By Esther Gittens

Introduction

In 2019, New York City voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to implement Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) for local primary and special elections. The measure passed with approximately 73% of the vote and marked a significant shift in the city’s electoral landscape. But while the reform promised to empower voters, reduce negative campaigning, and ensure majority-backed winners, its implementation has sparked debate over manipulation, unequal voter engagement, and potential distortions in campaign strategy. This article explores the sponsors and supporters behind NYC’s RCV law, its intended purpose, the manipulation it now faces, and viable solutions to restore electoral integrity.

1. Legislative Origins and Key Supporters

Ranked Choice Voting in NYC was championed by the 2019 Charter Revision Commission, a nonpartisan body convened to consider changes to the city’s governance. This Commission, influenced by civic reformers and public feedback, placed the RCV measure on the ballot. Prominent support came from national nonprofit advocacy group FairVote, as well as local good-government organizations like Common Cause/NY and the New York City Campaign Finance Board.

RCV gained additional momentum with support from progressive elected officials, including City Council members and members of then-Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration. These advocates viewed RCV as a tool for empowering diverse voices and increasing fairness in crowded electoral fields.

2. Goals and Intent of the Law

The main objectives of the law were:

• Ensuring majority support: Instead of winning with a mere plurality, candidates would need to accumulate over 50% of the vote through instant runoffs.
• Improving civility: Candidates would be incentivized to campaign positively to gain second- and third-choice votes.
• Eliminating spoiler effects: Voters could rank preferences without fear of wasting votes.
• Reducing costs: RCV would eliminate the need for expensive runoff elections.

Proponents believed this method would lead to more inclusive, democratic, and efficient elections.

3. Anticipated Challenges and Weaknesses

Even before implementation, scholars and voting rights organizations flagged certain vulnerabilities:

• Voter confusion: RCV requires voters to understand a new and more complex ballot system. Early surveys revealed many voters, especially in underserved communities, misunderstood how to rank candidates.
• Ballot exhaustion: If a voter’s ranked candidates are all eliminated, their ballot becomes inactive in final tallies. During NYC’s 2021 mayoral primary, 15% of ballots were exhausted by the final round.
• Disparities in usage: Data suggested lower-income and minority communities were less likely to fully utilize their rankings.
• Delayed results: RCV’s tabulation process inherently takes longer, leading to speculation and diminished public trust.

4. Emerging Manipulations and Campaign Tactics

Since its rollout, two major forms of manipulation have come to light:

1. Coordinated Campaign Strategies Candidates began forming ranking alliances, instructing their supporters to rank allied candidates second or third. While this tactic is legal, it blurs the line between genuine voter preference and orchestrated strategy. For instance, alliances during the 2021 Democratic mayoral primary led to visible bloc voting and suspicion of backroom deals.
2. Influence by Outside Groups Well-funded political action committees and advocacy groups have begun shaping RCV outcomes by targeting communities with ranking instructions. Critics argue this shifts influence from grassroots voters to elite entities capable of deploying sophisticated campaign operations.
3. Solutions to Reinforce Electoral Integrity

To address these issues, several reforms should be considered:

1. Enhanced Voter Education The city must invest in multilingual, community-based outreach explaining how RCV works, the importance of full rankings, and how ballots are counted. Special focus should be placed on underrepresented neighborhoods.
2. Campaign Transparency Rules Campaigns and third parties should be required to disclose any ranking-related alliances. Public reporting of joint strategy communications would reduce opaque coordination.
3. Expand Ranking Options Allowing voters to rank more than five candidates could reduce ballot exhaustion, especially in races with many contenders.
4. Improve Tabulation Transparency NYC should consider real-time publication of elimination rounds and projected outcomes, coupled with a publicly accessible explanation of how votes are redistributed.
5. Independent Oversight Commission An election integrity board should be formed to evaluate the effects of RCV, conduct post-election audits, and recommend statutory or administrative fixes.

Conclusion

Ranked Choice Voting was intended to elevate democracy in New York City by creating more fair, inclusive, and majority-driven elections. While it remains a promising tool for electoral reform, manipulation by coordinated campaigns and uneven voter understanding pose serious challenges. Restoring trust and fairness will require targeted educational investment, regulatory oversight, and adjustments to the voting process. With thoughtful reform, RCV can still achieve its original vision of strengthening the voice of every New Yorker at the ballot box.