{"id":5045,"date":"2025-06-22T11:06:11","date_gmt":"2025-06-22T11:06:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/5045\/"},"modified":"2025-06-22T11:06:11","modified_gmt":"2025-06-22T11:06:11","slug":"new-yorks-election-system-isnt-chaotic-its-democracy-done-right","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/5045\/","title":{"rendered":"New York\u2019s Election System Isn\u2019t Chaotic. It\u2019s Democracy Done Right."},"content":{"rendered":"

Here are some recent updates from the Democratic primary for New York City mayor: Several rival candidates, for the first time in the history of the nation\u2019s largest city, have \u201ccross-endorsed\u201d each other. One of them, the democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani, encouraged his supporters to give money<\/a> to a more moderate opponent, Adrienne Adams. And people are heading to the polls early at double the rate<\/a> they did last time they voted for mayor.<\/p>\n

Some political observers see this as chaotic<\/a>, problematic<\/a>, and even antidemocratic<\/a>. But at a time when Americans are frustrated<\/a> with their democracy and the amount of money<\/a> flooding elections, an alternate read is that a collection of wonky changes by New York\u2014most prominently, ranked-choice voting\u2014is forging a potentially exemplary new election system, one that could show the way for big blue cities afflicted with electoral apathy and cynicism. That\u2019s no small feat for a city long plagued by election dysfunction<\/a>, suffocating machine politics<\/a>, and terrible turnout<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In recent years, the city has implemented early voting, greenlit even more generous public matching funds for candidates, and put stricter limits on spending and donating, but the most attention-grabbing part of the NYC model is ranked choice, which allows people to list up to five candidates in their preferred order for most local primaries. If no candidate gets a majority of first-place votes, then the last-place candidate is eliminated. Second-place votes for that eliminated candidate now become first-place votes, and we count again until someone gets a majority.<\/p>\n

This means that \u201cevery individual vote has more power,\u201d said Tim Hunter, press secretary of the New York City Campaign Finance Board, an independent city agency that aims to make elections fairer and more popular.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s because ranked choice, unlike a winner-takes-all system, doesn\u2019t discourage voters from choosing their preferred candidate even if that person is polling poorly. Ranked choice also diminishes the impact of vote splitting, which is especially relevant in this year\u2019s Democratic primary where one candidate\u2019s name recognition and war chest\u2014that of Andrew Cuomo, the dynastic former governor who resigned<\/a> from office in 2021 after allegations of sexual harassment\u2014far exceeds the other candidates\u2019, most of whom are running to his left. In a typical election that featured the current field, the non-Cuomo vote would be severely diluted, with candidates squabbling until the last minute about who should drop out.<\/p>\n

This year\u2019s primary gives the non-front-runners at least a potential chance. It\u2019s the second time ranked choice is being used for an NYC mayoral campaign, following Mayor Eric Adams\u2019s election in 2021, and there are early indications that the system brings other advantages.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe goal was, and it\u2019s working, to minimize polarization and negative campaigning,\u201d said Sal Albanese, a member of the charter review commission that placed ranked choice on the ballot in New York in 2019.\u00a0\u201cYou don\u2019t have to spend your time attacking another candidate because you want to be able to generate support from that other candidate\u2019s supporters.\u201d During Albanese\u2019s second run for mayor in 2013, when it was winner-take-all, his strategy was to go after other candidates \u201cto differentiate myself.\u201d<\/p>\n

This time around, there is not much negativity between the non-Cuomo opponents. But one of the more intriguing criticisms of ranked-choice voting\u2014which is set to soon debut in Washington, D.C., and is already used in dozens<\/a> of jurisdictions\u2014portrays this as a flaw in the system. Writing in The Atlantic last week, in a piece titled \u201cNew York Is Not a Democracy,\u201d Annie Lowrey argued<\/a> that if candidates aren\u2019t incentivized to attack each other, \u201cthat could make it harder for voters to make informed decisions.\u201d<\/p>\n

The New York example suggests otherwise. Rather than spending their time trying to wound their opponents, the candidates are promoting an impressively wide range of creative policies, from fast and free buses<\/a> to universal after-school programs<\/a> and housing on city-owned golf courses<\/a>.\u00a0The new system has also unleashed cross-endorsing, where two candidates tell their supporters to rank both of them. It\u2019s something that has happened multiple times in the mayoral race, most prominently in the case of Mamdani, who has cross-endorsed both City Comptroller Brad Lander and Michael Blake, a former state assemblyman.<\/p>\n

Moreover, contra Lowrey, this alliance did not stop Blake from virally chiding<\/a> Mamdani for remarks about the phrase \u201cglobalize the intifada.\u201d<\/a> It\u2019s far from the only example<\/a> of chirping among the aligned. Candidates still politely explain why they are different\u2014but now there\u2019s a new way for voters to see where opponents are the same.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou can put a message together around it,\u201d said Keith Powers, who chairs a City Council committee pertaining to elections and is currently running for Manhattan borough president. Two opponents, for example, can team up to highlight their advocacy for affordability and housing.<\/p>\n

Another common criticism of ranked choice is that it\u2019s overly burdensome. As NY1\u2019s Errol Louis memorably<\/a> put it to The New Yorker, if you had to \u201crank your choice of whether we have Indian, Chinese, pizza, vegan, or steakhouse. Put them in ranked order. Who\u2019s got time for that?\u201d Lowrey also raised the related concern about voters who don\u2019t use the full slate: \u201cIn 2021, Black, Latino, and Asian voters were less likely than non-Latino white voters to rank a full slate of candidates,\u00a0in effect curtailing\u00a0their electoral power<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

But it\u2019s New Yorkers\u2019 right to choose as few candidates as they please. Plus, 2021 was their first experience with ranked choice, which does take some getting used to. A 2021\u20132022 voter analysis report<\/a> from the NYCCFB suggested that more alliances and coalitions\u2014which did indeed blossom this year\u2014could \u201csupply natural alternatives for [voters\u2019] 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th choice.\u201d More broadly, NYC voters were already embracing the system during that first year: 88.3 percent of primary voters ranked multiple candidates for at least one office.<\/p>\n

This embrace of the slate may not be so surprising when you consider that many of the candidates have pretty similar positions on truly meaningful municipal matters like mayoral control of schools, housing policy, and even policing. Where the candidates diverge, it is often on a detailed level, such that voters might like the cut of a few jibs. When you can choose to elevate a bespoke group of preferred leaders, maybe you don\u2019t need to make agonizing binary decisions based on the things that candidates do take uncompromising, binary stances on\u2014especially issues that aren\u2019t under a mayor\u2019s control, like Israel\u2019s war on Gaza and Iran or state-level bail reform<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Beyond ranked choice, other elements of New York\u2019s system have had a longer time to evolve.\u00a0Early voting began in NYC in 2019 after state approval. The jury is still out on whether it alone can boost NYC\u2019s abysmal<\/a> turnout, but the initiative has been popular and convenient, particularly for older and new voters<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The city\u2019s public campaign finance program is much more established, having been approved by ballot referendum in 1988, after a series of corruption scandals.\u00a0Such scandals have not exactly been wiped out (see: why Eric Adams is running as an independent<\/a> and not in this year\u2019s Democratic primary).\u00a0But the public funds program, which increased to an 8-to-1 match on small-dollar donations after a 2018 charter amendment, has been credited with breeding more competition<\/a> and even diversity<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The program, which includes thresholds, strict contribution limits, and lots of audits, can still make it easier for new or lesser-known candidates to compete: As of this spring, 101 candidates received public funds for this cycle\u2019s city races, says Marina Pino, counsel at the elections and government program at the Brennan Center. Of those, 59 candidates had not received public funds in prior elections.<\/p>\n

When $100 is nearly as good as $1,000, new candidates don\u2019t necessarily need to spend all their time trying to get a sit-down with a big developer or Wall Street whiz. They are incentivized to raise from within their district (a requirement, to a certain level), and freed to spend more time on tasks like door knocking.<\/p>\n

This mayoral cycle has again shown the potential of these realignments. Leading contenders Mamdani, Cuomo, and Lander have touted that they were able to stop fundraising entirely, as they\u2019d raked in enough donations\u2014plus public matching funds\u2014to hit the $8 million spending cap. This is striking, particularly in Mamdani\u2019s case given that he is a 33-year-old state legislator known by relatively few New Yorkers until this year. Impressively, the majority of his and Lander\u2019s donations came in below $175.<\/p>\n

This allows candidates to fund ads to get their message out and compete against opponents\u2014in this primary\u2019s case, one opponent\u2014who have enormous outside support: Fix the City, the Cuomo-boosting super PAC, has raked in more than $24 million<\/a> from the likes of Michael Bloomberg, DoorDash, and Alex Karp of Palantir Technologies.<\/p>\n

That kind of cash is very difficult to combat. But the city election system has at least provided some attempts at oversight. There are strict transparency rules requiring, for example, that paid communications like mailers show a group\u2019s top three donors. And city regulators have tried to cut down on improper coordination between outside groups and campaigns. (The Campaign Finance Board amended a rule<\/a> on this subject in 2024, and months later alleged that Cuomo coordinated with a super PAC anyway. The board ended up withholding<\/a> nearly three-quarters of a million dollars in public matching funds in response.)<\/p>\n

Even still, spending by outside groups may play the dominant role in this race, which some political observers\u2014and candidates<\/a>\u2014see as a key area of concern. \u201cSomething\u2019s got to be done about the super PACs,\u201d said Albanese, the former mayoral candidate. \u201cIt\u2019s eroding public financing.\u201d One problem, he added, is that penalties for big-money wrongdoing get \u201cimplemented after the election.\u201d<\/p>\n

And as with other election issues in New York, any reforms tend to take years to happen, if at all. Which would mean another tweak to the city\u2019s ever-evolving elections.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Here are some recent updates from the Democratic primary for New York City mayor: Several rival candidates, for…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":5046,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5122],"tags":[5229,5297,6529,405,403,5226,5225,5228,5227,6530,67,586,132,5230,68,2969,5301],"class_list":{"0":"post-5045","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-new-york","8":"tag-america","9":"tag-andrew-cuomo","10":"tag-democratic-primary","11":"tag-new-york","12":"tag-new-york-city","13":"tag-newyork","14":"tag-newyorkcity","15":"tag-ny","16":"tag-nyc","17":"tag-ranked-choice","18":"tag-united-states","19":"tag-united-states-of-america","20":"tag-unitedstates","21":"tag-unitedstatesofamerica","22":"tag-us","23":"tag-usa","24":"tag-zohran-mamdani"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/114726697898255457","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5045","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5045"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5045\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5046"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5045"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5045"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5045"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}