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

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less