Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Allowed to rank options, Democrats liked Harris best

Kamala Harris, ranked-choice voting

Sen. Kamala Harris

Jeff Kowalsky/Getty Images

Griffiths is the editor of Independent Voter News, where a version of this story first appeared.

Kamala Harris was high on Joe Biden's list of possible running mates from the start, for a range of reasons being exhaustively discussed now that he's chosen her. One poll receiving modest attention in all the talk reveals the California senator had the broadest support among Democratic voters — which could only have helped her cause.

The unusual aspect of the survey is that it was conducted two ways: the standard manner, where each person polled was asked to pick one candidate, and an alternate method allowing respondents to list their three favorites in order. Harris emerged as the plurality pick the first way. But she was the only candidate with majority backing once the top three choices were combined.

That marks a symbolically important victory for advocates of ranked-choice voting, who see this alternative election method as the key to minimizing polarized partisanship while maximizing the chances for candidates who are consensus-driven and outsiders, especially women and people of color.


FairVote, the nation's largest group promoting the switch to ranked-choice elections, hired SurveyUSA to poll 1,296 Democratic and independent voters July 30-31 about seven potential running mates for Biden.

In the standard poll, 32 percent chose Harris, 27 percent chose Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and 17 percent chose former White House national security adviser Susan Rice.

The ranked poll operated the same way that so-called RCV elections are normally conducted: Since no candidate accrued more than half the top-choice votes, the one with the fewest first-choice votes was removed and her votes went to each voter's next-ranked choice. This process was repeated until one candidate secured a majority of the vote.

Harris ended up with 55 percent support after her first, second and third place showings were combined. Warren trailed by a significant margin, with 45 percent.

Democrats preferred Harris as a top choice (36 percent) followed by Warren (26 percent), while independents preferred Warren as a first choice (28 percent), followed by Harris (23 percent). There was lots of crossover support between Harris supporters and Warren. Harris voters tended to select Warren as a second choice, and the reverse was also true.

Survey takers were also asked why they selected their first choice, and the most common response was that she "best reflects my values and policy views."

While FairVote and other RCV advocates see the survey as buttressing their cause, by showing which candidates have the most demonstrable breadth of support, both senators likely saw a boost from name recognition — since the two are far more well-known compared to the other candidates on the roster following their own runs this year for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The two were the only candidates to be ranked by at least half of respondents. The other options in the poll were Rice, former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Rep. Val Demings of Florida and Rep. Karen Bass of California.

Respondents had an opportunity to express their opinion in a different way than they are used to, ranking their preferences rather than just choosing a single candidate. An overwhelming majority took advantage of ranked-choice voting, as 87 percent ranked at least two candidates and 69 percent had a first, second, and third choice.

As a result, the survey includes data that a choose-one voting method would not have been able to provide; namely, the depth of support each candidate had among survey takers — an important variable to consider when picking a vice president.

Asked about their opinion on ranked-choice voting, 56 percent said they would support its use in elections where they lived.

Visit IVN.us for more coverage from Independent Voter News.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism
Monopoly's mr. monopoly in a graffiti collage
Photo by Artur Ament on Unsplash

Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism

The signs are everywhere. For many Americans, buying power has improved only modestly despite decades of economic growth. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. We have reached a level of wealth inequality last seen almost a hundred years ago. By many measures, our capitalist economy seems to have failed to deliver broadly shared prosperity.

However, the failure isn’t with the free market as an economic approach. Instead, it’s our failure to regulate and moderate the free market, or more accurately, that we have spent 40 years undermining or removing the regulations of the New Deal that made our economy work for more Americans.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman putting savings in a white piggy bank.

America’s economy now rewards asset ownership over wages. A policy proposal: a $35,000 Birthright Account for every child, and how it could be funded.

Guido Mieth/Getty Images

The American Dream Needs a New Economic Operating System

It is, by now, not an exaggeration to state that the traditional American Dream—work hard, buy a house, raise a family, and retire securely—is failing. It was built for a labor-based economy in which steadily rising wages allowed ordinary families to accumulate wealth. But America has become an asset-based economy, and ownership of those assets is extraordinarily concentrated.

Since the 1980s, the returns from capital have far outpaced the returns from labor. Inflation-adjusted wages for ordinary workers have risen only modestly, while the real value of equities has multiplied many times over. Housing, education, healthcare and childcare costs have soared, employment has become less secure, and defined-benefit pensions have largely disappeared. Even two-income households with respectable jobs often struggle to buy a home, build savings and accumulate enough for retirement.

Keep ReadingShow less