logo
The other winner in New York's mayoral contest: ranked-choice voting

The other winner in New York's mayoral contest: ranked-choice voting

The Guardian2 days ago
The polls did not look good for New York progressives this winter when the Working Families party began making its endorsements for city elections. An early February poll from Emerson College showed Andrew Cuomo with a 23-point lead in a hypothetical Democratic primary matchup. None of the four leading progressives even approached double-digit support – including the then unknown assemblyman Zohran Mamdani. He polled at 1%.
In the days before ranked-choice voting, the Working Families party's endorsement process might have looked quite different. Like-minded candidates would have drawn sharp distinctions between each other. Party officials might have looked to nudge candidates toward the exits, behind closed doors. Before any votes had been cast in the primary, the party would consolidate behind just one choice. It would have been bloody and left a bitter taste for everyone.
Instead, the opposite happened. Working Families, knowing that majorities rule and that no one can spoil a ranked-choice race, endorsed four candidates. Instead of a single endorsement that served as a kiss of death for other progressives, they backed a slate, allowing voters time to tune in and for candidates to make their pitches. Now Mamdani is the Democratic nominee and the overwhelming favorite to go from 1% all the way to Gracie Mansion.
There are many reasons why this 33-year-old pulled off a seemingly unthinkable upset and soared from obscurity to the most talked about Democrat in the nation overnight. He energized young people, reached voters where they are on social media and built an unstoppable coalition. He and his volunteers talked to everyone, everywhere.
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) encouraged and incentivized that joyous, barnstorming approach. And while Mamdani ultimately would have won a plurality contest or a ranked-choice one, his super-long-shot candidacy might have been squelched at the very beginning under the old system with its different electoral incentives. His victory shows how much more real power voters have under ranked-choice voting.
To be clear: RCV is a party-neutral and candidate-neutral tool. Its job is to produce a majority winner with the widest and deepest support from any field of more than two candidates. It puts an end to spoilers and to the impossible, wish-and-a-prayer calculation that voters otherwise have to make when faced with multiple candidates, some of whom they really like and some of whom they do not. Liberals, conservatives, independents and moderates have run and won under RCV, from coast to coast.
But while RCV might be strictly non-partisan, it is decidedly pro-voter – and almost always produces a more positive, issue-focused campaign that looks to drive up turnout and appeal to as many people as possible. A ranked-choice campaign rewards engagement and encourages coalitions; it's a race where instead of tearing down opponents, candidates point out areas of agreement and ask to be a voter's second choice.
Voters love RCV and find it easy to use. According to a new SurveyUSA poll of New York voters, 96% said their ballot was easy to fill out. More than three-quarters of voters want to keep or expand RCV. And 82% said they had taken advantage of RCV and ranked at least two candidates. (These numbers are similar across RCV elections, and a powerful rejoinder to critics who insist, despite evidence to the contrary, that it's too confusing.)
A remarkable number of New Yorkers saw first-hand how RCV makes our votes more powerful – they had the freedom to express themselves and rank a long-shot first, but still had their vote count for either Mamdani or Cuomo in the ranked choice tally.
Perhaps the high marks are of little surprise: voters received a campaign unlike most any other. The tone remained positive and issue-based. Instead of cutting each other down, candidates lifted each other up: Mamdani and Brad Lander cross-endorsed each other, cutting joint ads, riding bicycles together to shared events, sharing the couch on Stephen Colbert, and even sharing a stage at Mamdani's victory party. Jessica Ramos and Whitney Tilson endorsed Cuomo and said that they would rank him second. Mamdani helped Adrienne Adams with fundraising.
Sign up to Fighting Back
Big thinkers on what we can do to protect civil liberties and fundamental freedoms in a Trump presidency. From our opinion desk.
after newsletter promotion
Voters always say that they want more choice at the polls, candidates who engage with them, and a genuine, issue-based campaign. They got exactly that in New York City because of ranked choice. And the historic turnout levels – more than 1 million New Yorkers cast ballots, the highest number since the 1980s – shows that when voters get that kind of elevated, engaging campaign, they show up and get involved.
When voters have the opportunity to consider new candidates campaigning in creative new ways, the frontrunner with the early name recognition and largest donors can be eclipsed by a newcomer who started at 1%. And instead of going scorched-earth on each other before the general election, even some of the 'losers' seem to have had their status elevated: Lander finished third, and instead of being an asterisk, he has now expanded his base and likability for a future campaign.
The majority winner in this race was Zohran Mamdani. But it's also easy to suggest the real winner might be ranked-choice voting. In a moment when so many of our elections are fraught and polarized, all of us looking for a more unified and hopeful path forward – the 'politics of the future', as Mamdani called it when he declared victory – should take a close look at what just happened in New York as proof that stronger elections are truly possible.
Outside of Washington, cities and states are becoming laboratories of democracy once again. New York's adoption of ranked-choice voting led to just the kind of campaign our politics so desperately needs: a giant field of candidates presenting their vision of the future, building coalitions, without any time squandered on 'spoilers' or anyone pushed to drop out and consolidate early. In Portland, Oregon, meanwhile, voters modernized government and moved to proportional representation to elect the city council, broadening representation to groups and neighborhoods that have never before had a seat at the table. When voters make these changes, they like them, defend them, and expand them, as we have seen in New York, Maine and Alaska. And it won't take long for people to ask why they can't have ranked choice and proportionality in all their elections.
David Daley is the author of Antidemocratic: Inside the Right's 50-Year Plot to Control American Elections as well as Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn't Count
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Is the New York Times trying to wreck Zohran Mamdani's mayoral bid?
Is the New York Times trying to wreck Zohran Mamdani's mayoral bid?

The Guardian

time25 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Is the New York Times trying to wreck Zohran Mamdani's mayoral bid?

A recent New York Times news story immediately drew fire from readers – and for very good reason. Headlined 'Mamdani Identified as Asian and African American on College Application,' the article centered on Zohran Mamdani, the candidate for New York City mayor who drew national attention recently with his stunning win in the Democratic primary election. Its gist was that as a high school senior in New York City, Mamdani – who was born in Uganda and is of Indian descent – checked a couple of different boxes about race when applying for admission to Columbia University. So what, you might ask. Why is this even a story, you might also ask. Excellent questions. Whatever its news value, or lack thereof, the story certainly got the attention of one of Mamdani's rivals – current New York City mayor Eric Adams, who will run in the general election as an independent candidate. Adams, who is Black, called it 'deeply offensive' that Mamdani would try to 'exploit' an African American identity even though he is not Black. And on Fox News, talkshow hosts used the Times story to trash Mamdani. Charlie Hurt, for one, called the mayoral candidate a racist on Fox & Friends and claimed that Mamdani despises America 'and everything that we stand for'. The rightwing cable network was having a field day with Mamdani, a Muslim and social democrat, even before the Times story. President Trump has called him a communist and suggested he should be deported. Other rightwing outlets picked up the story, too, presenting it as a DEI scandal – that Mamdani lied about his race in order to take advantage of the affirmative action admission policy at Columbia. (Making the story even more absurd is the fact that Mamdani didn't get in.) In print, the would-be scandal got some help from headline writers: 'Mamdani Faces Scrutiny Over College Application.' Mamdani has explained that he was trying to communicate his complicated background. His father is Indian Ugandan and his mother is Indian American; Mamdani himself was born in Uganda and lived briefly in South Africa before moving to New York City as a child. 'Most college applications don't have a box for Indian-Ugandans so I checked multiple boxes trying to capture the fullness of my background,' he told the Times. The Times's decision to pursue and publish the story was, at the very least, unwise. For one thing, it came to the Times due to a widespread hack into Columbia's databases, transmitted to the paper through an intermediary who was given anonymity by the paper. That source turns out to be Jordan Lasker, who – as the Guardian has reported – is a well-known and much criticized 'eugenicist', AKA white supremacist. Traditional journalism ethics suggests that when news organizations base a story on hacked or stolen information, there should be an extra high bar of newsworthiness to justify publication. Much of Big Journalism, for example, turned their noses up at insider documents offered to them about JD Vance during last year's presidential campaign, in part because the source was Iranian hackers; in some cases, they wrote about the hack but not the documents. The Mamdani story, however, fell far short of the newsworthiness bar. A ranking Times editor, Patrick Healy, responded to criticism of the story in a thread on X, justifying it as part of the paper's mission 'to help readers better know and understand top candidates for major offices'. Soledad O'Brien, the prominent media entrepreneur and journalist, called that explanation 'a joke'. The publication of the Mamdani story is 'an absolute embarrassment' for the Times, charged O'Brien, who herself is of mixed-race ancestry and identifies as Black. Plenty of others agreed, seeing Healy's explanation not as admirable transparency but as damage control. The incident raises a larger issue: the Times's apparent opposition to Mamdani's candidacy. On the opinion side of the paper, there's little question about that. Even though the Times no longer makes endorsements for mayor, they published an editorial urging voters to avoid ranking Mamdani at all on their ballots because he was so unqualified. (New York City uses ranked-choice voting, which allows voters to list several candidates in order of preference.) Remarkably, the Times stopped short of giving the same 'don't rank him' advice about disgraced governor Andrew Cuomo, who resigned his office in 2021 and then ran for mayor against Mamdani in the primary. The opinion side of the Times is entitled to its opinion, however misguided. But straight news articles, by contrast, aren't supposed to go to bat for or against candidates. They're supposed to be neutral and non-partisan, not cheering on one candidate or kneecapping another. In practice, of course, that's often not the case. With this made-up scandal, combined with the pre-election editorial, the Times looks like it's on a crusade against Mamdani. And no lofty explanation about the mission can disguise it. Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture

Texas news anchor's blistering on-air attack on Kristi Noem and Greg Abbott over flood press conference
Texas news anchor's blistering on-air attack on Kristi Noem and Greg Abbott over flood press conference

Daily Mail​

time27 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Texas news anchor's blistering on-air attack on Kristi Noem and Greg Abbott over flood press conference

A local news anchor launched a blistering on-air attack against Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem over their response to the deadly Guadalupe River floods. KSAT's Stephania Jimenez was obviously frustrated by Noem and Abbott's Saturday press briefing that saw them praise each other and President Donald Trump. Jimenez says she was 'struck' by how officials spent 'way too long' talking before actually updating the public on the flash flood disaster. 'We really didn't get any concrete information until 27 minutes into that news conference where you had the governor speak, you had Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem speak for a while,' Jimenez said during her station's newscast. 'But you know what people are wanting is information.' 'I don't know what it is about people who run for federal office that whenever disasters like this happen, they take it upon themselves to first list all the names of people they want to thank. Um, not what we want to hear right now.' Jimenez, whose co-anchor appeared uncomfortable by her seemingly unscripted rant, further argued that Texans were waiting for and deserved 'real information'. 'That was a lot longer than it needed to be,' she continued. 'If they don't have the latest information that they can give us, they should've said so.' Jimenez was obviously frustrated by Noem and Abbott's Saturday press briefing that saw them praise each other and President Donald Trump. She says she was 'struck' by how the duo spent 'way too long' talking before actually updating the public on the flash flood disaster Jimenez, whose rant came after officials held their fifth news conference about the devastating Hill Country floods, highlighted how many questions remained unanswered. 'This disaster happened yesterday and what people want is information,' she said during Saturday's broadcast. 'They can't even tell us right now exactly how many people are missing. We understand why - the 4th of July holiday weekend, there were a lot of people there that are unaccounted for.' She admitted there were many campers and tourists visiting Kerrville at the time so officials were searching for more than just locals. Jimenez, noting that the issues of public thanking was bipartisan and happens during every disaster, said she hoped that officials would provide more substantial updates moving forward. 'People are on pins and needles waiting,' she added, to which her uncomfortable looking colleague replied 'yeah'. He then added how he was 'worried we weren't going to get any information at all' and that officials 'weren't going to tell us the death toll, how many people are missing, how many kids have been lost'. The death toll for the weekend's disaster has risen to 94, as of later Monday afternoon. That includes 27 killed at Camp Mystic, a Christian camp for girls. Dozens remain missing and the final death toll is likely to soar into triple figures. Liberal media outlets and Democrat lawmakers alike have blamed President Donald Tump, Noem and Trump and other Republicans have come under fire for the alleged lack of preparedness from the National Weather Service in wake of the tragedy. But White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has hit back at the 'depraved' critics who have suggested Trump's cuts to NOAA and FEMA contributed to the devastation. 'Unfortunately, in the wake of this once-in-a-generation natural disaster, we have seen many falsehoods pushed by Democrats such as Senator Chuck Schumer and some members of the media,' she said during a Tuesday press briefing. 'Blaming President Trump for these floods is a depraved lie, and it serves no purpose during this time of national mourning.' She further alleged the 'National Weather Service did its job' despite recent staffing cuts, noting the agency's office in the region was 'overstaffed' when the flash floods erupted. 'Any person who has deliberately lied about these facts surrounding this catastrophic event, you should be deeply ashamed,' she added.

Trump's border czar defends increasing number of arrests of non-violent migrants: ‘We're gonna enforce law'
Trump's border czar defends increasing number of arrests of non-violent migrants: ‘We're gonna enforce law'

The Independent

time30 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Trump's border czar defends increasing number of arrests of non-violent migrants: ‘We're gonna enforce law'

President Donald Trump 's 'border czar' has defended the increasing number of arrests of non-violent migrants, saying 'that's our job.' On Monday, Tom Homan said that although public safety threats were a priority, those who were in the country illegally were 'not off the table.' 'We're gonna enforce immigration law,' he said. Homan's remarks follow public backlash to the Trump administration's mass deportation agenda. White House senior advisor Stephen Miller told Fox News last month that Immigration and Customs Enforcement set a goal of a 'minimum' of 3,000 arrests a day. Miller also reportedly told ICE officials to target community hubs, Home Depot parking lots and 7-Eleven convenience stores to find suspects, according to The Wall Street Journal. Homan offered a similar hardline stance on Monday. 'National security threats, public safety threats are always the priority,' he told reporters. 'But if you're in the country illegally you're not off the table. ' 'I mean I see people saying we're arresting non-criminals. Well, they're in the country illegally, that's our job,' he said. 'We told ICE agents in the process of going out looking for the bad guy — and this is the problem with sanctuary cities. When we go to a community to go find the criminal, many times they're with others. Others that may not be a criminal target, but they're in the United States illegally they're coming too. We're gonna enforce immigration law.' Homan went on to claim that former Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, had instructed ICE agents not to arrest 'illegal aliens for simply being here illegally… 'They've got to be arrested [or] be convicted of a serious criminal offense.' He re-wrote the law. That's not what the law says.' 'We're gonna enforce the law,' Homan added. 'That's why the people put President Trump in office to do and that's what we're doing.' Despite the president's pledge to aggressively pursue 'the worst of the worst,' among immigrants in detention now, 47 percent have no criminal record whatsoever, and fewer than 30 percent have been convicted of crimes, according to analysis from The Independent. The number of people without a criminal record being arrested by ICE agents and held in detention has jumped 800 percent since January, according to reports.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store