On August 6, the Cato Institute gathered experts to discuss Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and dissect New York City’s recent mayoral primary which used it. Legal scholar at Cato and webinar host, Walter Olson, began the conversation by cautioning against the assumption that RCV automatically yields more moderate nominees. He pointed out that Zohran Mamdani’s overwhelming margin of victory—so large that second- and third-choice tallies wouldn’t have altered the outcome—undercuts the moderation myth. Yet Olson acknowledged RCV’s strategic benefits, crediting candidate Brad Lander’s cross-endorsement of Mamdani for amplifying his coalition and noting that Andrew Cuomo’s failure to rely on similar backing likely hurt his campaign. For Olson, these tactical shifts illustrate how RCV can reshape alliances without fundamentally upending party hierarchies.
Journalist Megan McArdle brought a sharply skeptical lens to election reforms and party dynamics under RCV. Citing a Brookings Institution study (presumably this one), she warned that older voters often “get confused” by rank-order ballots, potentially depressing turnout among demographics that usually participate heavily in elections. More worrisome to McArdle was her belief that RCV “weakens political parties” by sapping their bargaining power and diluting the incentives for behind-the-scenes deal-making. She argued that established parties serve as vital institutions for accountability, coalition-building, and policy coherence—roles she fears could fade under more fragmented voting systems. I personally find these arguments laughable even in the best of political climates, and downright naive in our current one of hyper-partisanship. Even so, McArdle conceded that RCV might modestly encourage intra-party cooperation and improve voter satisfaction by offering richer choices at the polls.
Standing in almost direct contrast, election-systems expert Dave Daley celebrated RCV as a tool that transforms a crowded, binary contest into a collaborative campaign. He praised the famously amicable exchanges between Mamdani and fellow candidate Brad Lander—a dynamic he insisted “wouldn’t have happened before RCV,” when like-minded candidates tended to draw sharp distinctions to avoid splitting the vote. Daley highlighted how Mamdani, polling at a mere 1 percent in the early stages, leveraged second- and third-choice support to surge ahead, underlining that RCV makes “more choices into a good thing instead of an existential crisis.” He emphasized two striking statistics: over one million New Yorkers cast ballots, marking the second-highest primary turnout in city history, and roughly 15 percent more votes ended up influencing the ultimate winner’s tally. For Daley, these figures underscore RCV’s capacity to broaden engagement rather than bewilder voters.
Policy analyst John Ketcham described himself as “RCV agnostic” and urged a balanced assessment of the reform’s real-world effects. He noted that Mamdani’s first-choice vote total alone was sufficient for outright victory and that New York’s closed Democratic primary—excluding 1.78 million unaffiliated or Republican-leaning voters—remains a barrier that RCV cannot dismantle. Ketcham warned that marginal or long-shot candidates lingering on the ballot could siphon voter attention from front-runners, potentially diluting campaign scrutiny. Still, he acknowledged that RCV did encourage valuable cross-endorsement strategies, allowing voters of other candidates to coalesce around Mamdani. His central admonition was not to let enthusiasm for RCV overshadow deeper structural changes, such as open primaries.
Throughout the discussion, panelists returned to the theme that no single reform can “solve all our problems.” Olson reminded listeners that many perceived threats to party power stem more from campaign-finance realities than from balloting methods. McArdle attributed the lukewarm appetite for proportional representation (PR) to the ebbing reform coalition. Ketcham argued that an “open-list” PR model might promise more in municipal contexts than single transferable vote (STV) RCV, given historical challenges with “vote leakage” in mid-20th century experiments. Daley, for his part, urged jurisdictions to view primaries as low-stakes laboratories for RCV before scaling up to general elections.
Arlington’s own experiments with RCV were highlighted in the conversation as a live case study. Olson lauded our county’s rollout—first applying RCV to local primaries as some feared Republicans could slip through in open contests. I did point out to him on Bluesky that we now also use it for general elections. Olsen noted in 2023, Arlington voters elected a pro–development advocate and one development skeptic. I'd like to also add we rejected the hardcore NIMBY candidate in later rounds, demonstrating how RCV reshapes majority dynamics. McArdle quipped that “virtually every good governance reform” has backfired, which I find to be an absolutely foolish statement but par for the course for McArdle. I also note Representative Don Beyer’s Fair Representation Act is proposing a move to multi-member districts in response to the gerrymandering nuclear war we are about to enter.
Practical hurdles also surfaced. Panelists noted that delays in RCV tabulation often stem more from administrative bottlenecks than from the ranking algorithm itself. Ketcham urged clearer ballot cues—such as party labels—to help voters navigate more complex choices, especially in an era of fractured media landscapes. Daley stressed that “timing is everything,” recommending phased adoption beginning in primaries before tackling statewide contests.
By the webinar's end, the panel generally painted RCV as a modest procedural tweak with outsized potential when paired with other reforms—campaign-finance transparency, inclusive primaries, and targeted voter outreach. For Arlington County, I am eager to renew democratic engagement and the lesson is clear: we should see RCV not as an endpoint but as the start for a broader reinvention of electoral systems. As I prepare to launch some election-reform projects of my own (more on that later) to protect and strengthen democracy, we must deploy a toolbox of innovations, each targeted to local needs and deployed with a clear strategy. Only then can we ensure that every ballot—ranked or otherwise—truly expands the power of the people.