Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

What the end of Viktor Orban means for the New Right

Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban salutes supporters at the Balna center in Budapest during a general election in Hungary, on April 12, 2026.

(Attila Kisbenedek/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

What the end of Viktor Orban means for the New Right

Viktor Orban, the proudly “illiberal” prime minister of Hungary, beloved by various New Right nationalists and MAGA American intellectuals, was crushed at the polls this weekend.

Over the last decade or so, Hungary became for the New Right what Sweden or Cuba were to the Old Left. For generations, various American leftists loved to cite the Cuban model as better than ours when it came to healthcare, or education. Some would even make wild claims about freedom under Fidel Castro’s dictatorship. Susan Sontag famously proclaimed in 1969 that no Cuban writer “has been or is in jail or is failing to get his works published.” This was simply not true. The still young regime had already imprisoned, tortured or executed scores of intellectuals. (Sontag later recanted.)

Keep ReadingShow less
A broadcast set up that displays feed of President Trump.

An NBC News live feed airs a clip from U.S. President Donald Trump's Truth Social video announcement in the White House James S. Brady Press Briefing Room on February 28, 2026 in Washington, DC. U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the United States and Israel had launched an attack on Iran Saturday morning.

Getty Images, Anna Moneymaker

When a President Threatens a Civilization, Silence Becomes Permission

Ninety minutes before his own deadline expired, President Trump agreed to pause his threatened strikes on Iran. The ceasefire was real. The relief was understandable. And none of it changes what happened.

In the days leading up to Tuesday’s deadline, the President of the United States threatened to destroy “every” bridge and power plant in Iran. He warned that “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again." He said Iran “can be taken out” in a single night. These were not the ravings of a fringe provocateur. They were statements of declared intent from the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military on earth, broadcast to the world.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person sitting on the floor, holding their empty wallet open, with a phone in their hand as well.

Why strong GDP and stock markets mask middle-class struggles—exploring inequality, housing costs, deficit spending, and the breakdown of economic mobility.

Getty Images, Twenty47studio

Growth Without Gain: Why a Strong Economy Feels So Weak

Whenever Donald Trump talks about the economy, he always points to the same indicators. GDP is up. The stock market is up. By conventional measures, the economy appears stable, even strong.

And yet, a growing share of Americans–particularly younger ones– feel economically insecure, locked out of homeownership, burdened by debt, and unsure whether they are moving forward or falling behind. If you are in the top 1 percent, things have rarely looked better. For everyone else, the picture is less rosy.

Keep ReadingShow less
A boat behind a fog on the ocean.

Bulk Carrier, Belray, in the Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz on March 22, 2026 in northern Ras al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates.

Getty Images

The Strategic Mistake: Ignoring Iran’s Indispensable Global Leverage

Al Ries and Jack Trout are considered America’s foremost marketing strategists, with their seven solo and co-authored books being bestsellers. Three of their books became standard readings for my senior-level Marketing Strategy students when I taught at the University of Northern Iowa (UNI). All seven of their books were thoroughly discussed when teaching Marketing Management for UNI’s MBA program in Hong Kong.

If President Trump, Pete Hegseth, and their military advisors had consulted even one of Ries and Trout’s bestselling books, the Iranian war might have been avoided. I will explain further.

Keep ReadingShow less