The Townie is an opinion website. The views expressed in this piece belong solely to the author, do not represent those held by The Townie, and should not be interpreted as objective or reported fact.
As the saying goes, all politics is local. Thus, keeping democracy strong at the local level can eventually impact democratic processes up the chain on the state and national levels. Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), that is, the option for voters to cast their votes in order of preference for candidates in muti-candidate races, makes democracy more robust by creating incentives for voters to support the candidates they really like instead of taking the safe route with candidates they believe “actually have a chance to win.” Candidates can also focus on policy issues instead of gearing their campaigns toward crushing the opposition in a winner-take-all system.
RCV is elegantly simple: instead of selecting just one candidate, voters can rank their choices in order of preference—first, second, third, and so on. You don’t have to rank every candidate; you can rank as many or as few as you want. The candidate in last place in each round is eliminated. If your first choice doesn’t win, your vote transfers to your second choice, ensuring your voice is heard throughout the counting process. This continues until a clear majority candidate emerges.
Our current plurality voting system forces voters into difficult choices that don’t reflect their true preferences. Too often, voters find themselves voting for the “lesser of two evils” rather than the candidate they genuinely support. Currently, candidates can win with less than 50% of the vote when multiple candidates compete (think of most presidential primaries). This means our elected officials may not have true majority support from the community they serve. That’s not democracy at its best—that’s democracy accepting mediocrity.
Massachusetts had a chance to adopt RCV when the ballot question came up in November 2020. The question centered on using RCV for primary and general elections for several state and federal offices starting in 2022. The question failed, I believe, because the public didn’t quite have enough facts about its purpose or how it works. Even The Daily News urged its readers to vote no for RCV. If you think about it, why would a newspaper, whose primary purpose is to sell newspapers and subscriptions, take a stand that would diminish the sensationalism and squabbling that fuel two-candidate elections?
Let me be crystal clear about the benefits of RCV.
Ranked choice voting eliminates these problems while preserving everything good about our electoral process. First, it guarantees that winners earn majority support by ensuring the final victor receives more than 50% of the votes through the ranking and transfer process.
Second, it expands voter choice by freeing voters to support who they really want without fear of “wasting” our vote or enabling a spoiler effect. Want to support that independent candidate with fresh ideas? Go ahead—rank them first, then rank your backup choices. Your vote will count toward the final outcome regardless.
Third, ranked choice voting encourages more positive campaigning. When candidates need second and third-choice votes to win, they’re encouraged to appeal to a broader range of voters rather than just their base. This leads to more civil discourse and coalition-building.
For multi-seat elections like city council and mayoral races, ranked choice voting offers even greater advantages through proportional representation. Instead of winner-take-all systems that can shut out minority viewpoints entirely, proportional ranked choice voting ensures that the composition of our council reflects our community’s diverse perspectives.
Under our current system, one organized group (with donations coming from outside Newburyport) could potentially sweep council or school board seats, leaving significant portions of our community without representation. Proportional ranked choice voting prevents this by ensuring that if a candidate or viewpoint has sufficient community support, they can win representation even if they’re not part of the majority coalition. This creates a more collaborative and representative city council and school board.
As for mayoral races, voters often fear that voting for an outsider will usher in the wrong mainstream candidate. RCV can ensure that candidates with good ideas but little political experience, or candidates who represent non-mainstream party views, actually emerge as viable options.
Whether or not you like the idea of Democratic Socialist winning the New York City democratic primary over mainstream democratic Andrew Cuomo, the voters had a chance to vote their convictions with many safe choices as backup. Their convictions won.
RCV isn’t an untested experiment. It’s been successfully used in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Malta, Scotland, and Australia for years. Closer to home, Cambridge, Massachusetts has used ranked choice voting since 1941 to elect its city council and school board—over 80 years of proven success.
The momentum is building across Massachusetts. Cities like Boston have advanced RCV, while Amherst and Easthampton have already adopted it and are waiting for state legislative approval. This growing interest demonstrates that Massachusetts communities recognize the value of giving voters more meaningful choices.
Some worry about complexity, but the voting process is actually quite intuitive. Voters simply rank candidates like they might rank their favorite restaurants or movies. The counting process, while more sophisticated than plurality voting, is handled by election officials and modern vote-counting technology.
Others express concern about costs, but these are typically one-time expenses for ballot design and vote-counting equipment that many jurisdictions already possess. The long-term benefits of more representative and legitimate elections far outweigh these initial investments.
Critics also point to the 2020 statewide ballot question that failed in Massachusetts. However, that was a proposal for immediate statewide implementation for federal and state elections. Local adoption allows us to test and refine the system on a smaller scale, before broader implementation.
Now it’s in the hands of the Massachusetts legislature to approve the town- and city-level adoption of RCV. We shouldn’t let them sit on their hands and hope this goes away. Why are they hesitating? Because with RCV, the parties can’t easily control who runs or who gets primaried.
The Massachusetts legislature’s “cautious” approach to approving local ranked choice voting shouldn’t discourage us from moving forward. By passing this reform locally, we add our voice to the growing chorus of Massachusetts communities demanding more representative elections. Each city that adopts ranked choice voting helps build the case for statewide reform.
This isn’t about partisan politics—it’s about better governance. Ranked choice voting doesn’t favor any particular party or ideology. Instead, it favors candidates who can build broad coalitions and earn genuine majority support. In an era of increasing polarization, that’s exactly what our democracy needs.
Passionate about a local issue? We want to hear from you. Check out our submission guidelines.
Subscribe to our Newsletter
Leave a Reply