Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less