Summary California cities use six distinct local election systems — from plurality voting to Ranked Choice Voting — each with very different rules about whether a winner needs a majority and how many voters actually participate in the decisive round. Turnout is the hidden variable that determines how representative your local election really is: primaries average as little as 10–17% voter turnout, while November elections can reach 5x that level. Plurality voting , used in many smaller California cities, is considered by election scholars to be the least fair method, since a candidate can win with as little as 25–30% of the vote and there is no majority requirement at any stage. Ranked Choice Voting consistently involves the most voters in the decisive round because it is held on-cycle in November, eliminates the spoiler effect, and allows voters to rank their true preferences without fear of wasting their vote. Not all "majority" winners are equal : a candidate who wins a majority of a 10% primary electorate represents a very different mandate than one who wins a majority of a 75% November electorate. If you've ever wondered why your city holds elections differently than your neighboring city, or differently than state and federal elections, you're not imagining it. California cities use a surprisingly wide variety of election systems, and they all produce different outcomes for voters with large variations in the number of voters having a say (turnout). Here's a plain-language guide to each one. System 1: Contingent Top-Two Primary (Two-Round Majority System) Standard name: Two-Round System with contingent second round, or simply majority runoff. Election scholars often call it a TRS (Two-Round System). California cities that use it: Los Angeles, San Jose, Sacramento, San Diego and many other large California charter cities. How it works: Every candidate runs in a first-round election, typically held in the spring or early summer at the same time as the state/federal primary. If any candidate wins more than 50% of the vote in that first round, they win outright and no second election is needed. If nobody clears that 50% threshold, the top two vote-getters advance to a second-round runoff, usually held in the November general election. The critical catch: what kind of "majority" are we really talking about? When a candidate wins outright in the spring primary, they have technically won a majority of votes cast. But they have won a majority of the votes cast by the small fraction of residents who showed up to that low-turnout primary election, not a majority of the city's voters overall. Rice University Research on California municipal elections found that off-cycle spring primaries in medium and large cities averaged only about 17% turnout, and that figure has declined toward 10% in more recent decades. A candidate who "wins outright" in the primary may have the enthusiastic support of a tiny but dedicated slice of the electorate. The November general election that follows, if the race goes to a runoff, typically draws three to five times as many voters. In these cases, a winner who locked down the race in the primary may have been chosen by as few as one in ten registered voters.​ Example: In Los Angeles, the 2022 mayoral primary drew roughly 15% turnout. The runoff in November drew far more voters, and the outcome looked very different from early spring polling. System 2: Non-Contingent Top-Two (Mandatory Runoff, No Matter What) Standard name: Non-contingent top-two, or mandatory top-two runoff. California jurisdictions that use it: This is the system California uses for state and federal offices under Proposition 14, passed in 2010. Every candidate for U.S. Senate, state legislature, and statewide office goes through this process. How it works: Just like System 1, all candidates run in a first-round primary. But here, even if one candidate wins a landslide majority in the primary, the top two vote-getters still advance to a second-round general election. (This is why California sometimes sends two Democrats to the November ballot in a heavily blue district or two Republicans in a red district).​ A runoff always happens. The upside : The final winner is always chosen by the larger, higher-turnout November electorate.  The downside: The two finalists were pre-selected by a primary electorate that is often only 25% to 37% of registered voters . Voters in November have no choice but to pick between those two finalists, even if their preferred candidate was eliminated in the spring. The winner has a genuine majority, but it is a majority chosen from a field that was already narrowed to two by a much smaller group of primary voters.​ System 3: Single-Round Plurality (First-Past-the-Post) Standard name: Plurality voting, first-past-the-post (FPTP), or a single-round election. Sometimes called a winner-take-all system. California cities that use it: Many smaller general law cities, as well as special districts and school boards across the state. How it works: There is only one election. All candidates appear on the ballot. Whoever gets the most votes wins, even if that is only 25% or 30% of the total. There is no majority requirement, no runoff, and no second round. Example: If five candidates run and the results are 28%, 22%, 20%, 18%, and 12%, the candidate with 28% wins outright. 72% of voters chose someone else, and none of that matters. The expert verdict: Plurality voting is widely considered by political scientists and election reformers to be the worst common election method in terms of fairness and representative outcomes. It systematically produces winners who lack majority support. It incentivizes strategic voting, where voters abandon their true first choice for a more viable candidate. It creates a structural spoiler effect that punishes voters for supporting candidates outside the top two. Almost every serious reform proposal in election science begins with replacing plurality voting with something else.​ System 4: Ranked Choice Voting (Instant Runoff Voting) Standard name: Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) for single-winner races; also called Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). The multi-seat council version is called Proportional RCV (PRCV) or Single Transferable Vote (STV). California cities that use it: San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley have all conducted city elections using RCV.​ Albany uses proportional RCV. How it works: Instead of picking just one candidate, voters rank candidates in order of preference: 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, and so on. When votes are counted: If any candidate has more than 50% of first-choice votes, they win immediately. If no one has a majority, an instant runoff takes place - the last-place candidate is eliminated and those voters' ballots transfer to their next-ranked choice. This continues, round by round, until someone reaches a majority. Why it matters for representation: RCV eliminates the spoiler effect entirely. You can vote for your true first choice without worrying you are wasting your vote or helping elect your least-favorite candidate. It also collapses a primary and a runoff into a single election, and that election is typically held in November or on-cycle, when turnout is at its highest.​ One nuance worth understanding: some voters do not rank all candidates, and if all of their ranked choices are eliminated before the final round, their ballot becomes exhausted and does not count toward the final result. A study of 98 U.S. RCV elections  found that on average about 11% of ballots are exhausted. In California cities specifically, exhausted ballot rates ranged from 9.6% in San Leandro to as high as 27.1% in San Francisco. This means the winner's "majority" is technically a majority of continuing (non-exhausted) ballots in the final round, not always a majority of every single ballot cast.​ However, the total pool of voters participating in an RCV election is substantially larger than in any primary-based system, because RCV elections are held on-cycle during high-turnout November elections. A University of Missouri study  found that after adopting RCV, cities averaged 31.7% voter turnout, compared to just 16.9% in comparable plurality cities. Even accounting for exhausted ballots, more total voters are participating in the decisive round under RCV than under any primary-based alternative except System 2.​ System 5: On-Cycle General Election with Contingent Runoff Standard name: On-cycle election with contingent runoff. How it works: The first-round election is held in November, alongside state and federal races, capturing maximum voter turnout. If no candidate wins an outright majority, a runoff is held later. Often that runoff is in December or early January of the following year. The turnout cliff: While the November election benefits from high participation, any runoff that follows drops off sharply. A December or January runoff election, held without other competitive races to draw voters, can see turnout fall back to very low levels. In effect, the decision about who governs gets handed from a large November electorate to a small, self-selected group of highly motivated voters in the off-season.​ System 6: Off-Cycle Single-Election System Standard name: Off-cycle plurality election or off-cycle majority election, depending on whether a majority is required. Which California jurisdictions use it: Many California cities still hold their elections on dates that do not align with any state or federal election: odd-year spring dates, or standalone dates that draw little attention. These elections may use plurality rules or a local majority requirement, but the defining feature is that they take place when almost nobody is paying attention.​ The turnout numbers are stark. Off-cycle mayoral elections in large California cities averaged just 17% voter turnout   among registered voters, and that figure has declined toward roughly 10% in recent decades. A Common Cause California study   found that cities switching from off-cycle to on-cycle elections experienced an average tripling of voter participation, moving from an average of about 25.5% to 75.8% turnout. Sixty-nine percent of all California municipalities holding off-cycle elections are in Los Angeles County. Whose Majority Is It, Really? The table below summarizes each system. The "Majority Winner?" column deserves a careful read, because not all majorities are created equal. Turnout matters.  A majority of 10% of registered voters is a very different thing from a majority of 75% of registered voters. One additional note: RCV's "final round majority" reflects votes from an election held during peak November turnout, with exhausted ballots averaging around 11% nationally. That means roughly 89% of all ballots cast are still participating in the decisive round, drawn from the full, high-turnout electorate. Every primary-based system, by contrast, filters the decisive vote through a smaller, less representative electorate at some stage. California Local Election Systems at a Glance System Standard Name Second Election? "Majority" Winner? Spring primary, November runoff only if needed Two-Round System / Contingent Majority Runoff Only if no majority in Round 1 Majority of primary voters. 2024 California primary turnout was less than 35% of registered voters . Most voters have no say if one candidate wins outright in the spring. Spring primary, November runoff always Non-Contingent Top-Two / Mandatory Runoff Always Majority of final-round voters in November. However, the two choices were pre-selected by a primary electorate of less than 35% of registered voters . One election, most votes wins Plurality / First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) Never No majority required at any stage. Winner can be elected with a minority of votes. Voters rank candidates, instant runoff Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) / Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) Never (it's instant) Majority of continuing ballots in final round. Less than 8% of RCV ballots are exhausted on average. Held on-cycle in November, so the overall participating electorate is the largest of any system (in 2024, Nov turnout was more than double that of the March primary). November first round, contingent runoff if needed On-Cycle Election with Contingent Runoff Only if needed Majority of runoff voters, but runoffs are typically held in December or January and participation typically declines by nearly 40% . Off-cycle single election Off-Cycle Plurality or Majority Election Sometimes Varies, but drawn from the smallest electorate of all. Off-cycle elections average 10-17% turnout and the trend is declining. The bottom line: If you care about how many of your neighbors actually get to decide who governs your city, RCV held on-cycle in November consistently involves the most voters in the decisive round. System 2 also uses a large November electorate for the final decision, but the choices available to those voters were narrowed to just two by a much smaller primary group. Systems 1, 5, and 6 all risk putting the decisive vote in the hands of a small, self-selected slice of the community. System 3 does not even require a majority at any stage. Understanding which system your city uses is the first step to knowing how much your vote really matters. Want to see your city adopt ranked choice voting? Learn How to Bring Ranked Choice Voting to Your City

Summary Democratic Party leaders are pressuring candidates to drop out to avoid vote-splitting that could send only Republicans to the November election The pressure campaign has sparked accusations of racism, as most candidates being asked to exit are people of color while the top three polling Democrats are white Letting party insiders narrow the field returns California to "smoke-filled room" politics that primaries were designed to eliminate The solution: Top-5 primary with ranked choice voting in November gives voters real choices while ensuring a majority-supported winner California Democratic Party leaders are trying to solve a math problem by taking choices away from voters. And the math problem is real. California's Top-2 primary sends only the top two candidates from the June open primary to the November general election. As of March 5, polls showed two conservative Republicans leading the field. The Problem Many prominent candidates are running for governor and splitting the vote: no one has more than 14%. What is likely to happen is that party insiders and supporters, such as the unions, will pressure candidates to drop out. That's not a primary. That's a return to the smoke-filled rooms that primaries were invented to replace. Voters deserve better. The party couldn't muster enough votes for any candidate to give them an endorsement at the Democratic convention, and the chair of the California Democratic party penned an open letter urging candidates who are less viable to drop out. The backlash was swift, and it cut deep. The Solution: Top 5 with a ranked choice runoff in November There is a tested fix: send more candidates to the general election. We could send the top 5 candidates to the general election, instead of just two. To avoid needing a third election for a runoff (if no one has a majority of the votes) the general election can use an instant runoff with ranked ballots (Ranked Choice Voting), as is done in several California cities (San Francisco, Eureka, Redondo Beach, Oakland, Berkeley, Albany, San Leandro). An instant runoff with ranked choice voting would eliminate the vote splitting, ensuring the November winner reflects voter preferences. Attempts to thin the herd At the California Democratic Party convention in San Francisco Feb. 20-22, the 3,200 delegates couldn't agree on a gubernatorial candidate to endorse. On March 3, California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hick published an open letter to the Democratic candidates urging them to drop out of the race if they "do not have a viable path to make it to the General Election." In other words, if you're not one of the leaders in the polls, drop out. This letter did not go over well with the candidates. Betty Yee issued a statement saying that "California voters have had enough" of "insider political theater" and "of the drama, the pollsters and the powerful elites." Tony Thurmond said he would not drop out, saying party leaders were "essentially telling every candidate of color in the race for governor to drop out." Those aren't just campaign talking points. They're a diagnosis of what's broken. Most of the candidates facing pressure to step aside are people of color. The three polling highest among Democrats are all white (Eric Swalwell, Tom Steyer, and Katie Porter). A primary system that produces that outcome isn't open. It's exclusive. Statewide race context In a state where voters registered as Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly two to one, losing the Governor's race to vote-splitting arithmetic would exclude the majority from meaningful participation. California Democrats enjoy an advantage in registered voters of 45% to 25% for Republicans (30% are "no party preference" or other parties). History of California Top Two Primary California ran closed, partisan primaries for over a century. Only party loyalists voted in them. The winners arrived in Sacramento polarized by design. California voters passed the top-two open primary system in 2010. The goal was right: push candidates toward coalitions, not just their base. And it has made progress. Yet when the system is over-run with candidates, it can have the opposite effect: it produces a fractured majority and two unrepresentative finalists. Between 2012 and 2024, 15.8% of races in districts and statewide had the top two candidates from the same party. This deprives the voters in the general election, which generally has twice the turnout as the primary, from having a real choice. California's top-two primary is billed as an open election where the two leading vote-getters advance to a high-turnout November general election. In practice, it's the opposite: a low-turnout general election in June, followed by a higher-turnout runoff in November. The low-turnout primary most often determines who will win. Top 5 and Ranked Choice Voting are tested and effective Alaska sends the four highest finishers in its nonpartisan primary on to the general election, all but ensuring that the general includes candidates from both parties and even independents or third-party hopefuls. Then, Alaska uses ranked choice voting in the general election to elect a majority winner. Four choices work for Alaska. California, with ten times the population and far greater political diversity, should offer five. The Alaska model has proven itself in a state with a real independent streak: Back in 2022, it produced an independent U.S. senator, a conservative governor and a Democratic congresswoman. Additional Benefits of Top Five and Ranked Choice Voting Sending the top 5 to the general election would have other benefits. By providing five candidates to the general election and running the general election with the instant runoff feature of ranked choice voting, vote-splitting in the general election no longer causes a candidate to lose. There can still be vote-splitting in the primary, but with five candidates advancing, the odds of a general election with no Democrat or no Republican are infinitesimal. Top 5 eliminates having low-turnout primaries determine a single viable choice. Not only statewide, but also in a majority-Democrat district or a majority-Republican district, the majority of voters in the general election will no longer just have one choice from their party. Top 5 gives third parties and independents a chance. For third-party candidates and independent candidates, not only do they have a pathway to the general election, the reluctance of voters to vote for them because of the spoiler effect is eliminated with Ranked Choice Voting. Research also shows RCV encourages more women and candidates of color to run. Conclusion Pressuring candidates out of a primary isn't leadership. It's gatekeeping. It's basically a return to selecting candidates in smoke-filled rooms, which primaries were designed to reform. No voter in a state of 40 million people should have their choices narrowed by a party letter or a union phone call. Going from two finalists up to five is a real and proven solution. It will make our elections more legitimate and give more Californians a genuine voice.

Summary California's Top-2 primary could produce a November ballot with only two Republicans for Governor, despite Democrats holding a 45% to 25% voter registration advantage Vote-splitting among multiple well-known Democratic candidates means no single candidate polls above 14%, while two Republicans lead with 16% and 15% The solution: Advance the top 5 candidates to November and use ranked choice voting for an instant runoff, eliminating vote-splitting and ensuring majority support for the winner Top-5 RCV is already proven in Alaska and multiple California cities, and 57 of 58 California counties have the voting equipment ready This November, California voters could arrive at the polls in November and find a Governor's race without a single Democrat on the ballot. California's open primary system sends only the top two candidates from the June primary to the November general election. As of March 5, an average of polls had two conservative Republicans in the lead: Riverside sheriff Chad Bianco with 16.3 percent, followed by Fox News contributor Steve Hilton with 15.3%. The Problem California Democrats enjoy an advantage in registered voters of 45% to 25% for Republicans (30% are "no party preference" or other parties). Democrats also have a wealth of well-known candidates running for Governor to replace termed-out Gavin Newsom. The number of well-known candidates is the problem: there is no clear front runner, and they are splitting the vast majority Democratic vote so that no one has more than 14%. This is a nightmare for every voter who expects November to mean something. It would leave voters selecting from two Republicans who potentially earned only about 30 percent of the primary vote combined. Most Californians would have had no say in choosing either of them. The Solution: Top 5 with a ranked choice runoff in November There is a proven fix: send more candidates to the general election. We could send the top 5 candidates to the general election, instead of just two. To avoid needing a 3rd election for a runoff or risk electing a non-majority winner, the general election can use an instant runoff with ranked ballots (Ranked Choice Voting), as is done in several California cities (San Francisco, Eureka, Redondo Beach and other cities), along with the states of Alaska and Maine. An instant runoff with ranked choice voting would eliminate the vote splitting, ensuring that the winner in November reflects the state's actual political preferences. History of California Top Two Primary California ran closed, partisan primaries for over a century. Only party loyalists voted in them. The winners arrived in Sacramento polarized by design, and governing together proved nearly impossible. California voters passed the top-two open primary system in 2010. The idea was sound: push candidates to build coalitions, not just fire up their base. And it has worked, sometimes. Yet when the system is over-run with candidates, it can have the opposite effect: producing a fractured majority and two unrepresentative finalists. Since "Top Two" was first used in 2012, California sends only the top two candidates from the open primary to the general election in November. Between 2012 and 2024, 15.8% (173 races out of a total 1,111 races in districts and statewide) had the top two candidates from the same party. This deprives the voters in the general election, which generally has twice the turnout as the primary, from having a real choice. Republicans shouldn't have to choose from only Democrats and vice-versa. California's top-two primary is billed as an open election where the two leading vote-getters advance to a high-turnout November general election. In practice, it's the opposite: a low-turnout general election in June, followed by a higher-turnout runoff in November. The low-turnout primary most often determines who will win. Top 5 and Ranked Choice Voting are tested and effective Alaska sends the four highest finishers in its nonpartisan primary onto the general election, all but ensuring that the general includes candidates from both parties and even independents or third-party hopefuls. Then, Alaska uses ranked choice voting in the general election to elect a majority winner. Four choices are great, but five would better capture our state's ideological and demographic diversity. The Alaska model has proven itself in a state with a real independent streak: Back in 2022, it produced an independent U.S. senator, a conservative governor and a Democratic congresswoman. Ranked choice voting, meanwhile, has proven itself in San Francisco, Oakland, Redondo Beach, and many other California cities, offering an "instant runoff" that produces a winner from a crowded field with both wide and deep support. California is ready to rank: 57 of California's 58 counties utilize voting systems capable of conducting ranked choice elections. Additional Benefits of Top Five and Ranked Choice Voting Sending the top 5 to the general election would have other benefits. By providing five candidates to the general election and running the general election with the instant runoff feature of ranked choice voting, vote-splitting in the general election no longer causes a candidate to lose. There can still be vote-splitting in the primary, but with five candidates advancing, the odds of a general election with no Democrat or no Republican are infinitesimal. Top 5 eliminates having low-turnout primaries determine a single viable choice. Not only statewide, but also in a majority-Democrat district or a majority-Republican district, the majority of voters in the general election will no longer just have one choice from their party. Top 5 gives third parties and independents a chance. For third-party candidates and independent candidates, not only do they have a pathway to the general election, the reluctance of voters to vote for them because of the spoiler effect is eliminated with Ranked Choice Voting. Research also shows RCV encourages more women and candidates of color to run. Conclusion Party insiders may yet get most candidates to drop out before the primary. But that's not a solution. It's a retreat. It's basically a return to selecting candidates in smoke-filled rooms, which primaries were designed to reform. California voters don't need party gatekeepers. They need a better system. Going from two finalists up to five is a tested, proven fix. It will make our elections more representative and give more Californians the voice they were promised.

In 2023, the people of Redondo Beach chose to eliminate costly, low-turnout runoff elections with Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), letting voters pick a majority winner in a single election, on a single day, at a fraction of the cost. Background Under the city’s old election system, if no candidate received more than 50% in Redondo Beach’s March general election, the top two candidates faced off again in a separate May runoff. Two elections. Two rounds of campaigning. Two sets of ballots, mailers, and elections staff hours billed to taxpayers. Ranked Choice Voting (also called instant runoff voting) eliminates that second election entirely. Instead of returning to the polls weeks later, voters rank their candidates in order of preference (1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd, and so on) in the original election. If no candidate reaches a majority, the last-place candidate is eliminated and their voters' ballots are counted toward their next choice. The process repeats until one candidate has a majority. It's a runoff — just instant, and built into the ballot itself. California's state election guidance describes instant runoff voting  as a method that "determines the winner in a single election and eliminates the need for separate run-off elections." What Problems Does This Address? Redondo Beach's runoff system wasn't just inconvenient. It was producing real democratic failures, and the city's elected leaders knew it. Runoffs cost a lot of money. Redondo Beach taxpayers paid nearly $300,000  to hold a citywide runoff election for mayor in 2013. City Clerk Eleanor Manzano told LAist  that "saving money was a big factor" in adopting RCV. Turnout collapses in the second round. When voters have to come back weeks later for a runoff, many don't. Analysis by local reform advocates found that turnout in delayed runoffs frequently fell by 25–30%  compared to the original March election — producing a "majority winner" who was really a majority of whoever showed up twice. That's not representative democracy. That's attrition. Runoffs get nastier. Former Councilmember Laura Emdee put it plainly: "Runoff elections are expensive and have historically been hostile."  When candidates are fighting for a shrinking pool of voters in a second election, the incentive shifts from coalition-building to contrast attacks. That erodes civic culture — and it wears voters out. Vote-splitting distorts results. In a crowded field, a candidate with narrow but intense support can win a plurality while the majority of voters preferred someone else. The old runoff system tried to fix this — but only after the damage of a second election, and only between the top two finishers, not the full field. How Did We Get Here? Redondo Beach is a charter city, which means it sets its own municipal election rules. For years, that meant a two-round runoff system baked into the city charter: if nobody clears 50% in March, the top two fight again in May. By the early 2020s, Redondo Beach's own city council had become convinced the system was failing the community. Councilmembers Laura Emdee, Christian Horvath, and Todd Loewenstein — along with then-Councilmember Nils Nehrenheim — publicly backed the switch, and the full council voted to refer the question to voters as Measure CA5 . This was elected leadership driving reform because they saw the need for change firsthand — not a ballot initiative from the outside. Cal RCV , the California Ranked Choice Voting Coalition founded in 2021 as a nonpartisan, grassroots-driven nonprofit, helped coordinate the campaign and provided critical statewide support and messaging. As Cal RCV co-founder Tom Charron noted  after the vote: "Redondo Beach voted overwhelmingly for better elections. Instead of expensive, low-turnout, and unrepresentative runoffs, RCV will give voters more choice and more voice in a single election." The result wasn't close: 7,623 "Yes" to 2,319 "No" — a 76.7% supermajority  in favor of RCV. Ballotpedia found no organized "No" campaign . Support crossed ideological and neighborhood lines — a genuine civic mandate. RCV in Action: The 2025 Election Redondo Beach made history on March 4, 2025 — becoming the first city in Los Angeles County  to use ranked choice voting in a municipal election. Voters ranked candidates for mayor, city attorney, and three city council districts (Districts 1, 2, and 4). The five-candidate mayoral race — featuring incumbent Jim Light, Councilmember Nils Nehrenheim, Joan Irvine, Jeff Ginsburg, and Georgette Gantner — required four rounds of RCV tabulation before a majority winner emerged: Round Light Nehrenheim Irvine Gantner Ginsburg 1 4,882 (44.1%) 3,236 1,194 915 843 2 5,016 3,384 1,486 1,017 — 3 5,203 3,546 1,908 — — 4 5,928 (59.4%) 4,053 — — — Source: Certified Results, City of Redondo Beach, March 4, 2025 Light won with a clear majority — 59.4% — without a separate runoff. In Council District 1, Brad Waller similarly emerged as the majority winner in a three-candidate race (against Rolf Strutzenberg and Darin King) after two rounds, with 52.17% of continuing ballots. Under the old system, both races would have triggered costly May runoffs between the top two first-round finishers. Instead, both were resolved in one election — precisely the efficiency that "instant runoff"  is designed to deliver. The numbers tell a clear story: Overall turnout: 22.72%  — virtually identical to the 22.4% turnout in March 2023, proving RCV neither suppressed participation nor added confusion at scale Runoff turnout: for the mayoral race specifically, decisive turnout was much higher than a traditional runoff would have produced. The final instant runoff round totaled 9,981 votes — just a 10% drop from the 11,070 cast in the first round. Under the old system, Redondo Beach's 2013 mayoral runoff saw turnout plummet by 30% , a pattern typical of runoffs held months after a general election. Had 2025 followed that same pattern, roughly 3,300 fewer voters would have had a say in who became mayor. Voter ease: 83% of voters said ranking was easy , in an exit poll by Lake Research Partners reported by LAist Support: 61% of voters expressed support  for the new system after using it Ballot errors: Less than 1%  of mayoral ballots contained ranking errors Audit integrity: A 1% manual tally exactly matched the machine count RCV Resource Center's Post-election Report on Redondo Beach's First Use of RCV Known Obstacles — and Why They're Surmountable "RCV is too confusing." This is the most common objection — and Redondo Beach answered it directly. With a robust voter education program (roughly $100,000 in outreach , including multiple mailers to every registered voter and community presentations), the city achieved an 83% ease rating and less than 1% ballot error rate. Voter confusion is a real planning challenge — not a reason to keep a broken system. State law constraints. Under current California law, only charter cities  can adopt RCV for municipal elections. General law cities — the majority of California's 482 municipalities — are currently blocked from doing so without state legislation. Expanding RCV access to general law cities is a key statewide advocacy priority. Upfront administrative costs. Redondo Beach's first RCV election cost roughly $462,950  — more than a standard municipal election, largely due to one-time software purchases and first-cycle outreach. But those are setup costs that amortize over time. Each runoff avoided going forward saves an estimated as much as $300,000 . The long-term math is straightforward. Political opposition after the fact. Following the 2025 election, the losing mayoral candidate criticized the new system on social media, claiming some voters were confused or sat out. The city's own turnout and ballot-error data directly contradicted those claims. More organized opposition had also attempted — before the election — to convince the council to switch to an untested alternative system; the council declined, having already implemented the system voters approved. Opposition is inevitable with any meaningful reform. The evidence from Redondo Beach's first election speaks for itself. Why This Matters for California Redondo Beach is the first LA County city  to use RCV in a county of over 10 million people — a milestone with real replicability. Cal RCV has demonstrated that voters consistently support this reform when it's explained clearly and championed by credible local leaders. Each new city adds to a growing body of real-world evidence — making the case to the next city that much easier to make. California is home to hundreds of charter cities that could adopt RCV today without waiting for Sacramento. And as the Redondo Beach model shows, the path from voter approval to working elections can happen in just two years, with a two-person clerk's office, certified vendors, and the political will to see it through. What Voters Can Do Learn more about how RCV works . Share Redondo Beach's story with neighbors and city council members — especially in charter cities that could act now Ask candidates in your city whether they support modernizing local elections with Ranked Choice Voting Stay engaged with Cal RCV. Subscribe  to our newsletter, and if you want to have more impact, donate  or volunteer . The reform is proven. The question now is whether California's other cities are ready to follow.

We’ve all been there: looking at a local election ballot and feeling like our vote is more of a "strategic calculation" than a true expression of our values. We worry about "split votes" or "spoilers," and sometimes it feels like the winners don’t actually represent the majority of the community. If you’re a fan of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), you already know the solution. You know that RCV creates fairer outcomes, encourages civil campaigning, and ensures winners have true broad-based support. But here is the big question: How do you actually get it passed in your hometown? You shouldn’t have to reinvent the wheel. That’s why we launched the RCV for Your City program—a step-by-step roadmap designed to turn local supporters into effective organizers, lobbyists, and campaigners. The Reality of the Journey First, a bit of "real talk" from our volunteers' decades of combined reform experience: Winning RCV is a marathon, not a sprint. It typically takes 2 to 5 years to get RCV on a local ballot. Luckily, once it's on the ballot, voters tend to support it. It often starts with one person (maybe you!) sitting at a kitchen table. But as you plug away, you gain allies, build a core team of volunteers, and eventually create a movement that your City Council cannot ignore. The impact? A permanently improved democracy for your neighbors and future generations. The Winning Strategy Our "RCV for Your City" program breaks the process down into manageable phases. Here is a glimpse of how we’ll help you win: Educate & Power Map : You don’t need to be a political strategist. We provide the slide decks, fact sheets, and "Power Mapping" tools to help you understand who holds influence in your city and how to reach them. Build Local Evidence : Every city has its own unique challenges with representation, turnout, fairness, election cost, etc. We help you look at past local results to show exactly how RCV would have solved specific problems in your community. Create a Consensus : This is the heart of the work. It’s about having coffees with community leaders, talking to community organizations, and engaging with allies like the League of Women Voters. It’s about building a coalition so strong that RCV becomes the obvious "common sense" choice. Engage City Hall : We provide training on the Brown Act (so you can navigate meetings like a pro) and help you approach city clerks and council members with confidence. You Don't Have to Do It Alone The most important rule of our program is this: If you feel blocked or frustrated, say something! Cal RCV provides a shared community and regular Zoom meetings where you can chat with coaches, get help with research, and connect with activists in other cities who are fighting the same battles. Whether you’re dealing with "it costs too much" objections or technical questions from your County Registrar, we have the battle-tested answers and the expert support to back you up. Ready to Lead the Charge? Your city is waiting for a better way to vote, and they’re waiting for someone to start the conversation. Why not you? Email us at info@calrcv.org and we'll get you connected with RCV for Your City volunteer coaches for an exploratory conversation.

How Proportional Ranked Choice Voting eliminates gerrymandering, preserves voter choice, and keeps elections fair for everyone. California's Conversation About Fair Representation With the passing of Proposition 50, California has entered a new phase in the long-running debate over gerrymandering and fair representation. Prop 50 temporarily hands redistricting power back to the Legislature—allowing elected officials to draw new congressional maps—after years of maps drawn by independent commissions. Supporters argued it was a necessary response to partisan gerrymanders in states like Texas. Critics warned it risked repeating the same mistakes. Either way, one thing is clear: as long as elections are built around single-winner districts, the fight over who draws the lines will never end. The Core Problem When politicians control how district lines are drawn, they can effectively choose their voters instead of voters choosing them. Even when well-intentioned, independent redistricting commissions can be pressured or captured by partisan interests. The incentives to interfere are enormous. Control of Congress can hinge on just a few boundary changes. That’s why every redistricting cycle, across the country, devolves into another round of “gerrymandering wars.” The Systemic Solution: Proportional Ranked Choice Voting Hypothetical congressional district map with Proportional RCV ​Proportional Ranked Choice Voting (PRCV) changes the incentives entirely. Instead of fighting over maps, it makes district lines irrelevant by ensuring representation reflects how people actually vote. How it works: Voters rank candidates in order of preference. Multiple representatives are elected in each larger district. Seats are allocated in proportion to the votes cast. If 60% of voters lean one way and 40% another, each side elects roughly that share of representatives.   What this means: Gerrymandering becomes ineffective — no one can draw away someone's fair share. Every voter helps elect a representative they support. Representation mirrors the diversity of California's communities and views. At the national level, the Fair Representation Act would apply this model to congressional elections, eliminating gerrymandering from federal elections once and for all. Because it would apply across all 50 states, there would be no more tit-for-tat redrawing to advantage one party or the other.​ ​ What Real Fairness Looks Like  Under PRCV, fairness isn't about which party draws the maps. It's about making every voice count. Conservative voters in deep-blue coastal areas would help elect candidates who share their values Progressive and independent voters in rural counties would have a voice in regions now represented only by Republicans Communities of color could reliably elect candidates of choice without needing special district carve-outs Lawmakers would represent broader coalitions of voters—not just their party's safest districts In short: PRCV protects representation for everyone, permanently.  How PRCV Ends Gerrymandering's Grip PRCV eliminates gerrymandering incentives by shrinking the number of district lines to draw and making remaining boundaries irrelevant. Seats are awarded proportionally within each district, so the gerrymandering tactics of packing or cracking fail to skew results. In multi-member setups, every district becomes competitive, as parties and independents earn fair shares regardless of map shapes. A Proven System, Ready for California Proportional Ranked Choice Voting isn't theoretical—it's been successfully used for over 100 years in countries like Ireland, Australia, and Malta. In the United States, Portland, Oregon adopted PRCV in 2022 with 58% voter support. Cambridge, Massachusetts has used it successfully for decades.  Research demonstrates PRCV's benefits: Over 90% of voters help elect one of their top three choices Women and people of color gain better representation Voter turnout increases by 5-7 percentage points Districts become more competitive and elections more meaningful Communities of color secure fair representation without relying solely on majority-minority districts   Leading political scientists support this reform, with over 200 scholars signing an open letter calling winner-take-all single-member districts "fundamentally broken" and advocating for proportional representation in multi-member districts. The Fair Representation Act, introduced in Congress, would implement this system for the U.S. House of Representatives. California has already led the nation in adopting Ranked Choice Voting for local elections, with cities around the state using single-winner RCV or PRCV. The next step—expanding to proportional systems for state and federal offices—would give California the most representative, gerrymandering-proof elections in the nation. The California RCV Institute is a 501(c)(3) educational nonprofit organization. We did not take a position for or against Proposition 50. Our mission is to educate the public about voting systems that promote fair representation and stronger democracy.

Cal RCV supports national legislation that would modernize U.S. House elections by replacing single-winner districts with multi-member districts elected by proportional ranked choice voting. Why This Is Important The Fair Representation Act (FRA) would fundamentally transform how Americans elect their representatives to Congress. This federal reform offers California voters a rare opportunity: a single legislative change that would address multiple democratic crises simultaneously. Today, millions of Americans live in districts where November is a formality and the real fight is a low-turnout primary. Under current rules, most voters either live in a district that's safe for their preferred party, making their vote redundant, or in a district dominated by the opposing party, making their vote futile. That is a recipe for extreme candidates, ideological purity tests, and representatives who fear a primary challenge more than they value problem-solving. What the Fair Representation Act Does The Fair Representation Act would change how we elect the U.S. House of Representatives by instituting: Multi-Member Districts: Combining small districts into larger ones that elect three to five representatives at once. Ranked Choice Voting: Allowing you to rank candidates in order of preference (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.). Proportional Outcomes: Seats are distributed based on share of the vote. If a group of voters makes up roughly 17% of a five-seat district, they can earn one seat—instead of "winner-take-all." In plain English: fewer wasted votes, fewer “foregone conclusion” races, and more communities actually represented. The Act also requires Ranked Choice Voting for Senate elections. The Act allows states to continue holding primaries if they choose, but primaries are optional. The key is that final winners are determined by the general election using proportional ranked choice voting, ensuring all voters—not just primary voters—have a voice in who gets elected. What Problems Does This Address? Gerrymandering is Virtually Eliminated When districts elect multiple representatives proportionally, manipulating district lines becomes exceedingly difficult and practically impossible for 3- or 5-member districts. A party with 40% support in a multi-member district wins roughly 40% of the seats, regardless of how boundaries are drawn. California voters witnessed this partisan gerrymandering warfare escalate in 2025, when voters passed, and the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, a constitutional amendment to counter Trump administration efforts to "rig" elections in Texas and other Republican-controlled states. The Fair Representation Act would replace these state-by-state battles with one national standard. It would also ban mid-decade redistricting. Every Vote Counts Today, most voters live in gerrymandered districts where the outcome is predetermined, or their vote is futile because they support the minority party. Multi-member proportional districts make every vote meaningful. If your first choice doesn't reach the winning threshold, and all seats have not been filled, your vote transfers to your next choice through ranked choice voting. Vote splitting between similar candidates is also avoided. If any winning candidate earns more votes than the threshold, the surplus votes are transferred to those voters’ next choices. Whether you're a Republican in Berkeley, a Democrat in Orange County's conservative areas, or a third party supporter anywhere, your vote can help elect someone who represents your views. Alternative Parties Become More Viable A third party candidate who can win approximately 17% support in a five-seat district would earn a seat—something impossible in single-winner districts where third parties are dismissed as "spoilers." This doesn't mean Democrats and Republicans would disappear; it means the political spectrum would better reflect the actual diversity of American viewpoints. One National Standard The Fair Representation Act would establish uniform rules for congressional elections nationwide, ending the current arms race where partisan state legislatures gerrymander whenever possible. Every state would use the same system: multi-member districts with ranked choice voting. Partisan Divides Proportional representation would create incentives for less extreme candidates within both parties. When you need to appeal beyond a narrow primary electorate to win 20-30% of a multi-member district, inflammatory rhetoric becomes counterproductive. The system rewards candidates who can build broader coalitions. Background: How We Got Here Multi-member districts are rooted in American history. In the early 19th century, many states used them to elect their House delegations. However, these were often "at-large" winner-take-all blocks, allowing a slim majority to sweep 100% of a state's seats. Congress passed the Uniform Congressional District Act of 1967 to mandate single-member districts and stop this practice. But in the decades since, single-member districts have been abused, becoming a vehicle for gerrymandering and polarization. The Fair Representation Act is the 21st-century evolution: it returns to larger districts but adds ranked choice voting to ensure representation is proportional and fair, not winner-take-all. Why This Matters for California California's congressional delegation is often flattened into red-blue caricatures by district lines that suppress internal diversity. Proportional representation would finally allow the state's full political spectrum to be heard. Representation for All Californians Under the current system, millions of Californians have no meaningful voice in Congress because they don't align with their district's majority. Proportional representation changes this fundamentally. Republicans in the Bay Area, Democrats in conservative-leaning regions, Libertarians, Greens, and independents—all would have the opportunity to elect representatives who actually share their views. In a five-seat district covering diverse communities, a majority of the voters will get a majority of the seats — but not all the seats. This means multiple perspectives can gain representation in the same district, rather than the current winner-take-all approach that silences substantial portions of the electorate. The National Context California's shift to proportional representation wouldn't happen in isolation. The same reform would apply nationwide, ending gerrymandering in states where it currently distorts representation far more severely than in California. Our independent redistricting commission already limits manipulation here, but many states have no such safeguards. A national standard for fair representation benefits democracy everywhere. California would gain more authentic representation of its internal diversity, while the nation as a whole would gain a Congress that better reflects actual voter preferences rather than gerrymandered maps. Leadership in Democracy Innovation California has pioneered election reforms—from our independent redistricting commission to ranked choice voting in multiple cities. Supporting the Fair Representation Act continues this leadership, demonstrating that the goal is fair representation for all viewpoints, not partisan advantage. California members of Congress can champion a reform that puts democratic principles ahead of party calculations, showing the rest of the country that structural fairness matters more than gaming the system for temporary gain. Video: What proportional representation maps could look like for California Known Obstacles The Fair Representation Act faces real challenges. Most current House members won their seats under the existing system, and many represent safe seats. Asking them to vote for a system that might make reelections more competitive requires political courage. The bill currently sits in committee with no scheduled vote. Implementation requires states to redraw congressional maps, potentially upgrade voting equipment, and conduct voter education. The Act addresses these concerns with transition provisions and funding, phasing in implementation of House multi-member districts for elections after the next census. Some critics raise constitutional questions, though legal scholars generally agree Congress has broad authority to regulate congressional elections. The bill includes exceptions where multi-member districts might diminish voting rights protections under federal law. What Happens If We Do Nothing The next redistricting cycle will bring another round of partisan map manipulation. Polarization will deepen as safe seats encourage extremism. Third parties will remain trapped. Voters will grow more cynical. The Supreme Court has shown it will not stop partisan gerrymandering and may further weaken Voting Rights Act protections. Only federal legislation can establish permanent, nationwide standards for fair representation. What Success Looks Like Imagine a California where Republicans in the Bay Area and Democrats in the Central Valley have representatives who reflect their views. Imagine elections where Green Party and Libertarian candidates with genuine community support can win seats. Imagine a House of Representatives where members must build coalitions because no single party can gerrymander its way to a permanent majority. That's what the Fair Representation Act would deliver: not a utopia, but a more functional, representative, and legitimate Congress. What Voters Can Do California voters should urge their members of Congress to support the Fair Representation Act and push for hearings and votes. This isn't about helping one party win—it's about building a democracy where every vote counts, every community gets representation, and Congress reflects the American people's diverse viewpoints. California has shown what's possible through good-government reforms. Now we need to take that fight to Washington and demand the same fair representation for every American.

Santa Clara County just spent $13.1 million on a single runoff election, held on December 30, when half the voters who participated two months earlier couldn't make it back to the polls. The Board of Supervisors has the authority to fix it today, and every day they wait risks costing millions more. The Problem On December 30, 2025, Santa Clara County held a special runoff for county assessor that cost about $13.1 million; combined with the November special election, total costs are projected at roughly $26 million for a single county office. That money could instead support clinic hours, social workers, and community safety programs that are currently squeezed by budget cuts. Turnout in the runoff was around 20 percent, a drop of about 53 percent from the first round . In other words, more than half of the voters who weighed in the first time effectively had no say in the final outcome. These patterns are not unique to Santa Clara County; off‑cycle and special elections around the country routinely produce older, whiter, and more affluent electorates, while younger voters and people of color tend to participate at lower rates, deepening representation gaps that already show up in major elections. The reality is people are busy with work, school, and taking care of family members. Holding a second, low-turnout runoff election virtually guarantees that the final decision is made by a narrower, less representative slice of the county. The Solution: Ranked Choice Voting in Special Elections Ranked choice voting (RCV), lets voters rank candidates in order of preference on a single ballot. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, an instant runoff happens by reallocating backup rankings until someone passes 50 percent, eliminating the need for a separate runoff weeks or months later. Santa Clara County voters actually approved the use of RCV (also called instant runoff voting) in 1998 via Measure F , but implementation stalled for years while officials waited on capable voting equipment. In 2023, the state Legislature passed AB 1227 , which explicitly authorizes the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to adopt RCV for county offices, including special elections. The county’s voting system can now support RCV, and cities around the Bay Area (including Oakland, San Francisco, Berkeley, San Leandro, and others) have been running RCV elections for years. What’s missing is not legal authority or technology; it’s a Board decision to actually turn on the system voters asked for more than two decades ago. Why Runoffs Are So Wasteful and Unrepresentative Special elections are often off‑cycle, which means they get less media coverage, fewer resources for outreach, and lower overall turnout than November general elections. When you layer a contingent runoff on top of that (requiring voters to vote a second time) turnout typically drops further, with the steepest declines in lower-turnout communities and among younger and Latino voters. Research on youth and Latino participation shows persistent turnout gaps even in high‑profile contests, and those gaps widen when the election is low‑salience or poorly timed. In the December 30 runoff, these structural problems were amplified by the calendar: election administrators and local reporters noted that the timing fell squarely during holiday travel and year‑end obligations, with campaigns scrambling to reach voters who were distracted or out of town. The result is a vicious cycle in which the communities with the most at stake, particularly younger residents, renters, and communities of color, have the least influence over who manages billions of dollars in public resources. An instant runoff would eliminate the problem of trying to schedule both the special election and a possible runoff within the statutory-required periods while avoiding holidays. Cost and Voter Understanding: Common Objections Answered Santa Clara County’s Registrar of Voters has already modeled the costs of RCV implementation, estimating roughly $2.7 million in one‑time voter education and a bit over $1 million in incremental costs per special election (see p. 228 of this agenda packet ). That is a fraction of the $13.1 million price tag for just one runoff—and unlike runoff spending, education and system upgrades build lasting capacity that carries forward to future contests. Critics sometimes say voters will not understand RCV, but real‑world experience suggests otherwise. Bay Area cities that use RCV report that voters adapt quickly and often feel more empowered to support their true first choice without “wasting” their vote. A 2024 EMC Research poll commissioned by Cal RCV found that 64 percent of likely Santa Clara County voters support using ranked choice voting in countywide and local elections , with strong backing across racial groups; in Bay Area cities that already use RCV, more than 90 percent of voters say they understand it and majorities want to keep it. Santa Clara County RCV Poll Results. Click for details. Why Santa Clara County Is Uniquely Positioned to Act Few places have as clean a path to reform as Santa Clara County. Voters approved instant runoff voting in 1998, the Legislature has now passed a special statute (AB 1227) empowering the Board to implement RCV for county offices and special elections, and the voting equipment is certified to run RCV contests. Meanwhile, neighboring jurisdictions like Oakland and San Francisco have shown that RCV can replace expensive, low‑turnout runoffs while maintaining or improving voter understanding and representation. If the Board of Supervisors takes up this authority and adopts an RCV ordinance for special elections, the next vacancy would be filled in a single, higher‑turnout election rather than two rounds with shrinking participation. If they do nothing, taxpayers will keep paying for off‑cycle “do‑over” elections, and the same skewed turnout patterns will continue to sideline communities already fighting for a real voice in county government. What You Can Do Next Adopting RCV for special elections does not require a new ballot measure; it requires the Board of Supervisors to use the authority that voters granted in 1998 and the Legislature reaffirmed in 2023. Residents can email, call, or speak at Board meetings to urge supervisors to support an RCV ordinance for special elections, citing the $13.1 million price tag of the December runoff, the 53 percent turnout drop, and strong local support for RCV. For more detail and resources you can share with neighbors, reporters, and elected officials, see: Read Cal RCV co‑founder Tom Charron’s op‑ed on why it’s time for Santa Clara County to adopt ranked choice voting . Learn more about how ranked choice voting works and where it’s used. Review AB 1227, the 2023 legislation that authorizes Santa Clara County to implement RCV .

A new assessment from the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center reveals that California is well-positioned to implement ranked choice voting (RCV) statewide, with 98% of counties already using RCV-capable voting equipment.​ Current State of RCV Readiness The comprehensive 2025 assessment categorizes California as "Prepping for RCV," indicating that while substantial progress has been made, some work remains before the state is fully ready for statewide implementation. Currently, 57 of California's 58 counties—containing 74.66% of registered voters—use voting systems capable of conducting RCV elections. Only Los Angeles County, with its custom VSAP system, currently lacks built-in RCV functionality, though the technology theoretically exists to add this capability.​ Six California cities already use RCV for local offices: Albany, Berkeley, Oakland, Redondo Beach, San Francisco, and San Leandro. These jurisdictions provide valuable case studies for statewide implementation, demonstrating that California election officials have hands-on experience with RCV administration.​ Voting System Landscape California's voting infrastructure includes equipment from multiple vendors, each with varying levels of RCV capability. Dominion voting systems, used in 39 counties, can design, process, and count both single-winner and proportional RCV ballots. ES&S equipment, deployed in five counties, can capture RCV ballot data, though the round-by-round counting requires third-party software like RCTab. Hart systems, used in 13 counties including Redondo Beach's RCV elections, can also capture RCV ballots but need external tabulation software for final results.​ Key Implementation Considerations The report identifies several critical areas that would require attention for statewide RCV implementation:​ Voter Education : Successful RCV implementation demands comprehensive voter education campaigns coordinated among election officials, candidates, civic organizations, and advocacy groups. Voters need to understand both how to mark their ballots and how votes are counted, with education efforts intensifying as Election Day approaches.​ Ballot Design : RCV ballots require more space than traditional ballots and must include clear instructions. California counties could use either grid-style or column-style ballot layouts, depending on their voting systems. Best practices recommend providing voters with 5-8 rankings, though voters aren't required to rank all candidates.​ Results Centralization : Producing round-by-round RCV results requires centralizing cast vote records from across the jurisdiction. This can be accomplished through physical transportation of digital storage devices or secure digital file transfer protocols. Best practice is to release preliminary round-by-round results on election night, with updates as more ballots are counted.​ Testing and Certification : California requires voting systems to undergo rigorous state certification, which is both expensive and time-consuming. However, the Secretary of State's office has already tested and certified multiple RCV-capable systems, demonstrating experience with this process.​ Looking Forward While no state is fundamentally incapable of implementing RCV due to its election infrastructure, California's existing foundation of modern, RCV-capable equipment and hands-on experience in multiple jurisdictions positions it favorably for expansion. The report emphasizes that election administrators have repeatedly proven adept at implementing necessary changes, and RCV is no exception.​ The assessment serves as a valuable resource for California policymakers, election officials, and advocates considering RCV legislation. With 98% of counties already equipped with capable technology and a growing number of successful local implementations, California has built a strong foundation for potential statewide ranked choice voting. Read the full report from the RCV Resource Center: For those interested in more detailed technical analysis or specific county assessments, the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center offers additional support and documentation.