Over at New America Media, Bay Area organizers Alicia Garza and Esperanza Tervalon-Daumont think so. Here’s their case for ranked choice voting, (also known as instant runoff voting):
Perhaps the most important way that RCV helps voters of color is by allowing several candidates from the same ethnic community to run against each other without splitting the ethnic vote. In 2008, RCV made it possible for four strong Latino candidates to compete in San Francisco's heavily Hispanic District 9 without fear of losing to a non-Latino because voters could rank several candidates as their first, second, and third choices.
...RCV also has significantly boosted the ability of voters—especially in communities of color—to have a say in the final outcome of an election. This is because RCV takes advantage of the turnout and excitement generated during November elections—when more people tend to come to the polls because of presidential, congressional and gubernatorial elections than turn out to vote in June primaries or December runoffs.
For more on how instant runoffs work, check out this helpful explanation from FairVote. Though it’s picked up in more states and localities, there’s been some very loud push back against RVC from establishment folk who argue that the new system is just downright confusing. To be fair, any new system aimed at truly reforming the country's electoral system is bound to be confusing at first. But so far, I think there's some compelling evidence to at least give this new one a sustained try. Perhaps one of the most important and recent instances in which RCV drastically shaped voting outcomes was when Jean Quan was elected Oakland's new mayor last November after beating out democratic powerhouse candidate Don Peralta. So far it’s been great to see Quan, who’s got deep roots in the city's progressive organizing community, take up issues like gang injunctions (which, I’ve said before, suck). But time will tell if the new system will stay -- and spread.
