Comments
RANKED CHOICE - If Los Angeles was designing a democracy, would we create a system where an incumbent who was rejected by the voters, got to stay in office for another nine months after the election they lost?
Probably not. But that is exactly how LA’s current election system works.
A primary problem with LA’s elections
Since 2020, municipal elections have been held in even numbered years in Los Angeles. This came about after Charter Amendment 1, approved by voters in 2015, switched LA from stand-alone, odd-numbered year elections (that traditionally had lower voter turnout), to even-numbered years, that when consolidated with state elections, have far higher voter turnout. The result is that LA’s municipal primary elections are now held on the same date as the California state primary for state and federal office — either in March in presidential election years, or in June in gubernatorial election years.
If a municipal candidate in LA receives a majority vote in LA’s primary, they are deemed elected. But if no municipal candidate wins a majority in the primary, a run-off election is held between the top two candidates on the same date in November as the California state general election. This is called a ‘two-round contingent runoff system’, where if a run-off occurs is contingent upon no candidate winning a majority in the primary.
A big problem with this system is when an incumbent is defeated in the primary.
In Los Angeles, newly elected City Council members are seated in December of even-numbered years, regardless of whether they are elected in the March or June primary of that year, or in the November general election.
That means under LA’s system, an incumbent can be defeated in the primary but still stay in the seat for six to nine more months after being rejected by the voters.
This is not theoretical. It recently occurred when challenger Eunisses Hernandez defeated incumbent Gill Cedillo in the June 7, 2022 primary, but then Hernandez wasn’t seated until December 12. Instead, after losing to a first-time candidate, Cedillo stayed in office all that time.
Do we really want people voting on policy for months on end after they have been rejected by the voters?
Why does this structural fault exist in LA’s primary system?
The simple answer is that LA’s contingent run-off system is inherently defective because it is not designed well for competitive primaries featuring more than two strong candidates — i.e. where voters preferences may be split over several candidates, leading to no single candidate winning a majority.
If and when such vote-splitting occurs, LA determines a majority winner only by holding a second election, but this time by limiting voter choice to only two candidates, so one de facto must win a majority. However, this renders a false majority, because it doesn’t arise from voters choosing from among all candidates at the same time, but only after limiting voters’ options to only two.
Making LA’s contingent run-off system even worse, is that LA’s primary elections themselves have lower turnout, and the electorate is far less diverse than in LA’s general elections. Putting any choices before such a less representative electorate is problematic in itself — about who wins or loses, or who advances to a run-off.
Is there a system LA where only one election is needed to arrive at a winner? Yes. Fortunately, such a system already exists - and LA can adopt it via charter reform.
Ranked-choice voting
In ranked-choice voting (RCV) elections, voters are empowered to rank as many candidates as they like. If a voter’s top choice doesn’t win, their vote transfers to their next candidate of choice and so on, until one candidate receives a majority. In this way, only one election need be held - and it can occur at the same time as the state’s General Election, where turnout is higher, and the electorate is more diverse and representative.
In LA’s current primary system, it is hard to know whether to cast your single-choice vote for your most favored candidate — or the one you think has the best chance to win. By allowing voters to rank the candidates, RCV elections eliminate vote-splitting, ‘spoiler candidates’, and voting for the ‘lesser evil.’ Voters instead are empowered to express their true preferences, and more have their votes help elect a candidate.
On November 19, the Government Structure Committee of the LA Charter Reform Commission voted to recommend further study of RCV for electing single-seat city council districts.
They also voted to recommend further study of proportional ranked choice voting (PRCV) to elect three-seat city council districts. PRCV would also only require only one election; and using PRCV to elect multiple seats per district by proportional representation, would provide even broader and deeper representation of LA’s diversity than depending upon single-seat districts.
Many benefits
By needing only a single election to choose a winner(s), a single PRCV or RCV election avoids unnecessarily distracting incumbents from doing their jobs while in office, because they only have to run a single campaign centered upon a November general election, compared to potentially two rounds stretching over most of the year.
There are also multiple financial benefits. Holding only a single PRCV or RCV election would save the City of Los Angeles substantial money by not having to pay LA County to conduct two elections instead of one; candidates would only have to raise money to run in one election instead of two, and the City’s limited public financing matching funds would only have to be allocated for one election instead of two.
Using PRCV or RCV also ensures that there are no wasted early voting ballots.
Under LA’s current system, if a candidate drops out of the race after early voting ballots have been printed and mailed, a vote for that candidate is wasted. Under PRCV or RCV, a voters’ next choices can count, avoiding situations such as the 2022 LA Mayor election where three of the 12 candidates on the ballot dropped out after early voting had started, and over 27,000 ballots were returned. This is especially a concern in LA County, because the County provides an early vote by-mail option to all voters, as well early voting opportunities at vote centers and drop off boxes. Voters overseas (such as in the military) can also be affected, because they cast their votes early in order for them to be received in time.
Next steps
On January 7, 2026 the full Charter Reform Commission will take up the recommendations of the Government Structure Committee to enlarge the City Council and potentially combine that with elections by PRCV or RCV.
Ideally the Commission will vote to deepen its investigation of these options, by inviting presentations by the City of Portland on how they’ve implemented PRCV for their City Council, and the City of New York, on how they’ve implemented RCV for theirs — from voter approval to public education, to running elections and voters’ experience with the process.
The next question is “should the full Charter Reform Commission ultimately recommend (i) combining city council enlargement with (ii) electing the council from three-seat, PRCV districts — with their promise of broader, deeper and more proportional representation than LA’s single seat districts can deliver?”
The inherent limits to representation from single-seat districts - and the zero-sum conflicts that arise from winner-take-all elections - have been laid bare by the 2022 LA Federation Tapes scandal and the 2025 California vs. Texas redistricting fight.
Any conscientious approach to LA City Council expansion will take this into effect.
(Michael Feinstein is a former Santa Monica Mayor and City Councilmember, a co-founder of the Green Party of California, and a 2018 Green candidate for California Secretary Of State.)
For more information:
CalRCV presentation to Government Structure Committee, LA City Charter Reform Commission
Better Elections for LA: Proportional Ranked-Choice Voting
September 25, 2025
Why Reform is Needed in Los Angeles
Status Quo vs. Proportional Representation
Dominance vs. Power Sharing
Benefits for Voters and Candidates
Cost Savings
- Video: CalRCV presentation to Government Structure Committee, LA City Charter Reform Commission
By Marcela Miranda-Prieto, Executive Director, CalRCV
Mike Feinstein, Former Santa Monica Mayor and City Council member
- Slide Presentation Deck used in the presentation
By Marcela Miranda-Prieto, Executive Director, CalRCV
Michael Feinstein, former Santa Monica Mayor & City Council member
- Reference document for the presentation
By Marcela Miranda-Prieto, Executive Director, CalRCV
Michael Feinstein, former Santa Monica Mayor & City Council member
