New York City is using ranked choice voting in its Democratic mayoral primary. Here's how it works
NEW YORK (AP) — New York City is using ranked choice voting in its Democratic mayoral primary election Tuesday, a system that takes some explaining, even for New Yorkers who have used it before.
Voters' understanding of how ranked choice works could play a role in which candidate comes out on top in a race that features former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, progressive upstart Zohran Mamdani and several other current and former public officials, including City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams and City Comptroller Brad Lander, who was arrested last week at an immigration court.
The system is based on a simple premise: Democracy works better if people aren't forced to make an all-or-nothing choice with their vote.
Rather than pick just one candidate, voters get to rank several in order of preference. Even if a voter's top choice doesn't have enough support to win, their rankings of other candidates still play a role in determining the victor.
The system is more complex than a traditional election, making it tough to forecast a winner. It could also take longer to get results.
How does it work?
In New York City's version, voters get to rank up to five candidates, from first to last, on the ballot.
If one candidate is the first choice of a majority of voters — more than 50% — that person wins the race outright, just like in a traditional election.
If nobody hits that threshold, ranked choice analysis kicks in.
Vote tabulation is done by computer in rounds. After the first round, the candidate in last place — the candidate ranked No. 1 by the fewest amount of people — is eliminated. The computer then looks at the ballots cast by people who ranked that candidate first, to see who they ranked second. Those people's votes are then redistributed to their second choices.
That process then repeats. As more candidates are eliminated, voters' third, fourth and even fifth choices could potentially come into play. Rounds continue until there are only two candidates left. The one with the most votes wins.
Eleven candidates are on the ballot in the Democratic mayoral primary. Incumbent Mayor Eric Adams isn't one of them. He's a Democrat but is running as an independent. The Republican Party has already picked its nominee, Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa.
How long will this take?
The computerized process of tabulating votes takes little time, but it doesn't start right away.
Polls close at 9 p.m. Tuesday. Within a few hours, preliminary results should give a picture of how the candidates are doing based on voters' first choices.
The ranked choice tabulations, however, won't start until July 1 because the city needs to wait for the arrival of mail-in ballots.
The July 1 tabulation could potentially give a clear picture of who won, but the result won't be official. Further rounds of ranked choice analysis will be done as additional absentee ballots come in until the board certifies the election July 15.
This will be the second time New York City has used ranked choice in a mayoral primary. The first time, in 2021, things went haywire when elections officials neglected to clear test data from the tabulation program. That led to an inaccurate vote tally being reported until officials realized the error.
Officials are hoping things go smoother this time.
Why do people like ranked choice?
One benefit is that nobody 'wastes' their vote by picking an unpopular candidate as their first choice.
Voters can rank someone they like No. 1, even if they suspect the candidate doesn't stand a chance. If that person is eliminated, voters still get a say in who wins based on their other rankings.
Another benefit is that it's tough for someone to get elected without broad support. In a traditional election, it's possible for someone with fringe political views to win in a crowded field of candidates, even if they are deeply disliked by a majority of voters.
That's theoretically less likely in a ranked choice system. A candidate could get the largest share of first-choice votes but still lose to someone who is the second or third choice of a large number of people.
What are the negatives?
The system is tough to grasp. It requires voters to do more research. It also makes races less predictable.
Transparency and trust are also potential problems. Ordinarily, candidates, the public and news organizations can see votes coming in, precinct by precinct, and know exactly who is leading and where their support comes from.
Under the ranked choice system, the process of redistributing votes is done by computer. Outside groups will have a harder time evaluating whether the software sorted the ranked votes accurately.
That's a challenge for news organizations, like The Associated Press, that analyze vote tallies and attempt to report a winner before the count is complete.
There may be instances when candidates who seem to have a comfortable lead in first-place votes on election night lose because relatively few voters rank them as their second or third choice. That could lead to people questioning the results.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
21 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
Freed from prison, Belarusian dissident Tsikhanouski tells AP about 5 years in solitary confinement
VILNIUS, Lithuania (AP) — Siarhei Tsikhanouski is almost unrecognizable. Belarus' key opposition figure, imprisoned in 2020 and unexpectedly released on Saturday, once weighed 135 kilograms (298 pounds) at 1.92 meters (nearly 6'4') tall, but now is at just 79 kilos (174 pounds). On Saturday, Tsikhnaouski was freed alongside 13 other prisoners and brought to Vilnius, the capital of neighboring Lithuania, where he was reunited with his wife, exiled Belarusian opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, and their children. Speaking to The Associated Press the day after, Tsikhanouski tries to smile and joke, but struggles to hold back heavy sighs recalling what he endured behind bars.
Toronto Star
an hour ago
- Toronto Star
Russian attacks on Ukraine kill at least 9 and injure over a dozen
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — A Russian drone and missile attack on Ukraine's capital overnight killed at least six people and injured others, according to local officials, as rescue workers and firefighters sought to remove people they believed trapped under debris in a partially collapsed apartment building. Elsewhere in Ukraine, a Russian short-range drone attack killed two people and wounded 10 more in the Chernihiv region late Sunday night, authorities said. According to the regional administration head, Viacheslav Chaus, three children were among the wounded.
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Sometimes we're left with the power of words
Opinion I'm not a head of state. I'm not a general. I'm not a billionaire. I'm a writer. And in times like these, that is both a burden and a responsibility. The world is on fire — again. Israel and Iran are locked in a war that has already killed hundreds, including civilians, children, and hospital patients. Missiles have struck medical centers. Entire cities are bracing for what comes next. In Gaza, the death toll continues to rise, with over 55,000 Palestinians killed since 2023, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. And still, more than 50 Israeli hostages remain in captivity in Gaza — some confirmed alive, others feared dead — while their families wait in anguish for a world too distracted to remember. In Ukraine, Russia's illegal war of aggression grinds into its fourth year. Russia continues to bomb civilian infrastructure and resist ceasefire proposals. In recent weeks, Kyiv and Kharkiv have seen some of the deadliest strikes since the invasion began. Apartment blocks flattened. Hospitals hit. The United Nations reports that more than 16,000 Ukrainian civilians remain imprisoned inside Russia. At least 19,000 Ukrainian children, in age from four months to 17 years, have been forceably moved in a systematic campaign into Russia, fracturing their connection to Ukrainian language and heritage through 're-education, and even disconnecting children from their Ukrainian identities through adoption,' notes the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab. And still, the bombs fall. Meanwhile, in the United States, the Trump regime has launched what it proudly calls the 'largest mass deportation program in history.' ICE raids have escalated in Democratic-led cities. National Guard units have been deployed to suppress demonstrations. Daily arrest quotas have tripled. People are being detained en masse — not for crimes, but for where they were born. This is not a dystopian novel. This is the news. And yet, I worry we are becoming numb. That we are scrolling past suffering. That we are mistaking fatigue for neutrality. So I write. Because I believe, as James Baldwin said, 'Nothing can be changed until it is faced.' And I believe that facing it begins with naming it. Let's name it. Let's name the fact that the United Nations Human Rights Office has warned of a global collapse in accountability. That civilians are being deliberately targeted. That starvation is being used as a weapon. That executions are on the rise. That civic space is closing in country after country. That the world is not just in crisis — it is in retreat. And as the planet records its hottest year yet, the climate crisis continues to accelerate — fueling floods, fires, and famine — while the world's largest banks pour billions more into fossil fuels. Let's name the fact that economic injustice is not a side issue. It is the soil from which every cruelty grows. The richest one per cent now control almost half of global wealth. The poorest 50 per cent own just over one per cent. This isn't just inequality — it's economic apartheid. And when people lose faith in fairness, they lose faith in democracy. Let's name the fact that authoritarianism doesn't always arrive with tanks. Sometimes it comes wrapped in a flag. Or disguised as policy. Or piped through a social media algorithm. Sometimes it comes with a smile and a slogan. And let's name the fact that silence is not neutral. It's a decision. And it's one that history rarely forgives. Even here in Canada — my home, my hope — we are not immune. We remain a bastion of liberal democracy, of pluralism, of dignity. But we are also a country still reckoning with the legacy of residential schools, with inequality that cuts along racial and economic lines, with disinformation and political polarization. Our democracy is not unshakeable. It survives only because people believe in it. And act to protect it. I take comfort — and courage — from those who came before me. From Émile Zola, who risked everything to write J'Accuse! when France betrayed justice. From Anne Frank, who believed in goodness even as the world collapsed outside her hiding place. From Margaret Atwood, who reminds us that dystopias are not predictions — they are warnings. From Salman Rushdie, who nearly died for his words, and still refuses to stop writing. These writers didn't just describe the world. They challenged it. They didn't just bear witness. They bore consequence. And so must we. I don't pretend that writing alone can stop a war. But I do believe writing can stop forgetting. It can preserve the truth when propaganda poisons the air. It can remind us that history only moves forward when people pick up the pen — and use it. Anne Frank once wrote: 'How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.' She was fifteen. She was hiding. And she was right. So I write. Because I refuse to wait. Because I refuse to forget. Because I refuse to be silent. And if you're reading this, I hope you'll write too. Martin Zeilig is a writer and journalist based in Winnipeg.
