On February 22, 1983, Harold Washington won the Democratic primary for mayor, with 36 percent of the vote. With nearly unanimous support from the Black community, Washington defeated a pair of Irish candidates—incumbent mayor Jane Byrne and future mayor Richard M. Daley—who split the white ethnic vote. After Washington was inaugurated, 29 white aldermen formed a bloc to oppose his administration, setting off the Council Wars which would define Chicago politics for the next four years.
Just imagine, though, if Chicago had used ranked-choice voting in 1983. Daley, the third place candidate, would have been eliminated after the first round. His supporters’ votes would then have been distributed to their second choice. Can you imagine Daley voters in Bridgeport and Beverly listing Harold Washington as the second choice on their ballots? Or listing him at all? The landslide majority of Daley’s support would have gone to Byrne, electing her to a second term. Thus, no Mayor Washington. No Council Wars. And a young Columbia University graduate might not have applied for a job as a community organizer in Jane Byrne’s Chicago. So no President Obama, either. The history of Chicago, the nation, and the world would be very different.
Nearly 40 years after Harold Washington’s election, there are campaigns to bring ranked-choice voting to Chicago and Illinois—by the exact same sort of progressive reformers who would have voted for city’s first black mayor. Should they be careful what they wish for?
Ranked-choice voting was a good-government pipe dream in 1983, but it has now been adopted by two states and 32 cities. Maine voters approved it in 2016. Two years later, a congressional candidate who finished second in the first round of balloting won the election with second- and third-place votes. Last November, Alaska became the second state to adopt the system.
Now, there’s a campaign to bring it to Illinois. A bill sponsored by Rep. Jaime Andrade, D-Chicago, proposes to use RCV in general elections for the legislature and statewide constitutional officers. It’s currently under consideration by the House Ethics & Elections Committee. State Sens. Laura Murphy, D-Des Plaines, and Mike Simmons, D-Chicago, are sponsoring a similar bill in the Senate.
FairVote Illinois is an organization devoted exclusively to bringing RCV to the state. Executive director Andrew Szilva believes the system reduces political polarization, builds trust in government, and—despite the fact that it would have sunk Washington’s campaign—leads to the election of more minorities and women.
“What we’re finding is in places that use RCV, it ensures minority support,” Szilva said. “It changes how candidates appeal to voters. Rather than just appealing to their bases, they’re encouraged to appeal to the whole electorate. Places that use RCV have seen an increase of representation by minorities.”
That, however, may have as much to do with the communities using RCV as the system itself. Minneapolis, St. Paul, San Francisco, Portland, Santa Fe, Oakland, Berkeley and Cambridge all elect their city councils with ranked-choice voting. Cities open to RCV are also open to electing minority candidates. On the other hand, Southern states use runoff elections to prevent Black candidates from winning by splitting the white vote—as Washington did. (To be fair to RCV, Washington would not have won under the city’s current non-partisan runoff system, either.)
21st-century Chicago has more in common with the above-mentioned liberal cities than it does with the Chicago of 1983. In the last mayoral election, the two finalists were Black women. No one seemed uptight about it. Nonetheless, said Szilva, that election is a great argument for RCV, since the winners emerged from a large field with small shares of the vote: “There were 14 candidates, and the top two, Lori Lightfoot and Toni Preckwinkle, had about 17 and 16 percent of the vote. They got about a third of the vote combined. The idea that the two people that go on got that few votes feels incredibly wrong and broken.”
(Tribune columnist Eric Zorn, a proponent of RCV, conducted an exercise in which he projected which mayoral candidate would have won under the system. His conclusion: Lightfoot.)
47th Ward Ald. Matt Martin has been exploring RCV as a means of saving money and increasing voter participation by consolidating the city’s elections from two rounds to one. “I think we should be doing everything we can to ensure folks participate in the elections,” said Martin, who is still looking into whether the voting system can be changed by the City Council, or would require a citywide referendum.
The strongest argument for RCV is that it prevents “spoilers” from changing the outcome of an election. If Florida had used RCV in 2000, Al Gore would have won the state’s electoral votes as the second choice of Ralph Nader’s left-leaning voters. Here in Illinois, Paul Vallas would have defeated Rod Blagojevich in the 2002 Democratic primary for governor. In the first-past-the-post election, Blagojevich got 36 percent, Vallas 34 percent, and Roland Burris 25 percent. Since Vallas finished second to Burris in Chicago’s Black wards, it’s reasonable to assign him most Burris supporters’ second-place votes, thus sparing Illinois—and Blagojevich—a lot of trouble.
Getting an RCV bill through the Illinois legislature is going to be a heavy lift. Most politicians are reluctant to change a system that elected them. Maine and Alaska adopted RCV through popular referenda. Since the bill only applies to general elections, its impact would be limited. Most legislative seats are won in primaries, especially in Chicago. Nonetheless, FairVote Illinois sees it as the first step to a more just electoral system.
“We want to see ranked-choice voting at every level of voting,” Szilva said. “I fully anticipate that we’ll get ranked-choice voting in Illinois.”
I will be returning to your web site for more soon.
https://free-slots-no-download.com/penny-slots/
That Crain’s would even publish this is a commentary on the sad state of “journalism” today. The author cherrypicks one election when he thinks the person who received 36% of the vote was favorable, then cherrypicks another consequence (Obama would never have been elected) that is essentially a fabrication. Obama likely would have found a way into politics even if Washington had never won. And then in an aside admits his entire argument is invalid because Washington would not have been elected under today’s regulations. So changing to rank choice voting would not cause the changes he thinks voters should be concerned about. So there is no story. But that doesn’t prevent Crains from publishing one.
The strongest argument for Ranked Choice Voting (or Instant Runoff Voting) is that the winner receives 50% plus 1 of the vote. It is that simple. The majority candidate wins the election. Hopefully that’s what people want from their democracy.
If we had RCV in the Illinois gubernatorial primaries, I’m sure Pritzker would have lost the nomination when the votes between non-machine candidates, Biss and Kennedy, were split.
It was dumb for the author to bring up the implications RCV would have had on Harold Washington’s election. If you’re going to do that you should do it for all the other elections Chicago and the state had that lead to this downfall of Illinois and making it the most corrupt state in the country.
“History suggests they should be careful what they wish for.” What history, exactly? Harold Washington would have lost under RCV, but as the author points out (in parenthesis, deep into the article), he would have lost under our current system, as well. The implication that RCV would therefore harm Black candidates is utterly bogus, and while the lead is attention-grabbing, it’s sloppy journalism.
RCV is neutral, and its primary feature is ensuring that a candidate wins with a majority of support. If anything, it lowers the barriers of entry into politics by eliminating the “spoiler” argument that is so often used to discourage less-entrenched candidates from running.
If you voted in Chicago’s 2019 mayoral election, regardless of how you view the outcomes, you probably remember that it was a mess. It was basically a crapshoot trying to figure out how to pick a candidate who both had an actual shot at winning and who shared your values. Ranked-choice voting would have made it so much easier – and cheaper, saving the city millions of dollars on the runoff. If you voted in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary (or anticipate voting in the 2024 Republican primary), you probably remember a similar situation, compounded by the fact that if you voted early, you may have voted for a candidate who dropped out. Ranked-choice voting is used in 27 other cities in the USA; it’s a simple tweak that’s made elections more fair and inclusive from towns of a few thousand voters all the way to New York City, which is rolling it out for its mayoral elections this year.
This is an excellent piece about ranked-choice voting.
Is Illinois ready for ranked-choice voting? Was the country ready for allowing women to vote in 1920? Was the country ready for FDR’s “New Deal” in 1932? Was the country ready for the Civil Rights Law in 1965? Was the country ready for an African-American President in 2008?
The answer to most if not all of these questions is NO. Waiting until ready is like waiting for… [the theme of a well-known Samuel Beckett play].
Absolutely, John! The premise of this article is a clever provocation, a bit of irony and sensation designed to stir up controversy. The idea of an advanced ballot design that gives voters more power, gives fresh candidates a shot, and ensures a broad mandate from the people in order to win elected office — is really not controversial. It’s just good sense.
For those reading this skeptical, cynical, and cherry-picked argument opposing RCV, please be sure to do further reading put together by actual experts on the subject:
Fairvote.org
rcvresources.org
rankedchoicevotingfacts.com