House on 24 September, the U.S. welcomed him with an elaborate display of ceremony. The Army Herald Trumpets sounded a fanfare, the Chinese and American national anthems were played, and the Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps performed. A military review was followed by a flyover involving a B-2 bomber and four F-22 fighter jets, according to the White House. It was an extraordinary production for two countries that still disagree on some of the most important issues in international politics.

Talks between President Donald Trump and Xi touched on trade, artificial intelligence and Taiwan. The visit was marked by warm words and some signs of cooperation, but it did not erase the fundamental competition between the United States and China. So why was all this ceremony staged? It is tempting to dismiss political pomp as mere window dressing: an expensive historical relic surrounding the serious business taking place behind closed doors. As a music historian, however, I think this misunderstands what ceremony does. Ceremony can become particularly valuable when words alone are not enough.

Keep ReadingShow less
Americans Voting in an Election

Americans Voting in an Election

Getty Images

Voting Is Not Just a Privilege It Is Every Citizens’ Responsibility

Despite the consistent determinations that US elections are secure across the country and there is virtually no evidence of non-citizens voting, in reports released as recently as September 2026; President Trump has doubled down on his claims that voter fraud is a major problem in America and on October 20th, he announced a new $25 Million Fraud Whistleblower program to be administered by the Department of Justice.

This announcement achieves a variety of the president’s goals: (i) It intentionally perpetuates the misinformation, that voter fraud is a serious problem in the United States; (ii) it undermines the trust in the voting systems, as well as in the states administering the elections; (iii) it fosters distrust amongst neighbors, who are more likely to suspect people of color and report them for a reward. This has the concomitant benefit of (iv) intimidating people who are in fear of going to the polls and (v) It gives the illusion that the federal government is prepared to give away more free money (along with the Tariff rebate checks, the Trump Accounts, the DOGE dividend, the direct payments for healthcare and the $5,000 for supporting GOP midterm candidates.)

Keep ReadingShow less
Capitol building with American flag behind it

Political Polarization and Extremism

Getty Images

Both Parties Have Forgotten How to Lose: It’s Time for Guardrails

On November 3 Americans vote in the midterm elections, and the most important question may be whether the losers accept the result. A Pew survey this summer found that just 55 percent of Americans are confident the midterms will be run fairly and accurately, down from 64 percent in 2022. The partisan detail is more revealing. Since 2024, Republican confidence has risen and Democratic confidence has fallen from 77 percent to 58 percent. Trust in the referee now depends on who holds power.

Democracy rests on a kind of sportsmanship agreement. The theologian Reinhold Niebuhr put it well: man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but his inclination to injustice makes it necessary. B. R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of India’s constitution, called democracy a method of bringing revolutionary change without bloodshed. Both understood that the system works only if the losing side agrees to try again next time instead of burning down the field. Americans in both parties are forgetting how to do that.

Keep ReadingShow less