
New York City might elect a truly progressive mayor – thanks to ranked-choice voting
But according to a new poll, Zohran Mamdani – the insurgent state assemblyman and democratic socialist whom the Nation recently co-endorsed along with fellow mayoral candidate and New York City comptroller Brad Lander – has pulled ahead of Cuomo for the first time.
And while Mamdani's campaign deserves credit for offering a clear, inspiring, progressive message, the fact that he is competitive can also be partly credited to New York City's ranked-choice voting (RCV) system. It's a winning system for candidates who would otherwise be sidelined or would cannibalize each other's support – and for voters who can finally cast their ballots based on policy rather than pragmatism.
America's politics have long been dominated (or diluted) by first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting. In it, citizens cast their ballot for one candidate, and whoever receives the most votes wins. Straightforward as it seems, this method forces an either/or choice, often resulting in voters deciding between the lesser of two evils. Not only does this reinforce a two-party duopoly in general elections, but it also incentivizes a binary choice between the two leading candidates in primaries.
For the candidates themselves, the system encourages scorched-earth campaigns that divide parties and inflame the narcissism of small differences. The progressive senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren came into the 2020 Democratic presidential primary as allies with much more in common ideologically than their centrist opponents. But there was no electoral incentive for either of them to form an alliance with the other. Instead, they fought to consolidate a minority faction within the party, and got mired in a grisly and public feud. The mudslinging did leave one person standing – Joe Biden.
In contrast, RCV makes it possible for dark horse candidates to work together. After Mamdani's campaign reached the fundraising limit, he urged his supporters to donate to a fellow anti-Cuomo candidate, Adrienne Adams. Adams, in turn, has maintained a focus on criticizing Cuomo, even deleting a tweet that was perceived as a swipe at Mamdani. These contenders are making it clear they truly believe – as the Nation's editorial board wrote in our endorsement – New Yorkers deserve better than Andrew Cuomo.
Critics of ranked-choice voting argue it's too confusing, but successful implementations of the system in other jurisdictions suggest otherwise. In Alaska's 2022 congressional special election, the first statewide RCV election there, 85% of people who cast their ballots said they found the method to be simple. It also enabled the Democrat Mary Peltola to fend off an extremist challenge from Sarah Palin. Maine has also seen promising results from RCV, with 60% of its voters favoring the system. Cities like Minneapolis and Cambridge, Massachusetts, have enjoyed higher turnout after the implementation of RCV.
But RCV is only as effective as its participants make it. Ahead of New York City's mayoral primary in 2021, I wrote a column expressing high hopes for how the debut of RCV could reshape the city's politics. But that race became chaotic for other reasons.
Scott Stringer and Dianne Morales's campaigns collapsed. Advocacy groups had to un-endorse and re-endorse – in some cases, multiple times. There was a progressive effort to coalesce around Maya Wiley, including a belated endorsement from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Meanwhile, pragmatists who felt Eric Adams and Andrew Yang lacked substance turned to the sanitation commissioner, Kathryn Garcia. If Wiley and Garcia had cross-endorsed, one of them might have defeated Adams. Instead, Adams won the primary in the final round by just over 7,000 votes.
This time, the mayoral candidates seem to have learned. On Friday, Mamdani and Lander cross-endorsed each other, encouraging their supporters to rank the other second. Mamdani explained the decision with a refreshing mix of idealism and realism: 'This is the necessary step to ensure that we're not just serving our own campaigns – we're serving the city at large.' This was followed by another cross-endorsement, between Mamdani and former assemblyman Michael Blake, on Monday. And the national progressive movement is much more united than it was in 2021, with both Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders endorsing Mamdani in the home stretch this time.
By treating each other like allies rather than adversaries, the anti-Cuomo coalition might just prevail. If anything, it is the establishment wing of the New York Democratic party that is struggling to coalesce – as evinced by the New York Times' non-endorsement endorsement that, if you squint, could be perceived as encouraging New Yorkers to support Cuomo, Lander, hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson, or flee the city.
The Nation has a long history of covering New York's mayoral races. Although no New York mayor has been elected to higher office since 1869 – just four years after the magazine was founded – the office has long held fascinating implications for American progressivism.
Fiorello La Guardia, whom Mamdani and Lander have both named as the greatest mayor in the city's history, took office at the height of the Great Depression and led the city through the second world war. Over 12 years of cascading crises, he transformed the city with a bold vision characterized by expanding public housing and public spaces, curbing corruption, and unflinchingly supporting the reforms of the New Deal.
Now, nearly a century later, New Yorkers have an opportunity to bring the city into a new era once again. And ordinarily, making that kind of change possible would require making a tough choice. But if it happens this time, it will be because of a ranked choice.
Katrina vanden Heuvel is editorial director and publisher of the Nation, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a contributor to the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
14 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘A dark day for our country': Democrats furious over Trump bill's passage
Democrats have erupted in a storm of outrage over the passage of the Donald Trump's budget bill, delivering scathing critiques that offered signs of the attack lines the party could wield against Republicans in next year's midterm elections. Party leaders released a wave of statements after the sweeping tax and spending bill's passage on Thursday, revealing a fury that could peel paint off a brick outhouse. 'Today, Donald Trump and the Republican party sent a message to America: if you are not a billionaire, we don't give a damn about you,' said Ken Martin, the Democratic National Committee chair. 'While the GOP continues to cash their billionaire donors' checks, their constituents will starve, lose critical medical care, lose their jobs – and yes, some will die as a result of this bill. Democrats are mobilizing and will fight back to make sure everybody knows exactly who is responsible for one of the worst bills in our nation's history.' The bill's narrow passage in the House on Thursday, with no Democratic support and only two no votes from Republicans – which came from Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania – is 'not normal', wrote congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Ocasio-Cortez highlighted the contradictions in the bill that Democrats can be expected to campaign on over the next two years, pitting its spending on immigration enforcement against the loss of social benefits for working-class Americans. She noted that Republicans voted for permanent tax breaks for billionaires while allowing a tax break on tips for people earning less than $25,000 a year to sunset in three years. She also noted that cuts to Medicaid expansion will remove tipped employees from eligibility for Medicaid and remove subsidies for insurance under the Affordable Care Act, and reduce Snap food assistance benefits. 'I don't think anyone is prepared for what they just did with Ice,' Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Bluesky. 'This is not a simple budget increase. It is an explosion – making Ice bigger than the FBI, US Bureau of Prisons, [the] DEA and others combined. It is setting up to make what's happening now look like child's play. And people are disappearing.' Many critics referred to choice remarks made by Republicans in the run-up to the bill's passage that displayed an indifference to their voters' concerns. Senator Mitch McConnell was reported by Punchbowl News to have said to other Republicans in a closed-door meeting last week: 'I know a lot of us are hearing from people back home about Medicaid. But they'll get over it.' And Republican senator Joni Ernst, of Iowa, speaking at a combative town hall in Parkersburg in late May, responded to someone in the audience shouting that people will die without coverage by saying, 'People are not … well, we all are going to die' – a response that drew groans. Cuts to Medicaid feature prominently in Democratic reaction to the bill. Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib described the bill as 'disgusting' and 'an act of violence against our communities'. She said: 'Republicans should be ashamed for saying, 'Just get over it' because 'We're all going to die.' They are responsible for the 50,000 people who will die unnecessarily every year because of this deadly budget.' 'There is no sugarcoating this. This is a dark day for our country,' wrote senator Raphael Warnock. 'Republicans in Washington have decided to sell out working people. As a result, millions will lose their healthcare and many millions more will see their premiums go up. Rural hospitals and nursing homes across Georgia will be forced to close. Children will be forced to go hungry so that we can give billionaires another tax cut.' But budget hawks on the left and the right have taken issue with the effects this budget will have on the already considerable national debt. 'In a massive fiscal capitulation, Congress has passed the single most expensive, dishonest, and reckless budget reconciliation bill ever – and, it comes amidst an already alarming fiscal situation,' wrote Maya MacGuineas, the president of the oversight organization Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, in reaction to the House's passage of the bill. 'Never before has a piece of legislation been jammed through with such disregard for our fiscal outlook, the budget process, and the impact it will have on the wellbeing of the country and future generations.' 'House Republicans just voted – again – to jack up costs, gut health care, and reward the elite with tax breaks,' wrote the House Majority Pac, a Democratic fund. 'They had a chance to change course, but instead they doubled down on this deeply unpopular, toxic agenda. They'll have no one to blame but themselves when voters send them packing and deliver Democrats the House majority in 2026.' 'Republicans didn't pass this bill for the people,' wrote Jasmine Crockett, a Texas Democrat. 'They passed it to please Trump, protect the powerful and push cruelty disguised as policy.'


Reuters
21 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump celebrates tax bill victory at Iowa fairground rally
DES MOINES, IOWA, July 3 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump took a victory lap in friendly territory on Thursday, celebrating passage of his massive tax-cut and border security bill among supporters at the Iowa State Fairground. Trump flew to the state, which voted for him by large margins during the last three presidential elections, directly after the U.S. House of Representatives passed his 'big, beautiful bill' and sent it to his desk to be enacted into law. 'Every major promise I made to the people of Iowa in 2024 became a promise kept,' Trump told the crowd of thousands at the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines. By visiting the state Trump was reinforcing his image as a president who delivers on his promises, especially to his rural and conservative base. Trump said he will sign the bill at a White House ceremony on Friday, the Independence Day holiday in the United States and the deadline he had set for Congress to approve the mammoth piece of legislation. The measure will give Trump billions of dollars to press forward with his domestic agenda, ramping up migrant deportations and cutting taxes while rolling back health benefits and food assistance. 'This bill includes the largest tax cut in American history, the largest spending cut in American history, the largest border security investment in American history,' Trump said. The package will add $3.4 trillion to the nation's $36.2 trillion debt, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The passage of the bill marked weeks of arm twisting by Trump and his allies in Congress to convince skeptical Republicans to push through the bill on a rapid timetable. It was part of a string of victories for Trump in recent days, including convincing Iran and Israel to agree to a ceasefire after the United States struck Iran's nuclear sites last month. Trump lambasted Democrats in Congress for voting against the measure, which passed on party-line votes in both chambers. He attributed that to Democrats hating him. 'But I hate them too," he said. Trump said the vote will make for campaign fodder during next year's midterm elections, when control of Congress will be at stake. Some Republicans worry that deep cuts to the Medicaid health program in the bill will hurt the party's prospects in the 2026 midterm elections. The president said the bill will bolster his already aggressive immigration enforcement and deportation efforts but again pledged to work with farms and hotels concerned about a thinning labor force. Trump's trade policies have whipsawed agricultural communities in Iowa, creating economic uncertainty and testing loyalties. Iowa farmers have been hit hard, especially with China's retaliatory tariffs slashing soybean exports and prices. Reuters spoke to five attendees at the rally who said they braved the sweltering heat to show support for Trump. Most praised his handling of immigration and grocery prices. Despite widespread media coverage, only one of the five was aware of the existence of the tax-cut bill and praised it for giving Trump more resources for immigration enforcement.


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Trump set to impose tariffs up to 70 percent on dozens of nations
President Donald Trump is set to resume tariffs of up to 70 percent on dozens of countries, as many of the trade deals have not materialized. Trump said the White House would be sending out about '10 or 12' letters on Friday to countries where trade deals are not yet in place ahead of the July 9 deadline. The president didn't specify which countries in his remarks to reporters Thursday evening. 'So we're going to start sending letters out to various countries starting tomorrow,' Trump told reporters at Andrews Air Force Base on returning from a rally in Iowa, according to The New York Times. 'They'll range in value from maybe 60 or 70 percent tariffs to 10 and 20 percent tariffs.' In April, Trump put a 90-day pause on the 'reciprocal' tariffs he announced on so-called 'Liberation Day' after the move spooked the stock market.