Search this site

San Jose voters will decide in March 2028 whether to use ranked choice voting for special elections. The City Council sent the measure to the ballot on June 23, 2026. By replacing a costly two-round process with a single election, RCV would save taxpayers about $1.5 million every time a special election would have gone to a runoff, while giving diverse communities a fairer shot. Take Action Now: Sign up as a San Jose supporter to help us win in March 2028. San Jose has a real opportunity in front of it. On June 23, 2026, the City Council voted 8-2 to put ranked choice voting for special elections before voters in March 2028. Now it is up to San Jose voters, and the case for voting yes is about as strong as a reform case gets. Cheaper elections. Faster results. A majority winner every time. Better representation for the communities that get squeezed out by vote splitting. Strong support from across the political spectrum in the polling. San Jose is California's third-largest city, in a county where the public approved RCV back in 1998. Bringing ranked choice voting to San Jose for special elections would be a substantial win, and it puts the city on a path toward eventually using RCV for regular Council and mayoral elections too, which is what residents have already said they want. In 2021, San Jose's own Charter Review Commission, the first in 35 years, recommended ranked choice voting for city elections. Read the Commission's final report; the RCV recommendation starts on page 38 of the PDF. Here's what's on the table, what it would do, and what San Jose residents can do to make sure it passes in March 2028. The Opportunity In March 2028, San Jose voters will decide on a charter amendment that authorizes the city to use ranked choice voting for special elections to fill City Council vacancies. It mandates nothing. It gives the Council a third option alongside appointment and the existing two-round runoff. Today, when a Council seat becomes vacant between regular elections, San Jose holds a special election. If no candidate wins more than 50 percent of the vote, the city has to run a second election, a runoff election between the top two finishers, weeks or months after the first one. That costs money, takes time, and often brings out fewer voters than the first round. Ranked choice voting, sometimes called instant runoff voting, replaces that two-step process with one election. Voters rank candidates in order of preference: first, second, third, and so on. If no one wins a majority of first choices, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and those ballots are counted for their next ranked choice. The process repeats until one candidate has a majority. One election, one winner with majority support, no second trip to the polls. That's it. Same ballot box, same day, same voters, just a smarter way to count. What Problems Does This Address? Ranked choice voting saves San Jose taxpayers $1.5 million every time a special election would have gone to a runoff. In 2025, the District 3 special election went to a runoff after the first round didn't produce a majority winner. The first round cost the city around $2.1 million. The runoff cost another $1.5 million. Ranked choice voting would have settled the contest in the first round and saved the city that entire second bill. And special elections in San Jose nearly always need a runoff. Since 2000, there have been six special elections to fill vacancies in San Jose, and five of them went to a runoff. Special elections almost always have large fields of candidates, because there's no incumbent, and large fields almost never produce a majority winner in a single round. That makes the savings predictable. The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters estimates the incremental cost of running a ranked choice election for a single Council district at about $330,000, mostly for voter education and ballot printing. Compared to $1.5 million for a runoff, that's well over a million dollars in net savings per special election. A citywide ranked choice voting special election to fill a mayoral vacancy would save substantially more. Ranked choice voting produces winners chosen by more voters. Runoff elections often draw fewer voters than the first round, sometimes dramatically fewer. The decisive election, the one that actually picks the officeholder, ends up being decided by a smaller, less representative slice of the district. Ranked choice voting fixes that by making the first and only election the decisive one, with the full field of candidates on the ballot at the moment turnout is highest. Ranked choice voting expands representation for communities of color. This is the part that matters most. When a special election draws a crowded field, candidates from the same community, the same neighborhood, the same coalition, can end up splitting the vote among themselves. A district that's overwhelmingly Asian American, Latino, or working-class can end up with a runoff between two candidates none of those communities prefer, simply because their preferred candidates split the first-round vote and got knocked out. Ranked choice voting solves this directly. Voters can support their first choice without worrying about throwing their vote away, because if their first choice doesn't make it, their ballot counts for their next choice. Candidates from similar coalitions can cross-endorse each other and campaign cooperatively instead of attacking each other. The results back it up: in California cities that have used ranked choice voting, candidates of color have won 64% of races, compared to 36% in the same cities before ranked choice voting. Women have won 44% of races, a ten-point increase. Ranked choice voting produces winners with broad support. When a candidate wins with 31 percent of the vote in a seven-way race, or makes a runoff because the rest of the field split their support, residents are right to wonder whether the result reflects what the district actually wanted. Ranked choice voting produces winners with broad support, every time. An average of 73% of voters rank winning candidates in their top three choices, meaning winners have affirmative support from roughly three-quarters of their constituents. That's a more legitimate result, and a more durable one. Why Single-Election RCV Is the Right Fit for Local Races For a single-seat local race, ranked choice voting is the right answer. One election. Full field. A majority winner. The work the two-round runoff was trying to do, ensuring the winner has majority support and giving voters a real choice when no one has it on the first ballot, all of it gets done in a single round, at lower cost, with higher turnout in the decisive election. California has been demonstrating this for more than twenty years. Ranked choice voting was first used in California in 2004 in San Francisco. Since then, it has expanded to Albany, Berkeley, Eureka, Oakland, Redondo Beach, and San Leandro. Two decades in, the evidence is in: ranked choice voting has saved California cities $5 million per election cycle, increased participation in decisive elections, and produced more representative outcomes. Voter satisfaction in Bay Area cities that use RCV runs from 70% in San Leandro to 84% in Berkeley. 92% of voters in these cities say they understand ranked choice voting well, which is higher than the share who say they understand California's top-two primary. The county is moving in the same direction. Santa Clara County voters approved ranked choice voting in 1998 with Measure F, amending the county charter to permit an "instant run-off voting system… when such technology is available." That technology now exists. The voting equipment already supports ranked choice voting. It's the same software used in San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Albany and San Leandro. San Jose voters are ready. In late 2023, an EMC Research poll of San Jose voters found 63% strongly or somewhat support using ranked choice voting for City Council and mayoral elections, with 35% opposed. A net 28-point margin. Support held across demographic groups and was particularly strong among Asian American and Latino voters, the communities most affected by vote splitting. A yes vote reflects what San Jose residents already want. Known Obstacles, and Why They're Surmountable Voter education is the work, and it pays off. Voters who haven't ranked candidates before need a clear explanation of how it works. Every successful ranked choice voting rollout, in California cities, in Maine, in Alaska, in roughly 50 jurisdictions nationally, has paired the change with a serious public education effort. The $330,000 implementation cost cited above includes that voter outreach. It's built into the budget. The reassuring part: voters figure it out fast, and they love it once they've used it. 92% of voters in Bay Area RCV cities say they understand the system well. 70% want to keep using it. And 42% want to expand it to additional elections like statewide and federal offices. That last number is the one to sit with. Once voters experience ranked choice voting, a large share of them want more of it. The measure pays for itself the first time it's used. The Council placed it on the regularly scheduled March 2028 primary ballot to keep costs down. San Jose has held six special elections since 2000, and five went to a runoff. Vacancies will keep coming, and the first special election held with RCV recovers the cost and then some. The equity-based critiques don't hold up. Some opponents have argued that ranked choice voting disadvantages lower-income and more diverse precincts, pointing to higher ballot error rates in those precincts in RCV cities. The argument doesn't survive scrutiny: those same precincts have higher error rates in every kind of election, ranked or not. The honest interpretation is that those communities need more investment in voter outreach across the board. The actual data on RCV outcomes points the other way: ranked choice voting has expanded representation for Asian American and Latino candidates in the California cities that have adopted it. What Success Looks Like Picture the next San Jose special election under ranked choice voting. A Council seat opens. Voters get a single ballot with the full field of candidates and rank as many or as few as they want. The count produces a majority winner. No second campaign. No second taxpayer bill. The community's actual preferences, including the preferences of voters whose first choices didn't make the final round, all show up in the result. San Jose residents would join a generation of California voters who use ranked choice voting and report high satisfaction with it. The city would join the column of California RCV cities that have demonstrated the reform's benefits. And the conversation about bringing ranked choice voting to regular Council and mayoral elections, which 63% of San Jose voters already support, would have a foundation under it. Voters who've used ranked choice voting and seen it work tend to want more of it. That's been the consistent pattern, in every California city that's adopted RCV. What San Jose Residents Can Do The Council did its part. On June 23, it sent ranked choice voting for special elections to the March 2028 ballot. Now San Jose voters decide. Most voters have never heard much about ranked choice voting. Voter education is the single biggest factor in whether this passes, and it takes people in every Council district talking to their neighbors. Sign up as a San Jose supporter. We'll keep you posted on events, volunteer opportunities, and the campaign as March 2028 gets closer. It takes about a minute. The policy is sound. The cost is recovered the first time it's used. The public supports it nearly two to one. The voting equipment already supports it. The state has authorized it. The Council opened the door. In March 2028, San Jose voters get to walk through it.

Summary Los Angeles's outdated election system breeds low turnout, wasted votes, and corruption rooted in the dynamics of contingent top-two elections. Simply expanding the council without changing how elections work will not fix those problems. Single-winner Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), recommended by the Charter Reform Commission, is a meaningful step forward. It eliminates primaries, moves all elections to high-turnout November, saves millions in taxpayer dollars, and ensures winners have genuine majority support. Proportional Ranked Choice Voting (PRCV) in multi-member districts would go even further, allowing multiple communities within the same district to each elect a representative. Portland adopted PRCV in 2024 and immediately elected its most diverse council in history, with 87% of voters helping elect at least one candidate they ranked. Update, October 2026: The City Council did not send RCV to voters this year. It created an Ad Hoc Committee on Charter Reform, which began a year-long review on September 30, 2026 and is expected to take up election reform in spring and summer 2027. Cal RCV is pushing the committee to recommend the reform for the 2028 ballot. Sign up below to stay informed and be ready to act when the committee takes up election reform. Los Angeles has a rare opportunity at meaningfully improving its democracy. The city's Charter Reform Commission (CRC) has taken a historic step, recommending that LA implement ranked choice voting and expand the City Council to better serve its nearly four million residents. Cal RCV celebrates that decision. To achieve the gold standard of representative democracy, Los Angeles should pair council expansion with multi-member districts elected by Proportional Ranked Choice Voting (PRCV). The Charter Reform Commission did not vote to recommend PRCV — but Cal RCV believes the case for it remains compelling, and we will continue advocating for it as the City Council considers what to place before voters. PRCV is not a radical idea. It is the proven path to making City Hall reflect the city it serves. In summer 2026, the City Council chose not to put either reform on the November ballot. It sent RCV and council expansion to a new Ad Hoc Committee on Charter Reform for further study, with 2028 as the next opportunity. Cal RCV urges the committee, and then the full Council, to give voters the chance to adopt multi-member districts with PRCV. Failing that, voters should at least get to choose single-winner ranked choice voting. Single-winner RCV is a meaningful improvement over the current system and will have a very positive impact. PRCV would go even further. These reforms give Los Angeles the most inclusive, representative, and accountable City Council in the nation. Show Your Support for Better Elections in LA What Is Ranked Choice Voting, and What Is PRCV? Ranked choice voting (RCV) is a simple upgrade to how we vote. Instead of picking just one candidate, voters rank them in order of preference: first choice, second choice, third choice, and so on. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their votes transfer to those voters' next choice. This continues until one candidate earns a majority. Proportional ranked choice voting (PRCV) takes the same idea and applies it to districts that elect multiple representatives. In a three-seat district, the threshold to win is 25% plus one vote. If a candidate receives more votes than that threshold, their surplus votes transfer to the next preferences on their supporters' ballots. If no one hits the threshold, the lowest vote-getter is eliminated and their votes transfer. The process repeats until three candidates have each reached the threshold and are declared winners. The result is that instead of one community winning everything and everyone else losing, multiple communities within the same district can each elect a representative who reflects their values. You can watch a clear visual explanation of how PRCV works from More Equitable Democracy here: You can also see how Portland's specific PRCV system works from Rose City Reform here: https://youtu.be/9iZLW8FzUxQ What Problems Do These Reforms Address? Zero-sum elections pit communities against each other In a single-seat, winner-take-all district, one community wins and everyone else loses. Los Angeles has substantial Black (11% of citizen voting age population), AAPI (12%), Latino (37%), and White (37%) communities, and the current election system forces those groups into direct, "if you win, I lose" competition. When only one side can win, there is constant incentive to draw district lines to lock in your group's advantage and lock others out. That zero-sum dynamic is not an accident of bad actors. It is built into the structure of the current system. Low-turnout primaries decide most elections Since 2020, nearly 60% of LA City Council races have been decided in low-turnout primary elections rather than in November general elections, when turnout is highest and the electorate most diverse. In 2024, White voters made up 48% of primary voters despite representing just 32% of the voting population. Latino voter participation was significantly lower in primaries than in general elections. The decisions that matter most are being made in elections where protected communities are systematically underrepresented. Concentrated power breeds corruption When a single council member is the sole political authority over a district representing 260,000 people, accountability is weak and the temptation for abuse is strong. Between 2020 and 2024, three LA councilmembers were jailed and another was indicted on felony charges. The 2022 "Fed Tapes" scandal, in which recordings captured council members using racist language while discussing how to manipulate the redistricting process for political gain, was the most visible symptom of a deeper structural disease. Multi-member districts reduce the concentration of power in any one person's hands, diffusing authority and increasing accountability. Wasted votes In Los Angeles' current system, 30%-49% of votes cast within a council district do not help elect anyone. In Portland's first PRCV election in 2024, 87% of voters helped elect at least one candidate they ranked. The difference is structural: proportional systems are designed to minimize wasted votes. AAPI and Black communities are structurally excluded The data is stark. Researchers at More Equitable Democracy used GerryChain, an academic redistricting simulation tool, to generate 10,000 random maps across every council expansion scenario from 23 to 33 single-seat districts. The findings were consistent across every scenario: Racial Group Seats of Influence: Single-Seat Districts Seats of Influence: 3-Seat PRCV Districts Asian Americans & Pacific Islanders 0 to 1 4 to 5 Black 1 to 2 3 to 4 Latino 13 to 18 Roughly stable White 11 to 15 Roughly stable Even when drawing maps that maximally packed AAPI voters into the fewest possible districts in a 33-seat scenario, the best achievable AAPI concentration in any single district was 41%, still surrounded by substantial Latino and White populations, with no guarantee of electing a candidate of their choice. For Black voters, the best-case scenario produced three districts capped at 46% Black, each simultaneously 43 to 50% Latino. The conclusion is not that LA's Black and AAPI communities lack political presence. They are major forces in this city. The current system structurally prevents their representation, and simply adding more single-seat districts will not fix that. Three Crucial Reforms for Three Problems Los Angeles is debating several reforms at once, and each one addresses a different weakness in the current system. Expand the City Council so residents have more representatives. Adopt ranked choice voting so elections are decided in one high-turnout election instead of costly and unrepresentative contingent top-two elections. Adopt multi-member districts, making RCV proportional, so more communities can elect candidates who represent them. Together these reforms can create a city government that is more representative, more efficient, and more trusted. Background: How We Got Here Los Angeles has had 15 city council seats since 1925, when the city's population was a fraction of what it is today. The current system of single-seat districts has produced recurring redistricting wars, because in a winner-take-all world, every district line drawn is a high-stakes political battle over who gains representation and who does not. The California Voting Rights Act (CVRA), passed in 2001, attempted to address the worst abuses of this system by giving racial minorities the right to elect or influence candidates of their choice in local elections. Since then, the CVRA has compelled over 190 changes from at-large to single-seat district elections across California. But in a city as diverse as Los Angeles, with three major protected-class communities each geographically dispersed, the single-seat district remedy creates its own zero-sum problem. Protecting one community's representation can come at the expense of another's. In October 2022, the Fed Tapes scandal made that dynamic impossible to ignore. In response, LA voters approved Measure DD in November 2024, creating a new Independent Redistricting Commission. That was a necessary step, but it does not change the underlying math. Even a perfectly neutral commission drawing lines in good faith cannot make a winner-take-all system proportional. Someone still wins everything and everyone else still loses. Other cities have already shown the way forward. Portland, Oregon amended its city charter in 2022 to adopt four three-seat PRCV districts. In its first 2024 election, Portland's council became half women, with five members of color, four LGBTQ+ members, three renters, and members from 12 different neighborhoods, including the first millennials ever elected to Portland's council. In Albany, California, the first California city to use PRCV (adopted in 2020), the first Latino and first Asian candidates were elected in the very first PRCV election cycle. In 2023, the California Supreme Court's Pico Neighborhood Association v. City of Santa Monica decision explicitly recognized PRCV as a valid and effective remedy under the CVRA, especially for communities that are geographically dispersed and cannot easily be concentrated in single-seat districts. The legal foundation for PRCV in Los Angeles is solid. That foundation got stronger in 2026. This year, an Orange County judge found Huntington Beach's at-large elections violated the CVRA and ordered proportional ranked choice voting as the remedy (the city is appealing). And in September, Governor Newsom signed the California Voting Rights Act of 2026 (SB 1164), which for the first time names proportional methods like PRCV as legitimate remedies in state law. Why This Matters for California Los Angeles is not just any American city. It is the nation's second-largest city and one of its most diverse. No simple line-drawing solution can serve all of its communities fairly within single-seat districts. The math does not work. If LA gets this right, it creates a model for diverse cities everywhere, at a moment when California courts have already pointed toward PRCV as the appropriate tool for multi-racial communities that cannot be neatly sorted into winner-take-all districts. Cal RCV presented this case directly to the Charter Reform Commission in hearings throughout fall 2025, and is now making it to the City Council's Ad Hoc Committee on Charter Reform. You can watch that testimony here: Known Obstacles, and Why They Are Surmountable The voting system needs an upgrade LA County's Voting Solutions for All People (VSAP) system was custom-built without RCV capability. Adding it will require contracting work, likely with Smartmatic (which built VSAP) or a certified third party, and eventual certification by the California Secretary of State. Two RCV modules are already California-certified: Hart Intercivic and Dominion Voting Systems. Other California jurisdictions, including San Francisco, Alameda County, Humboldt County, and Riverside County, have completed this process. There is no reason LA County cannot do the same. Voter education requires investment Voters will need to learn a new ballot format. Portland spent approximately $1.98 per voter on its PRCV education program. Alaska spent roughly $1.50 per voter for its first RCV statewide election. Applied to LA's approximately 2.19 million registered voters, a comprehensive education effort would cost around $4.4 million, with higher upfront costs that decline over time. Education should be multilingual, community-based, and delivered through trusted local organizations, following best practices from Portland and New York City. The timeline has shifted, but the path is clear April 2026: Charter Reform Commission recommends single-winner RCV and council expansion Summer 2026: City Council sends RCV and expansion to a new Ad Hoc Committee on Charter Reform September 30, 2026: Ad Hoc Committee begins its 12-month review Spring to summer 2027: Committee takes up election reform 2028: Voters decide on RCV or PRCV and council expansion After approval: LA County upgrades VSAP for ranked ballots, new district maps are drawn, and a public education campaign runs ahead of the first RCV or PRCV election RCV and PRCV save money Critics of reform sometimes raise cost concerns, but implementing either RCV or PRCV actually saves taxpayers money. Both reforms allow the city to eliminate primaries by deciding every race in November. And with both systems, a majority of voters elect a majority of the seats in the higher-turnout general election. Jurisdiction Savings from Eliminating Runoffs New York City ~$11 million per election cycle San Francisco ~$1.6 million per year Oakland ~$464,000 per year Los Angeles (estimated) ~$1.5 million per 2-year cycle on a 15-seat council The 2023 LA special election alone cost $7.5 million for two rounds. PRCV would have eliminated the special election runoff, saving over $3 million. Beyond those direct savings, RCV and PRCV extend the reach of LA's public matching funds program, because funds only need to cover one election instead of two. What Success Looks Like The Charter Reform Commission has recommended single-winner ranked choice voting for Los Angeles. The City Council has since sent that recommendation to its Ad Hoc Committee on Charter Reform, which is expected to weigh RCV and PRCV in 2027 ahead of the 2028 ballot. If voters approve single-winner RCV, the change would be meaningful and immediate. Under single-winner RCV, Los Angeles would consolidate its elections into a single high-turnout November contest, replacing the current two-stage system of a March or June primary followed by a general election. That shift matters more than it might seem. Today, most council races are effectively decided in low-turnout primaries, where the electorate is smaller, older, and less representative of the city as a whole. In 2024, White voters made up 48% of primary voters despite being just 32% of the voting population. Moving to a single November election means more Angelenos, from every community, have a real say in who represents them. It also saves significant public money, since the city would fund one election per seat instead of two, and candidates would no longer need to raise money for two separate campaigns. PRCV would build on those gains and go even further. The Charter Reform Commission did not recommend multi-member districts, but Cal RCV is disappointed by that outcome and will continue to advocate for PRCV as the Ad Hoc Committee and City Council consider what to refer to voters. If the City Council chooses to send PRCV to voters, Los Angeles could eventually elect a council that reflects the full diversity of the city, not just the community that happened to turn out strongest in a given district. It is worth noting that adopting PRCV and multi-member districts would require revisiting several other aspects of the City Charter that currently assume each district has a single Councilmember. That added complexity is real. But Cal RCV believes the representation improvements are well worth it. In a three-seat PRCV district, the threshold to win is just 25% plus one vote. That means a district's Latino, Black, and AAPI communities can each have a voice, not because lines were drawn perfectly, but because the system itself is designed to produce proportional outcomes. Candidates would have incentives to build coalitions and seek second-choice votes rather than drive up turnout only within their base. Redistricting would become far less of a high-stakes battle, because no single line-drawing decision would determine whether an entire community wins or loses representation. Portland achieved this in its first PRCV election. Albany, California achieved this with citywide PRCV. Los Angeles can do the same, at greater scale and with greater impact on American democracy. The Next Window Is Opening Now The Charter Reform Commission showed courage by recommending single-winner RCV and council expansion. The City Council chose not to send either to voters in 2026. That was a missed opportunity, but not the end of the road. The Council's Ad Hoc Committee on Charter Reform began meeting on September 30, 2026, and election reform is expected on its agenda in spring and summer 2027. What the committee recommends will shape what Angelenos see on the 2028 ballot. Cal RCV will be there throughout, making the case for PRCV with multi-member districts, and for single-winner RCV as a strong step forward. We're also building support across the city, with community screenings, campus outreach, and partnerships with neighborhood councils and local organizations. Sign up below and we'll let you know when the committee takes up election reform and when it's time to contact your Councilmember. The decision about how Los Angeles elects its government belongs to the people of Los Angeles. The California RCV Coalition is a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to expanding ranked choice voting across California so every voter has a greater voice in our democracy.

Update, October 2026: This post was written in March, before the June 2 primary. Democrat Xavier Becerra (28.0%) and Republican Steve Hilton (24.6%) advanced to November. Summary In March, polls showed California's Top-2 primary could produce a November ballot with two Republicans for Governor, despite a 45% to 25% Democratic registration advantage Vote-splitting among well-known Democrats kept every one of them at or below 14%, while two Republicans led 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 producing a winner with both broad and deep support Top-5 RCV is already proven in Alaska and multiple California cities, and 57 of 58 California counties have the voting equipment ready As of March, California voters faced a real chance of arriving at the polls in November to 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, 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 winner with both broad and deep support. 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. What happened The two-Republican outcome didn't happen. Republican voters consolidated behind Steve Hilton after President Trump endorsed him in April, and Chad Bianco finished fourth with 10.2%. On the Democratic side, the field narrowed when Eric Swalwell, then leading in the polls, left the race amid sexual assault allegations. Democrats won about 62% of the primary vote combined, and Xavier Becerra finished first with 28.0%, ahead of Hilton's 24.6%. The system didn't prevent the nightmare scenario. A presidential endorsement and a scandal did. Next time, voters may not be so lucky. Conclusion Party insiders spent the spring pushing 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.

Summary The June 2 primary sent Democrat Xavier Becerra (28%) and Republican Steve Hilton (25%) to November. Nearly half of primary voters chose someone else. The feared two-Republican November didn't happen. The field narrowed through a scandal and late shifts in support, not a system built to reflect voters. In March, the party asked low-polling candidates to drop out. Becerra was polling at 3% then. He's now the Democratic nominee. The fix: a Top 5 primary with ranked choice voting in November. This year that ballot would have carried the first choices of 90% of voters. California Democratic Party leaders spent the spring trying to solve a math problem by taking choices away from voters. And the math problem was 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. On June 2, the math resolved itself. Xavier Becerra and Steve Hilton advanced. Tom Steyer, with 22.8% of the vote, did not. The Problem This spring, many prominent candidates were running for governor and splitting the vote: no one had more than 14%. The predictable response followed: party insiders and supporters, such as the unions, pressured 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. What happened on June 2 Becerra finished first with 28.0% and Hilton second with 24.6%. Steyer missed November by about 167,000 votes out of more than 9 million cast. Chad Bianco took 10.2%, Katie Porter 4.4%, and Matt Mahan 3.5%. Add it up and 47% of primary voters backed someone who won't be on the November ballot. Under a Top 5 system, November would have included Becerra, Hilton, Steyer, Bianco, and Porter: the first choices of 90% of voters. 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 Hicks 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." Then the field narrowed in a way no one planned. On April 12, Eric Swalwell, who had been leading the Democrats in the polls, suspended his campaign amid sexual assault allegations. Xavier Becerra, polling around 3% in March, jumped to 10% within days and went on to finish first. Those aren't just campaign talking points. They're a diagnosis of what's broken. Voters did send a Latino Democrat to November. But by the logic of the March letter, he was one of the candidates who should have stepped aside. A primary where insiders guess who's viable, and guess wrong, isn't open. It's exclusive. Statewide race context California Democrats enjoy an advantage in registered voters of 45% to 25% for Republicans (30% are "no party preference" or other parties). In the June primary, Democratic candidates won about 62% of the vote combined and Republicans about 36%. The two-Republican nightmare didn't happen this time. But about a third of all voters, those who chose Steyer, Porter, Mahan, and the rest of the Democratic field, still saw their candidate eliminated before the larger November electorate gets a say. 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 winner with both broad and deep support. 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 how party leaders should be spending their time. 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. On November 3, Californians will choose between two finalists who were each the first choice of fewer than one in three primary voters. 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.

Irvine voters will decide on Measure D, which would switch city council and mayor races to ranked choice voting starting in 2028. Supporters like Councilmember Kathleen Treseder point out that Irvine candidates regularly win with less than a third of the vote, while Councilmember James Mai argues the change would be costly at a time of budget deficits. The measure only takes effect if implementation costs less than 0.23% of the city's general fund, about $750,000. Read the full piece at the Orange County Register for more details.

California's top-two primary promised voters an open election and a real choice in November. After 12 years and 1,111 races, the data says it often narrows that choice before most voters ever cast a ballot. Cal RCV Institute board members Tom Charron and Paul Haughey analyzed every California top-two primary from 2012 through 2024. They compared who actually advanced with who would have advanced under a top-five primary, with ranked choice voting picking the winner in November. The full report is on SSRN, and the complete dataset is open for anyone to check. Here's what they found. The real election happens in the spring, when far fewer people vote Top-two is billed as an open primary followed by a general election. In practice, it's a low-turnout election in March or June that usually decides the winner, followed by a November runoff. The turnout gap shows up in every cycle. In 2022, 33% of registered voters cast a primary ballot, compared with 51% in November. In 2014, it was 25% versus 42%. Millions of Californians only vote in the fall, and by then their options are down to two. Campaigns learned to pick their opponents The most common move: boost a weak candidate from the other party, so you face them in November instead of a strong rival from your own. In 2018, Gavin Newsom's campaign "attacked" Republican John Cox, raising Cox's name recognition and helping keep fellow Democrat Antonio Villaraigosa out of the general. In 2024, Adam Schiff ran ads "attacking" Steve Garvey, lifting Garvey past Democrats Katie Porter and Barbara Lee. It works in both directions. In 2024, Republican Carl DeMaio promoted Democrat Kevin Juza in Assembly District 75 to avoid facing fellow Republican Andrew Hayes. It nearly worked. Hayes got 18.7% of the vote to Juza's 18.2%. The cost lands on November voters. In a district that leans heavily one way, they lose the chance to choose between, say, a moderate and a progressive Democrat. Vote-splitting can shut out voters In 173 of 1,111 races (15.8%), both finalists came from the same party. Most were in safe districts. But sometimes a crowded field splits one side's vote and shuts it out entirely. Take the 2022 primary for State Senate District 4. Six Republicans split 59.2% of the vote. Two Democrats advanced anyway, with 40.8% combined. The report warned the same thing could happen in this year's governor's race, where a crowded Democratic field might split the vote and send two Republicans to November. It didn't: Xavier Becerra and Steve Hilton advanced. But the risk hasn't gone anywhere. The next crowded field could lock out either party's voters. Who gets locked out Top-two cuts candidates who finish in the top five but miss the top two. That falls hardest on candidates who already face steep odds. Women: In 152 races (14%), at least one woman finished in the top five, but only men advanced. Candidates of color: In 141 races (13%), a candidate of color finished in the top five, but none made the top two. Over 12 years, a top-five system would have put 630 more candidates of color on the November ballot: 277 Latino, 183 Asian, and 170 Black candidates. Third parties: They reached November in just 19 races (1.7%), and 13 of those had no Republican running. Before top-two, the Green, Libertarian, Peace and Freedom, and American Independent parties averaged 127 primary candidates per election (1992 to 2010). In 2012 they fielded 17. In 2014, 13. Turnout is part of the story. FairVote studies of Sacramento, San Bernardino, and San José found lower primary turnout among voters of color. When the primary is the real election, that gap shapes who reaches the ballot most people see. The fix: Top Five with ranked choice voting Keep the open primary. Send five candidates to November, not two. Let voters rank them, so the winner has both broad and deep support. Alaska already uses this system. Top Five + RCV would: Move the real choice to the higher-turnout November election. Make it far harder for campaigns to handpick their opponents. Take vote-splitting out of the general election. Open a path for third-party and independent candidates. Give voters more choices, including candidates from different wings of the major parties. Read the full report Read it on SSRN, dig into the data, and get involved with Cal RCV to help build a better way to vote in California.

Columnist Jerry Roberts uses Santa Barbara's 4-3 rent control vote to show how district elections can hand power to a council majority that represents far fewer voters: the four members in favor won 10,728 votes combined in their last races, while the three opposed won 19,083. He calls on the next council to put electoral reforms before voters, including ranked choice voting and a mix of citywide and district seats. Proportional ranked choice voting, which fills several seats at once so each group of voters wins a fair share, is one way to close that gap between votes and seats, and Cal RCV sees it as the best fit for California and the country. Read the full piece at the Santa Barbara Independent for more details.

Three candidates in San Francisco's crowded District 10 supervisor race, Shawn Richard, DJ Brookter and JR Eppler, plan to endorse each other under ranked choice voting. Richard says teaming up is how you compete in an RCV race, and SF State political scientist Jason McDaniel notes that slates work best when campaigns drive the message home to voters. The move echoes the District 8 alliance and could consolidate votes against frontrunner Theo Ellington in later rounds. Read the full piece at The Voice of San Francisco for more details.

More than 50 elected officials, organizations, and community leaders have endorsed Irvine's Measure D, which would bring ranked choice voting to city council and mayor races starting in 2028. Backers include Rep. Dave Min, Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, the League of Women Voters of Orange County, FairVote, and parties from the Democrats to the Greens and Libertarians. Campaign director Branda Lin notes that Irvine candidates routinely win with less than 40% of the vote, and the measure caps implementation costs at a quarter of one percent of the city budget. Read the full release at Voter Choice Irvine for more details.

The Bay Area Reporter covers the same District 8 ranked choice team-up, noting it is the first time in 16 years D8 candidates have run a coordinated ranking strategy. McCoy and Patel announced the alliance in Noe Valley Town Square, and Patel says it gives her underdog campaign visibility she has struggled to get. Rival Michael Nguyen says he is open to a ranked choice strategy of his own, while frontrunner Manny Yekutiel says the pact doesn't change his approach. Read the full piece at the Bay Area Reporter for more details.

San Francisco District 8 supervisor candidates Gary McCoy and Darshini Patel are asking their supporters to rank the other second, a classic ranked choice voting alliance. Whichever of the two is eliminated first could pass most of their votes to the other, which could help McCoy overtake frontrunner Manny Yekutiel. The fourth candidate, Michael Nguyen, is not joining the pact for now. Read the full piece at Mission Local for more details.

Senate Bill 1164, awaiting Governor Newsom's signature, would revise the California Voting Rights Act to recognize alternatives to single-member districts, opening a path for cities like Davis to adopt proportional ranked choice voting citywide. The Vanguard reports that Davis has seen competition collapse since switching to district elections in 2020, with research from Preston Jordan finding roughly 8 percent of at-large seats uncontested compared to 38 percent under districts. Building on the California Supreme Court's 2023 Pico v. Santa Monica decision, the piece argues proportional RCV could protect minority voting power while restoring citywide participation and contested races. Read the full piece at the Davis Vanguard for more details.