Last month, the mayoral race in New York attracted national attention when democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani scored a beautiful victory about former governor and political veteran Andrew Cuomo in Democratic Primary Primary, thanks to the relatively new system of ranking choice. Less noticed was the 28 disputed city council races in New York On the same vote, 10 of which also had no candidate who received more than 50% of the vote.

In most places, also in most of California, such sloppy results would cause an expensive end between the top two Afrikaans in each race. But not in New York, where voters arrange every candidate in order of preference on their ballots. If no one receives more than 50% of the first choice votes, the candidate is eliminated the least first choice votes, and voters whose ballots had that person in the top position are then regarded as supporters of their second choice. This process of elimination and consolidation continues until one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote.

Maybe Mamdani would have won the primary school in a run -off against Cuomo, but he doesn’t have to. This voting system reflects the will of the people without pulling out the campaign season or asking voters to go an extra time to the polls.

Advocates believe that the ranking choice mood ensures that your voice is not wasted if your top choice is eliminated. Proponents also think that the system discourages negative campaigns (rather promotion Cross -provisions), improve the representation for women and people of color, promote more viable competition, reduce the election costs and eliminate the ‘spoiler effect’ from the zifonation of votes.

Ranking choice mood gets traction, especially in US cities. Currently, 63 jurisdictions nationwide Use some form of ranking choice, including seven in California: Albany, Berkeley, Oakland, Redondo Beach, San Francisco and San Leandro.

Ballot display Strong support for ranking mood among cities of cities in California who have it, and most of the cities increased the diversity of their governing bodies After implementation. These systems have already saved money for taxpayers in California by eliminating expensive runoff elections.

What would change if California had implemented a state offices rankings, or as general elections in the city of Los Angeles decided in this way? It would play differently than in New York.

Unlike New York, which owns party goers, most jurisdictions in California hold non-party primary elections in which all parties run on the same ticket-known as a top two or jungle primary. This means that when a candidate loses in a state or local primary, they can not just switch parties or as an independent run to get on the general election, as Cuomo could now.

The non -party election in California also means that a candidate’s party affiliation plays a competitive role in primary, unlike in New York. As a result, candidates will sometimes strategically register with the Dominant Party before acting in California, As Rick Caruso did in 2022. It would not necessarily change the vote of the chosen choices, but some candidates may feel less likely to use these tactics if they think they have a chance to get a voter’s second or third choice while running as a candidate of their preferred party.

There are two other important differences between California elections and New York breeds, one at the local level and one at state level.

Locally, most jurisdictions, including the city of Los Angeles, hold only a general election if no candidate wins more than 50% of the primary votes. Thus, the chosen vote would eliminate the need for primary elections in most California breeds. This would save jurisdictions money and probably increase voter rise, given that More people traditionally vote in general elections than in primary.

In contrast, California uses a top two primary system for most state and federal breeds, promoting the top two votes, regardless of the party affiliation or victory, to the general election. Although it is avoiding expensive run -up games, it often leads to a general election of one parties, especially in heavy partisan districts. The voting vote would not prevent the scenario, but it could give underrepresented parties a better chance to promote in competitive breeds.

Less known is whether the voting vote would change the political composition of representation if it was implemented in California in general. Strategic transition mood – in which Republicans and Democrats arrange moderate candidates of the other party – can lead to more centric outcomes. Similarly, in areas where one party dominates, consistent two-choice support for moderate candidates from other parties moves the controlling party to the center. Conversely, in areas with very hard left or loud right-wing voters, the chosen choices can print moderates to take more extreme positions to get second or third choice.

The combination of ranking choice mood with the non-party system in California is likely to deliver unique strategic incentives and political relocation unthinkable in cities with partisan primary.

Campaign styles can also change. Candidates can lay down attacks and even form alliances with like -minded opponents, As progressive did in New Yorkto earn two-selection votes.

Those unknowns may hesitate to change some state and local leaders to change the way we vote. After all, those who have won through the current system office are the least eager to change it. But hesitation should not overshadow the potential benefits: lower costs, broader involvement, more representative outcomes and less divisive politics.

If California is serious about reforming its increasingly expensive and polarized election system, the ranking voice is worth looking closer.

Sean McMorris is the California Common Cause program manager for transparency, ethics and accountability.