Meredith Sumpter
Marcela Miranda-Prieto
Editor's Note: This op-ed written by FairVote CEO Meredith Sumpter and Cal RCV Executive Director Marcela Miranda-Prieto originally published on The Renovator substack. It has been republished on IVN with permission from the authors.
Democrats in California are understandably frustrated and afraid that they could be locked out of November’s general election due to the state’s “top two” all-candidate primary. Change may be coming – but it’s important to get it right.
Last week, a Democratic strategist launched a ballot initiative campaign to repeal the top-two primary and revert to traditional party primaries. Though any California ballot measure faces a long and expensive road to passage, supporters are hoping to get the initiative on the ballot in 2028. This is not the way to go.
Shawn Griffiths
Major-party consultants and donors may jump to support such a measure. But passage would be a big loss for California voters. The state’s top-two primary has been good for California and its democracy. It has introduced more competition, fostered greater choice, and given every voter a voice in both rounds of state and congressional elections.
Instead of turning back the clock, California should continue its history of pro-voter reform and build on the top-two system – by adding ranked-choice voting to its elections.
Ranked-choice voting would address a very real – if rare – issue. California’s top-two primary has a lockout problem, and it’s affected Democrats and Republicans alike. Both parties have been locked out of elections in the 15 years that the reform has been used.
This year’s governor’s race has been the clearest and most high-profile example. For months, polls showed Republicans – conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco – leading the way.
It’s not that Republicans have had a sudden resurgence in the Golden State. President Donald Trump’s approval rating sits at 37 percent. Instead, it’s a math problem: Two Republicans shared the small GOP vote, while eight serious Democratic candidates divided a larger electorate into smaller slices. Party leaders have been unable to nudge candidates at the bottom of the polls out of the race – which is understandable, since elections are supposed to be decided at the ballot box, not in back rooms.
As the race has gone on, the possibility of a Democratic “lockout” has grown less likely – but longtime critics of the open primary are cynically seizing the opportunity nonetheless. It’s rare to get chairs of the state’s Democratic and Republican parties on the same page about anything: But both agree that the voter-first reform should go.
But that’s no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater and ignore the clear benefits of the top-two primary. RCV solves the problem and makes the system even stronger.
Ranked-choice voting is an important tool in any race. It lets people vote for who they believe in – not just who they think can win. That’s because voters can rank candidates in order of preference: first, second, third, and so on.
It works like an instant runoff: The lowest-performing candidates are eliminated one by one – by voters. If your top choice remains, your vote stays with them. If not, your second choice comes into play. No one has to drop out, or be shoved aside when there are multiple candidates in the field.
Adopting RCV would eliminate the central fear driving this ballot measure and Democratic panic this cycle – that too many similar candidates cancel one another out. With ranked choice, voters can hear from all the candidates, then support their favorite without worrying that they’ll accidentally help elect someone from the other party.
California could use RCV in the primary to narrow the field to the two most popular candidates. Even better, the state could advance the top four finishers – instead of just two – to a November election that uses ranked choice to elect a majority winner.
IVN Editorial Board
This top-four policy was developed by FairVote in the early 2010s and adopted in Alaska in 2020. The system gives voters more choices in the general election, and makes it far less likely that one party will get locked out.
In Alaska’s 2022 gubernatorial race, for example, the general election ballot featured two Republicans, one Democrat, and one independent. Voters say they like the system and find it easy; since implementation, Alaska legislators have been more likely to work across the aisle and have even formed bipartisan governing caucuses in both the state Senate and House. In California, a similar system would probably make space for both Democrats and Republicans in the general election for governor.
Either way, Californians would get the benefits of an inclusive primary while fixing the loophole that allows narrowly favored plurality winners to move forward.
And with ranked choice, the entire campaign could be different. Candidates could discuss immigration, housing costs, and education – instead of which candidates should drop out and how soon. A crowded field would no longer be seen as a threat to manage but as a normal feature of a competitive election. Voters – not insiders or wealthy donors – would decide which candidates rise to the top.
California has spent decades working to make its elections more inclusive and representative. Ranked-choice voting would build on that tradition, by allowing the state to keep a wide-open primary while ensuring that the candidates who advance and win have demonstrated real majority support.
Our democracy has lots of problems – but too much choice should never be among them.
