New York’s Mayoral Election Highlights Need for Ranked Choice Voting

New York City’s mayoral election is drawing to a contentious close, marred by negative campaigning and divisive rhetoric. The atmosphere has become increasingly hostile, with former Governor Andrew Cuomo making headlines for his controversial remarks about Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani. During an interview on conservative talk radio, Cuomo suggested that Mamdani would be cheering during a crisis akin to the September 11 attacks, igniting outrage among voters and observers alike.

The election, scheduled for November 7, 2023, has seen a significant shift from the earlier Democratic primary, which utilized ranked choice voting (RCV). This electoral system encourages a more civil discourse and allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. The stark contrast between the primary and the general election underscores the need for reform in how elections are conducted in New York.

From Civility to Chaos

The Democratic primary earlier this year showcased a collaborative spirit among candidates. Mamdani and fellow candidate Brad Lander shared the stage on popular platforms, such as “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” where they promoted unity and mutual support. This environment fostered a focus on critical issues, including housing affordability and rent stabilization, allowing candidates to build coalitions rather than undermine each other.

In contrast, the general election has devolved into a battleground of mudslinging. Influential figures like billionaire Bill Ackman have been attempting to sway the race, reportedly pressuring current Mayor Eric Adams to withdraw and create an easier path for his preferred candidate. The current campaign has shifted the narrative away from policy discussions, leading to accusations of negative campaigning and discussions about “spoilers” in the race.

With three main candidates—Mamdani, Cuomo, and Curtis Sliwa—the stakes are high. The absence of RCV has resulted in a focus on discrediting opponents rather than promoting positive platforms. Critics argue that this environment fosters hostility and diminishes voter choice, with billionaires wielding undue influence over the electoral process.

The Case for Ranked Choice Voting

Ranked choice voting offers a solution to the divisive nature of winner-takes-all elections. Under this system, candidates must appeal to a broader base, as they need to secure a majority rather than simply the highest number of votes in a crowded field. This approach mitigates the notion of “spoilers” and encourages candidates to engage in constructive dialogue.

In the primary, Mamdani’s candidacy gained momentum, with initial polling at just 1 percent. His message resonated with voters, who prioritized substantive discussions over personal attacks. The ability to rank candidates allowed voters to express their preferences without fear of wasting their votes, resulting in a clear majority win for Mamdani.

As the general election nears, the absence of RCV has led to discussions devoid of meaningful content. The media has focused on personal anecdotes, such as whether Mamdani’s relatives feel safe using public transportation in the wake of September 11. Such distractions detract from the pressing issues that voters care about, such as economic stability and community safety.

The current election cycle illustrates the pitfalls of a plurality voting system, where candidates are incentivized to tear each other down rather than lift one another up. The consequences are evident: a potential mayor could assume office without securing a majority, leaving their legitimacy questioned by those who feel disenfranchised.

New York’s experience serves as a poignant reminder of the impacts of electoral systems on political discourse. While the primary reflected a hopeful vision of collaborative politics, the general election underscores the urgent need for reform. By adopting ranked choice voting, New York could foster a more inclusive and constructive electoral environment, paving the way for elections that prioritize voter engagement over divisive tactics.