Ranked choice voting is a form of election where voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no majority winner emerges, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and the second preference of their voters is counted. This process repeats until a consensus choice emerges.
While critics call this system confusing, voters are smarter than we give them credit for: research cited by the American Bar Association finds that “Voters understand RCV and learn to like it, particularly with experience.”
Ranked choice voting is not radical or new. From the 1920s to the 1950s, Ohio cities including Cleveland adopted a form of ranked choice voting which led directly to greater representation for women and Black Americans. It is hardly surprising that racial backlash is the reason ranked choice voting was ultimately repealed in those cities.
Under the plurality voting system we use now, a factional extremist might win a crowded primary while a moderate with broader appeal might lose. Ranked choice voting eliminates primaries and rewards consensus candidates.
People sometimes ask why ranked choice voting is a “Lakewood issue,” and this is one reason why. Lakewood is blessed with a large and talented pool of candidates. That is on display this year in the at-large race, which features more than twice as many candidates as there are seats
to win. Ranked choice voting would award those seats to the candidates who truly enjoy the broadest support.
The elimination of primaries would also bring benefits to Lakewood. It would make elections less costly to hold, saving taxpayer dollars. It would make campaigns less costly, encouraging less wealthy candidates to run. And it would boost voter participation by eliminating the typical dropoff in turnout between the primary and general elections.
Ranked choice voting is a form of election where voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no majority winner emerges, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and the second preference of their voters is counted. This process repeats until a consensus choice emerges.
While critics call this system confusing, voters are smarter than we give them credit for: research cited by the American Bar Association finds that “Voters understand RCV and learn to like it, particularly with experience.”
Ranked choice voting is not radical or new. From the 1920s to the 1950s, Ohio cities including Cleveland adopted a form of ranked choice voting which led directly to greater representation for women and Black Americans. It is hardly surprising that racial backlash is the reason ranked choice voting was ultimately repealed in those cities.
Under the plurality voting system we use now, a factional extremist might win a crowded primary while a moderate with broader appeal might lose. Ranked choice voting eliminates primaries and rewards consensus candidates.
People sometimes ask why ranked choice voting is a “Lakewood issue,” and this is one reason why. Lakewood is blessed with a large and talented pool of candidates. That is on display this year in the at-large race, which features more than twice as many candidates as there are seats
to win. Ranked choice voting would award those seats to the candidates who truly enjoy the broadest support.
The elimination of primaries would also bring benefits to Lakewood. It would make elections less costly to hold, saving taxpayer dollars. It would make campaigns less costly, encouraging less wealthy candidates to run. And it would boost voter participation by eliminating the typical dropoff in turnout between the primary and general elections.