A key part of the New York City mayoral races was Ranked Choice Voting.

I'm not seeing many news articles mention this yet (correct me if I'm wrong though!).

Ranked choice let's us vote first for who we actually want.... and then put in backup votes for "good enough" candidates and allows us to compromise and find common ground.

It destroys the concepts of "lesser of two evils" and "throwing away your vote".

I hope we see Ranked Choice voting everywhere.

#newYork #NYC #NYCMayor #ZohranMamdani

@tinker I'm a big supporter of RCV but I'm not sure it was outcome determinative in this case. Mamdani had a plurality on the first ballot, with a substantial lead; I think he'd have probably won under FPTP too.

@Thad - I completely and fully disagree (with heavy respect).

You are absolutely correct that Mamdani had the numbers for a majority right off the bat.

BUUUUUT!!!!! I dont believe he would have gotten those numbers if people had to consider "Lesser of evils" and "don't throw away your vote."

RCV has a PSYCHOLOGICAL effect. It lets you vote your first pick freely without fear that you're splitting the vote and letting your worst option win.

It's because of this, that folks threw in all of their votes for their ideal candidate knowing that even if it was a long shot, its still worth it. And they had their backup votes set up.

With FPTP, you often DONT vote for your ideal. You vote for the person that is close enough AND who you think will win.

@tinker @Thad exactly
@VirginiaHolloway @tinker @Thad getting to vote for more than one does have a big impact on whether candidates feel safe to run vs being called a spoiler, but RCV tends to deliver the plurality winner by disregarding 2nd and later choices (even while eliminating those before counting), so it's fine if everybody lines up behind the candidate the majority wants, but could just as easily split several ways and not runoff in the order that picks a candidate with actual majority support.