Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

New York City’s Ranked Choice Voting: Democracy That’s Accountable to Voters

Opinion

Person voting

New York City’s election has gotten a lot of attention over the last few weeks, and ranked choice voting is a big part of the reason why.

Hill Street Studios/Getty Images

New York City’s election has gotten a lot of attention over the last few weeks, and ranked choice voting is a big part of the reason why.

Heads turned when 33-year-old state legislator Zohran Mamdani knocked off Andrew Cuomo, a former governor from one of the Democratic Party’s most prominent families. The earliest polls for the mayoral primary this winter found Mamdani struggling to reach even 1 percent.


But polls don’t get to pick the winner. Voters do. And voters in New York City got to choose with ranked choice voting, which created the best of all possible worlds: A positive, issue-driven campaign with a wide range of candidates who could only win by engaging with voters.

While pundits have looked for clues in Mamdani’s messaging and social media strategies, the real takeaway from New York City isn’t what it means for Democrats, Republicans, or the 2026 midterms; It’s that better elections can empower voters to choose candidates who are accountable to them.

Ranked choice voting helped create an entirely different campaign in New York. It put voters back in charge – at a moment when record numbers of voters of all backgrounds are dissatisfied with the state of our democracy. With RCV, over one million New Yorkers – larger than the electorate in 17 states – experienced a better way to vote, and offered lessons for the rest of the nation.

Pundits thought that Cuomo’s name recognition and Super PAC funding would make him unstoppable – and that it would be very difficult for any serious challenger to emerge from a field so large. In other words: That the polls, his last name, and all that money would decide the race. Voters would merely ratify it.

That’s not how a ranked choice election works. When voters can rank their favorite candidates in order, rather than just picking one, plurality winners from divided fields become a thing of the past. And when politicians need to win with majority support and campaign to be voters’ second and third choices, they campaign broadly and talk to as many different voters as possible. Instead of going negative, they build coalitions and focus on issues important to voters.

The campaign in New York City did not resemble politics as usual – and that’s a good thing. Mamdani and city comptroller Brad Lander not only cross-endorsed each other, but bicycled across Manhattan to events together, and even shared the couch on Stephen Colbert’s Late Show. Jessica Ramos and Whitney Tilson expressed their support for Cuomo.

Cuomo, however, declined to rank anyone other than himself – while Mamdani recognized that RCV favors candidates who engage with voters. He and his volunteers did that more doggedly than anyone.

Ranked choice voting has no party bias. Republicans and Democrats have won RCV races in cities and states nationwide, as have liberals, conservatives, centrists, and independents. But it absolutely has an engagement bias: The best way to win is to take your message to the most voters and persuade them. That’s what politics should be.

Most importantly, voters in New York City resoundingly liked voting with RCV, and the more constructive politics it delivers.

An exit poll conducted by SurveyUSA found that 96 percent of voters found it easy to complete their ballot. More than three-quarters want to keep ranked choice voting, or even expand it to additional races.

Turnout skyrocketed to its highest mark since 1989, with over 1 million New Yorkers voting. And most importantly, 95 percent of voters weighed in between the top two vote-getters.

That includes more than 158,000 voters who put someone other than Mamdani or Cuomo first, but still indicated their preference for one over the other on their ballot. They experienced firsthand how RCV can give voters both more choice and more voice at the ballot box.

When 96 percent of New Yorkers can agree on something, perhaps it’s worth taking notice. Instead of polarizing us further, our elections can be an opportunity to build coalitions behind a future that a majority of voters support.

It’s a simple step, but a powerful one: It’s time to bring ranked choice voting to more cities and more states – and ensure that how we elect our leaders truly reflects the will of voters.


Meredith Sumpter is the president and CEO of FairVote, a nonpartisan organization seeking better elections for all.


Read More

Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

A voter registration drive in Corpus Christi, Texas, on Oct. 5, 2024. The deadline to register to vote for Texas' March 3 primary election is Feb. 2, 2026. Changes to USPS policies may affect whether a voter registration application is processed on time if it's not postmarked by the deadline.

Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat

Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

Texans seeking to register to vote or cast a ballot by mail may not want to wait until the last minute, thanks to new guidance from the U.S. Postal Service.

The USPS last month advised that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it. Postmarks are applied once mail reaches a processing facility, it said, which may not be the same day it’s dropped in a mailbox, for example.

Keep ReadingShow less
Post office trucks parked in a lot.

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why

While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.

The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.

Keep ReadingShow less