Search this site

The Irvine City Council voted 5-2 to prepare November ballot language asking residents whether to adopt ranked choice voting starting in 2028. City staff estimate RCV elections would cost between $230,600 and $710,440, plus $189,000 to $316,000 for voter education. No Orange County city currently uses RCV, though San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley have run it for years. Read the full piece at Voice of OC for more details.

Daniel Wolf of Democracy Counts argues California's gubernatorial primary is failing its own stress test, with the likely nominee advancing on roughly a quarter of the vote. He proposes a top-five primary followed by ranked choice voting in November so the winner carries a genuine majority mandate, pointing to Alaska, where voters adopted the system in 2018 and declined to repeal it in 2024. He cautions that election reform alone is not enough without rebuilding the civic groups that actually turn voters out. Read the full piece at CalMatters for more details.

CalMatters examines whether California's top-two primary delivered on its 2010 promise and finds that statewide races rarely produce the same-party matchups its architects expected. Cal RCV's Tom Charron tells the outlet that the state could improve upon top-two with an Alaska-style top-five primary paired with ranked choice voting, which could go before voters as a constitutional amendment in 2028. Reformers argue that approach would widen the field and shut down the strategic gaming the current system invites. Read the full piece at CalMatters for more details.

Cal RCV volunteer and longtime San Jose resident Jay Shuler argues that ranked choice voting would let San Jose eliminate its standalone runoff elections, which cost the city millions and draw far lower turnout. Consolidating the process into a single RCV election would cut costs while producing more representative results. He points to other California cities where RCV has streamlined elections. Read the full piece at the San Jose Mercury News for more details.

In Los Angeles, council members who lose in the primary can stay in office for six to nine months, and this CityWatch piece argues ranked choice voting would end that lame-duck period by consolidating races into a single high-turnout general election. The change, endorsed 10-1 by the Charter Reform Commission, would save about $500,000 per avoided runoff and ease pressure on the city's public matching funds. RCV would also prevent wasted votes when candidates drop out after early voting starts, as happened with more than 27,000 ballots in the 2022 mayoral race. Read the full piece at CityWatch LA for more details.

On April 29, 2026 the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Louisiana v. Callais, and the short version is this: Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the federal law that has protected voters from unfair maps for sixty years, has been significantly narrowed. For decades, if a district map had the effect of diluting the voices of minority voters, those voters could go to court. After Callais, plaintiffs now have to prove the people who drew the map intended to discriminate based on race. That is an extraordinarily high bar, and very few cases will clear it. Justice Sotomayor put it bluntly in her dissent: Section 2 has been left a dead letter. The Voting Rights Act is one of the most important civil rights achievements in American history. Sixty years of work, much of it shared work that our coalition partners and many of you have been part of, built and defended the protections that just got narrowed. None of that is erased by one ruling. But the terrain we are all working on has changed, and the honest answer is that things may get harder before they get easier. Here in California, the impact could reach every level of government. Many cities and counties moved from at-large to single-member districts under the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) so minority communities could actually elect representatives of their choice. UCLA law professor Richard Hasen called the decision "an earthquake" and pointed to Palmdale and Santa Monica as places where lawsuits could come first. The state and federal districts are also in play. California's independent redistricting commission was told by its legal advisors, after both the 2010 and 2020 censuses, that the federal Voting Rights Act required it to maximize opportunities for communities of color to elect representatives. That mandate shaped today's congressional and state legislative maps. After Callais, the legal foundation under that mandate is substantially smaller. The Prop 50 congressional maps voters approved last fall could face new challenges. And when the commission redraws lines after the 2030 census, it will be working with much weaker legal protections than it has ever had before. This is why the work we do together matters more, not less, after Callais. Instead of carving a jurisdiction into single-member districts where one group barely outvotes another, voters in a multi-member district can rank candidates in order of preference, and seats are awarded in proportion to how people actually voted. This is called proportional ranked choice voting (PRCV), and it is already recognized by the California Supreme Court as a permitted remedy under the CVRA. A community that makes up a quarter of the electorate can elect roughly a quarter of the seats. Because representation flows from how voters vote rather than from where lines are drawn, gerrymandering loses most of its power. Black; Latino; Asian American; urban; rural; large parties; small parties. Each can find a voice without being pitted against one another in a winner-take-all contest. Cal RCV has been working to pass both RCV and PRCV around the state, most recently with extensive testimony and grassroots organizing at the Los Angeles Charter Reform Commission. That is the durable solution. And it is exactly what our work in cities across California is building toward, one campaign at a time. Every city or county that adopts ranked choice voting or proportional ranked choice voting is laying a piece of the foundation for fair representation that does not depend on a federal floor that just got lower. That's why the work in Los Angeles, Sacramento, and elsewhere is so important. For now, the most important thing you can do is stay engaged. Sign up for Cal RCV updates. Share it with people in your community who care about fair representation. Show up when we ask. The work of building something stronger now happens in the states, and California is one of the most important places in the country for that work to take root.

Below is a partial list of prominent Californians & groups who support ranked choice voting. Know any organization or prominent person in California that should be added to this list? Email us at info@calrcv.org and let us know! Organizations League of Women Voters of Orange Coast Alameda League of Women Voters League of Women Voters of Greater Los Angeles (LWVLA) League of Women Voters of Sacramento Green Party LIbertarian Party Reform Party American Solidarity Party Forward Party Democratic Socialists of America Freedom Party Indivisible Independent Voter Project Democracy Rising Represent Women Common Cause Rock The Vote National officials U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu (CA-36) U.S. Rep. Scott Peters (CA-50) U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell (CA-14) U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna (CA-17) Former UC Berkeley professor & Secretary of Labor Robert Reich California State Officials CA State Sen. Jesse Arreguin CA State Sen. Josh Becker CA State Sen. Dave Cortese CA State Sen. Ben Allen CA Assemblymember Evan Low CA Assemblymember Alex Lee Former California State Controller John Chiang Local officials and civic leaders San Jose mayor, governor candidate Matt Mahan CA governor candidate, businessman Tom Steyer Oakland, CA Mayor Barbara Lee Former Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf Mayor of Berkeley Jesse Arreguín Berkeley City Councilmember Sophie Hahn Berkeley City Councilmember Rigel Robinson Santa Clara County Supervisor Otto Lee Former San Francisco Supervisor David Campos Former San Francisco Supervisor John Avalos Former Los Angeles City Councilmember José Huizar Former Los Angeles Mayor; then Councilmember Eric Garcetti Former Los Angeles City Councilmember Bill Rosendahl Former Mayor of Los Angeles Richard Riordan Labor leader Dolores Huerta California community organizer Anthony Thigpenn Latino community leader Antonio Gonzalez LA City Controller Kenneth Mejia Celebrities Ed Helms Jennifer Lawrence Orlando Bloom J.J. Abrams Katy Perry Mark Cuban Lawrence Lessig Academic experts Shaun Bowler, University of California at Riverside Francis Fukuyama, Stanford (Johan Skytte Prize winner) Pam Karlan, Stanford Law School Didi Kuo, Stanford University Justin Levitt, Loyola Law School Arend Lijphart, University of California at San Diego (Johan Skytte Prize winner) Jonathan Rodden, Stanford University Alvin Roth, Stanford University (Nobel Prize laureates in economic sciences) Rein Taagepera, University of California at Irvine (Johan Skytte Prize winner) Franita Tolson, University of Southern California Law School Los Angeles 2026 RCV Campaign supporters LA Black Workers Center AAPI Force ADA Southern California Healthcare for US.org League of Women Voters of Los Angeles Rewrite LA Unrig LA FairRep LA Pierce College Young Democrats San Fernando Valley Young Democrats Northridge Indivisible San Fernando Valley Democrats State Senator Ben Allen (SD-24) Democracy Rising Represent Women Aapiforce Cfer Los Angeles 2009 RCV campaign supporters Organizations • Los Angeles League of Women Voters • Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce • Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO • California League of Women Voters • National Latino Congreso • Mexican American Bar Association • Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC)** • African American Voter Registration Education Project • California Clean Money Campaign • UNITE HERE (Local 11) • Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 721 • American Federation of Teachers College Faculty Guild (AFT 1521) • American Federation of Teachers College Staff Guild (AFT 1521A) • Strategic Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education (SCOPE) • Southwest Voter Registration Education Project • Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO (APALA) • California Common Cause • ACLU of Southern California • Los Angeles League of Women Voters • Center for Governmental Studies • CALPIRG • William C. Velasquez Institute • Center for Asian Americans United for Self-Empowerment (CAUSE) • Feminist Majority • National Organization for Women (NOW) • Californians for Electoral Reform • Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley • San Fernando Valley Young Democrats • Topanga Canyon Democratic Club • Progressive Democrats of America • Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles • San Fernando Valley Alliance for Democracy • Asian Pacific Policy and Planning Council (A3PCON) • Los Angeles Greens • Green Party of California • Green Party of the United States • Southern California Americans for Democratic Action • Greater Toluca Lake Neighborhood Council • Silver Lake Neighborhood Council • Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council • Arroyo Seco Neighborhood Council • West Los Angeles Neighborhood Council • Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety • Asian American Action Fund-California Elected officials • John Chiang, California State Controller • Richard Riordan, Former Mayor, City of Los Angeles • Eric Garcetti, President, Los Angeles City Council • Jose Huizar, Los Angeles Councilmember • Wendy Greuel, Los Angeles Councilmember • Bill Rosendahl, Los Angeles Councilmember • Ed Reyes, Los Angeles Councilmember • Laura Chick, Los Angeles Controller • Richard Alatorre, Former Los Angeles Councilmember • Jackie Goldberg, Former Los Angeles Councilmember • Judy Chu, Chair, California Board of Equalization • Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State • Mark Ridley-Thomas, State Senator • Jack Scott, State Senator • Warren Furutani, State Assemblymember • Ted Lieu, State Assemblymember • Sylvia Scott-Hayes, President, Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees • Mona Field, Los Angeles Community College District Trustee • Georgia Mercer, Los Angeles Community College District Trustee • Nancy Pearlman, Los Angeles Community College District Trustee • Angela Reddock, LA Community College Trustee • Mike Feinstein, Former Mayor, City of Santa Monica Individuals • Dolores Huerta, Co-Founder, United Farm Workers • John Emerson, President, Capital Guardian Trust Company, Personal Investment Management* • Charlie Woo, Past Chair, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce • David Murphy, President, Building LA's Future* • Antonio Gonzalez, President, William C. Velasquez Institute • Anthony Thigpenn, President, Strategic Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education (SCOPE) • Mark Drummond, Chancellor, Los Angeles Comunity College District • Holly Fujie, Governor, State Bar of California* • Richard M. Macias, Trustee, Mexican American Bar Association • Carmen Trutanich, Los Angeles City Attorney Candidate • Kathay Feng, Executive Director, California Common Cause • Roy Ulrich, Vice Chair, California Common Cause • Liza White, President, Los Angeles League of Women Voters • Tyree Wieder, President, Los Angeles Valley College* • Reyn Blight, Chair, Los Angeles Industrial Development Authority* • Marcy Winograd, President, Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles • Damian Carroll, Past President, San Fernando Young Democrats President • Madeline Janis, President, Los Angeles Alliance for A New Economy (LAANE) • Sean Treglia, Commissioner, Los Angeles Ethics Commission* • Maria Armoudian, Commissioner, Los Angeles Environmental Affairs* • Kathy Spillar, Feminist Majority • Ryan Snyder, President, Ryan Snyder Associates • James Hsu, Partner, Sonnenschein Law Firm* • Barbara Carroll, Past Secretary, Greater Toluca Lake Neighborhood Council • Dan Mayeda, Counsel, East West Players Theater* • Marybelle C. Ang, Board Member, Arroyo Seco Neighborhood Council* • Maureen Cruise, Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles • Allen Erenbaum, Partner, Mayer Brown Law Firm* • Ron Wong, Board member, Asian Business Association* • David Holtzman, President, Los Angeles Voters for Instant Runoff Elections • Jimmy Valentine, Attorney, SEIU Local 6434* • Anthony Rendon, Professor, California State University - Fullerton* • Nick Warshaw, President, California College Democrats* • Rosemary Shahan, President, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety Long Beach RCV campaign supporters Equity and Human Relations Commission League of Women Voters of Long Beach Long Beach Latino Democratic Club Long Beach Forward Long Beach Gray Panthers Long Beach Indivisible Long Beach PSL (Party for Socialism and Liberation) Clue (Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice) SURJ (Showing Up for Racial Justice) The Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy/Long Beach Just Economy Southern California Resistance Long Beach Chapter of Democratic Socialists of America Pokemon Go Long Beach California Ranked Choice Voting Coalition FairVote Action The Long Beach Chamber of Commerce. They supported Instant Runoff Voting (aka Ranked Choice Voting) in 2009, saying eliminating the primary in the 2006 election would have saved $1.3 million. San Diego RCV Campaign Supporters More Choice Chula Vista Forward California Independent Voter Project League of Women Voters of San Diego Veterans for All Voters The Justice Workshop Sacramento RCV Campaign Supporters Better Ballot Sacramento League of Women Voters of Sacramento County Democratic Party of Sacramento County Sacramento Central Labor Council AFL-CIO Sacramento Latino Democratic Club Stonewall Democrats of Greater Sacramento Black American Political Association of California (BAPAC) Sacramento County Young Democrats Third Act Sacramento Indivisible Sacramento Women Democrats of Sacramento County Wellstone Progressive Democrats of Sacramento JFK Democratic Club Poor People’s Campaign Sacramento Sacramento Chapter of Forward California Folsom Area Democratic Club Del Paso Heights Community Association Improve Your Tomorrow, Inc. North Natomas Community Coalition (NNCC) South Natomas Improvement Association Gardenland Northgate Neighborhood Association California Freethought Day Mentor California National Women’s Political Caucus - Sacramento Town & Country Democratic Club Hornets Yosa EBAYC Sacramento Indivisible Sacramento Area Black Caucus Local 1021 SEIU Jose Navarro, Trustee, SCUSD Board Maya Wallace, City of Sacramento Planning Commissioner Steve Cohn, former Sacramento City Councilmember Groups that opposed a California Assembly bill that would have banned RCV in California Don't worry, the RCV ban bill never made it out of committee! Santa Clara County Democratic Party Oakland City Council Berkeley City Council Libby Schaff, former Oakland mayor League of Women Voters of California ACLU California Action Voices for Progress Bay Rising California Clean Money Campaign RepresentUs FairVote Action Californians for Electoral Reform Unite America Independent Voter Project Campaign Legal Center Rank the Vote San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee Alameda County Democratic Central Committee Former Eureka mayor Susan Seaman Former Albany mayor Preston Jordan Know any organization or prominent person in California that should be added to this list? Email us at info@calrcv.org and let us know!

Los Angeles' 13-member Charter Reform Commission released its final 301-page report, recommending that the city adopt ranked choice voting as part of a sweeping governance overhaul. Other proposals include expanding the City Council from 15 to 25 members, lowering the voting age to 16, strengthening the Ethics Commission, and reducing barriers for candidates to run. City leaders must act by June to place measures on the November ballot. Read the full story at My News LA for more details.

Better Ballot Sacramento, backed by Cal RCV and FairVote, launched a campaign to bring ranked choice voting to Sacramento's mayor and City Council races. The measure, supported by the Sacramento County Democratic Party and the League of Women Voters of Sacramento County, would replace the primary and top-two runoff with a single November election won by majority. Advocates say it would save money and ensure winners have broad support, while some Republican critics worry about voter confusion and trust. Read the full story at ABC10 for more details.

Former Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf says ranked choice voting pushed candidates in her city to reach out to all voters, not just a narrow base. She also credits RCV with helping more women like her run and win in Oakland. Schaaf shared her experience at RepresentWomen's 2026 Democracy Solutions Summit. Watch the clip from FairVote and RepresentWomen on Instagram.

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

With eight Democrats splitting the vote in California's 2026 primary for governor, two Republicans led the polls, raising the prospect of Democrats being shut out of November entirely. LA Times reporter James Rainey argues that ranked choice voting, already used in San Francisco, Oakland, Alaska, and elsewhere, would prevent this by letting voters rank candidates so the most broadly supported ones advance. Read the full piece at the LA Times for more details.