Comments
PRIMARY PROBLEM - If Los Angeles was creating a new democracy from scratch, would it intentionally design a system where an incumbent who was rejected by the voters, would stay in office for nine more months after an election they lost? Probably not. But that is exactly how LA’s current system works. Fortunately, this is something that can be fixed, if LA adopts ranked-choice voting (RCV) as part of its Charter Reform process.
RCV was recommended 10-1 by the LA Charter Reform Commission on February 26. Now it is under consideration by the LA City Council Rules, Elections, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee, with a May 21 vote on whether to recommend it to the full City Council, which then can decide whether to place it on the November 2026 general election ballot, for approval by the voters.
There are many ways in which RCV could improve LA elections. Addressing the ‘lame duck’ problem is one that has received less publicity, but is well worth solving.
A primary problem with LA’s elections
LA’s primary elections for municipal office are held on the same date as the California primary for state and federal office — either in March in presidential election years, or in June in gubernatorial election years. If a candidate receives a majority vote in LA’s municipal primary, they are deemed elected. But if not, a run-off election is held between the top two finishers, held on the same date as the state’s November general election. This system is called a ‘two-round contingent runoff”, where if a run-off occurs, it only occurs (and is contingent upon) if no candidate wins 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 March, June or November.
That means under LA’s system, an incumbent can be defeated in the primary, but still stay in office for six to nine more months after being rejected by the voters.
This possibility is not theoretical. It occurred as recently as in 2022, when challenger Eunisses Hernandez defeated incumbent Gill Cedillo in the June 7 primary — but then Hernandez wasn’t seated until December 12. Even after losing to a first-time candidate, by law, Cedillo stayed in office all that time.
Do we really want public representatives voting on public policy for months on end, after they have already been rejected by the voters?
Does LA need primary elections at all?
LA’s election system is not well designed for races featuring more than two strong candidates. If substantial vote-splitting occurs among several candidates — and none wins a majority in the primary as a result — then LA resorts to engineering a false majority winner, by limiting voter choice to only two candidates in a run-off, so de facto, one of the two must end up with a majority.
This approach does not take into account how votes were split in the primary, leading to which candidates finished first and second. It also has terrible implications for voting rights, because LA’s primary elections have lower voter turnout and the electorate is less diverse than in general elections. It is deeply problematic to knowingly put major decisions about who wins or loses — or who advances to a run-off — before a less representative electorate.
Is there a system where only one election is needed to arrive at a majority winner? Yes there is — ranked-choice voting — 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 preferred candidate 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 candidates, RCV eliminates vote-splitting, ‘spoiler candidates’, and ‘lesser evil’ voting. Instead are empowered to express their true preferences — and see that reflected in the results.
A single RCV election also avoids unnecessarily distracting incumbents during a campaign year, because they only have to run in a single November general election, compared to potentially two rounds stretching over most of the calendar year.
There are also multiple financial benefits - for LA and for candidates. By holding only a single RCV election, LA would not have to pay to conduct two elections to fill a single seat but just one, with saving approximately $500,000 per unnecessary run-off. At the same time, the City’s limited public financing matching funds would only have to be allocated for one election instead of two, enhancing that system’s financial sustainability, while candidates themselves would only have to raise money to run in one election instead of two.
Using 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 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.
Coalition-building under RCV
Perhaps the most interesting political dynamic arising from the use of RCV would be its positive effect upon coalition-building and reducing negative campaigning.
Under LA’s current system, significant multi-racial and multi-issue coalition-building already occurs around individual candidates, especially those who are real contenders. But if/when multiple candidates represent similar political perspectives, they are natural competitors because they are ‘dividing’ the vote. RCV changes all that.
Under RCV, there can be coalition-building between candidates and campaigns, where supporters of candidate ‘A’ with their first choice may be supporters of candidate ‘B’ another with their second - and vice-versa. Similarly, various communities of interest within a district can run their own candidate — and then back another candidate or two with their second and third preferences, amplifying their voice. This then incentivizes positive campaigning from candidates who reach out to win the second of third preferences from first-choice supporters of others.
And after the votes are counted and a winner declared, it is easy to see where a winner’s support comes from via the vote-transfer process, providing a more clear reflection of the electorate — and a more clear policy direction to the winner.
Next Steps
Will LA voters get to decide this November whether to adopt RCV for municipal elections as part of LA Charter Reform,? Only if the City Council places it on the ballot. No one knows where all the Council votes on this are at yet. Stay tuned for more.
Michael Feinstein is a former Santa Monica Mayor and City Councilmember, a co-founder of the Green Party of California, and a candidate for California Secretary Of State.)
