Ranked-choice voting

On New York City’s unique “top-two” elections proposal

Last week, I wrote an article for City Journal on the proposed “top-two” system of mayoral elections in New York City. Here is how it opens: “As a political scientist, I don’t love the proposal, but it could work—if parties retain control of which candidates use their labels.”

I also spoke with NY1 on Friday afternoon. The bottom line in that conversation was that this proposal is not for an “open primary” as typically understood.

This is a complex issue. As such, it is hard to evaluate separately from what one expects or wants to see in November’s mayoral election.

Potential collision of “voter choice” and “majority rule”

Tomorrow is the in-person primary election in New York City. Polls variously expect Andrew Cuomo and Zohran Mamdani to win the Democratic mayoral nomination. In the background, the city’s charter commission is considering an overhaul of the mayoral electoral system. TLDR: one proposal would mandate two-candidate general elections.

We will see what happens in the primary. I wrote about the situation here.

For me, this episode underscores a tension in the world of electoral reform. On the one hand, many of these devices promise “majority rule.” On the other, they promise to make it easier to run for office without expectation of majority support. Some are drawn by the former idea, others by the latter.

If you are looking for a term to describe the form of RCV that the situation might bring forth, one option is “bottoms-up.” I wrote about it in this 2021 journal article.

Proportional representation in New York City did not “boost” the Left | 3Streams | Feb, 2025

Having spent time with data on the use of proportional ranked-choice voting in New York City, I read a recent commentary in Jacobin with some surprise. This piece asserts that the system “boosted”…
— Read on medium.com/3streams/proportional-representation-in-new-york-city-did-not-boost-the-left-7369d94f484b