The Chaos Narrative

NEW YORK CITY - For the third time in history, New York City voters used ranked choice voting (RCV) to determine their party nominees in Tuesday’s citywide primary elections. First implemented in 2021, the system was used in that year’s highly competitive Democratic primary, where Eric Adams ultimately secured the nomination and went on to become mayor. It was used again in 2023 without incident.

RCV was not imposed — the voters chose it. In 2019, New Yorkers approved Ballot Question 1 with 72% of the vote, replacing the city’s traditional plurality voting system with a ranked format for primary and special elections. 

Under the current rules, voters can rank up to 5 candidates in order of preference. If no one wins a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their ballots are reallocated. The instant runoff process continues until a candidate secures more than 50% support and wins.

When NYC voters used RCV for the first time in 2021, turnout hit record highs. 88.3% of voters ranked more than one candidate for at least one office on their ballot. The new system encouraged a broad and diverse field of candidates to run, representing a broad spectrum of backgrounds, ideologies, and communities. 

It was a race defined by voter engagement and unpredictability.

That unpredictability is part of what makes RCV so frustrating to pollsters, pundits, and power brokers, who are accustomed to being able to call a race well before the votes are cast. In a RCV system, traditional polling often falls short. With so many permutations of second-, third-, and fourth-choice support, even the best data analysts can’t confidently predict how a race will shake out.

And that’s exactly the point.

RCV is built to reflect the true preferences of the voters, not the guesses of the gatekeepers. A candidate can’t just win a noisy plurality and squeak by — they must earn majority support to claim victory. For the first time in a long time, the voters, not the forecasters, decide.

This year’s mayoral primary has only amplified those dynamics. Andrew Cuomo, the former governor, entered the race after internal polling showed he had broad appeal across the electorate, as either a top choice or a second choice. His advisers saw RCV as a path to victory. Mayor Eric Adams, by contrast, recognized his narrow base and dropped out of the Democratic primary entirely. He’ll run as an independent in the general election, where plurality rules return.

But in a dramatic twist, Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblymember from Queens, is experiencing a last-minute surge. New polling shows him potentially overtaking Cuomo in the 8th or 9th round of counting, sparking excitement on the left — and panic on Wall Street. Business elites have responded by flooding Cuomo-aligned super PACs with cash and launching a wave of online messaging warning of a “socialist mayor.”

So why does this election feel like such a mess? It’s not because RCV is confusing — it’s because the old guard no longer knows how to control it.

RCV Isn’t Confusing — Media Coverage Still Is

The media often describe ranked choice voting as complicated. But that perception doesn’t reflect reality at the ballot box.

Following the 2021 New York primary, Edison Research found that 95% of voters reported that the ballot was easy to complete. As of today, no RCV election in the United States has been marred by widespread voter confusion.

The confusion tends to reach a fever pitch after the voting ends. Election officials and media outlets have struggled to explain the tabulation process, often relying on gimmicks, simulations, or analogies that fail to add clarity. Former New York Mayor Bill de Blasio famously described RCV using pizza toppings, while others use ice cream, flowcharts, or fantasy sports metaphors. 

This year, coverage has varied widely again.

The result is a sense of chaos that isn’t grounded in voter experience. When you show voters a ballot, they get it. Nearly every voter is capable of understanding how to rank their preferences in order. What they’re confused by is the media telling them they will be confused.

More Voice, More Choice: What RCV Actually Does

RCV allows voters to express their true preferences. Instead of selecting just one candidate, they can rank several in order of preference. If their first-choice candidate is eliminated in an early round, their vote can still count toward their next choice.

This structure discourages the “lesser of two evils” mindset and makes it possible to vote for the candidate a person likes most, not just the one seen as most electable. It also broadens the field of viable candidates — those without establishment backing, those outside traditional political networks, and those representing underrepresented communities.

Additionally, RCV changes the incentives for candidates. With no one able to win without majority support, broad appeal matters. Negative campaigning is riskier because it could cost second-choice rankings. Candidates now have a reason to cooperate and to engage voters more constructively.

All the Ways New York Did RCV Wrong

New York’s ranked choice voting system isn’t perfect, and it’s not a panacea for solving the world’s problems. 

First, it is only used in primaries and special elections, not in general elections. And New York’s primaries are closed, meaning unaffiliated voters — about 1-in-5 New Yorkers — are excluded. RCV has expanded democratic participation within the parties, but a significant portion of the electorate remains excluded.

Second, New York’s 2021 rollout of RCV was undermined by a massively embarrassing administrative error. The city’s Board of Elections accidentally included 135,000 test ballots in the initial results because a staffer forgot to clear the tabulation system before counting the real ballots. It was a major failure that undermined public trust and gave RCV critics an opening to blame the system rather than the administration.

Third, the city unnecessarily delays the tabulation. In Maine, where RCV has been used statewide since 2018, results are typically tabulated within a day of ballot completion. The tabulation itself takes less than one minute once all the ballots are in.  In New York, the Board of Elections has chosen to wait up to 21 days to allow for absentee ballots to arrive before even beginning the RCV count. 

This delay feeds public uncertainty and media speculation, but it is a choice made by administrators, not a flaw in the voting method itself.

Billionaires and the Super PACs: Wall Street's Panic Button

RCV has made it harder for one candidate to dominate early and coast to victory. That has opened the door for late surges and triggered aggressive responses from those with a stake in the status quo.

As Mamdani’s campaign has gained traction, business leaders and high-dollar donors have responded with record-setting spending. The Fix the City super PAC, formed by Cuomo allies, has raised $25 million, the largest in New York City mayoral history. The group has hired canvassers, aired attack ads targeting Mamdani more than any other candidate, and sought to consolidate support around Cuomo. Major funders include Michael Bloomberg ($8.3 million), DoorDash ($1 million), and Bill Ackman ($500,000).

While some donors support Cuomo’s record, others are reacting to Mamdani’s proposals, like free buses, higher taxes, and rent control, as a direct threat to the city’s economic structure. Others are concerned about Mamdani’s lack of experience and statements about Israel.

Both Mamdani and Lander appeared on the Stephen Colbert show last night. Colbert pointed to the ongoing war between Israel and Iran to ask both candidates whether Israel has "the right to exist" as a nation. "They're very upset by some of the things that you've said in the past, and they're afraid that your mayorship would actually lead to increased antisemitism, that they believe that would be more dangerous for them," Colbert said to Mamdani. "What do you say to those New Yorkers who are afraid that you wouldn't be their mayor, that you wouldn't protect them?"

“Antisemitism is not simply something that we should talk about. It's something that we have to tackle," Mamdani told Colbert. "We have to make clear there's no room for it in this city, in this country, in this world and-"

"And no justification for violence of any kind?" Colbert interjected.

"No," Mamdani quickly responded. "There's no room for violence in this city, in this country, in this world. And what I have found also, for many New Yorkers, is an ability to navigate disagreement."

Alliances and RCV: Strategic Pairings and Ranked Appeals

RCV can encourage cooperation among candidates. In this election, several have formed cross-endorsements in hopes of remaining viable across multiple rounds.

Mamdani and Lander have endorsed one another and urged supporters to rank them both. They have advertised together and appeared on shows together, generating momentum, increased name recognition, and enthusiasm.

Mamdani and Lander are also part of a four-candidate slate backed by the Working Families Party, which held a rally just before the election to promote unity among progressives. Adrienne Adams, also on the slate, expressed support but did not formally cross-endorse Mamdani or Lander.

Mamdani also partnered with Michael Blake, a former state lawmaker from the Bronx, who gained attention after a strong debate performance. Both have encouraged voters to rank the other.

On the moderate side, Jessica Ramos dropped her own campaign and endorsed Cuomo, citing reservations about Mamdani’s platform. Hedge fund candidate Whitney Tilson also said he would rank Cuomo second.

Earlier in the campaign, progressive groups promoted the DREAM strategy: Initially, it stood for “Don’t Rank Eric Adams for Mayor.” When Cuomo entered the race, it was changed to “Don’t Rank Eric or Andrew for Mayor.”  After Adams dropped out, it got downright mean: “Don’t Rank Evil Andrew for Mayor.”

The frontrunner, Cuomo, has not implemented a RCV strategy. Maybe this is why the Wall Street Journal reads, “In the battle for the Democratic mayoral primary, it is Andrew Cuomo versus ranked-choice voting.”

Momentum and RCV: Timing Matters Most

Momentum always matters in politics, and RCV does not change that. Campaigns are still won by those who peak at the right time.

What RCV adds is the possibility for shared momentum between aligned candidates. That has been especially clear in the final stretch of this race. Mamdani has seen a rise in support, and Lander’s endorsement may be contributing to this. 

After Lander was arrested last week at an immigration protest, media coverage spiked, giving visibility to both campaigns. If Lander’s supporters end up ranking Mamdani second, that will be decisive in later rounds against Cuomo.

This shared momentum is also why so much outside money is being spent in the final days to try to stop Mamdani and Lander. In a close race, late-breaking energy from more than one aligned campaign can be hard to counter.

Polling and RCV: Uncertainty That Empowers Voters

Cuomo has led most polls in first-choice support, often by double digits. But one recent poll showed Mamdani overtaking Cuomo as other candidates were eliminated.

For pollsters, RCV elections present a true challenge. Traditional horse-race polls are built around first-choice preferences. But RCV requires understanding how voters will rank all the candidates, which introduces uncertainty into every prediction.

That uncertainty can certainly frustrate the pundits, pollsters, and election forecasters, but it also gives voters more power. 

When outcomes are unclear, voters are less likely to feel like the race has already been decided. They are more likely to vote based on genuine preferences, not just perceived viability. This can lead to more meaningful participation and a deeper sense that every vote counts.

Keep Calm and Rank On, NYC

New York City’s elections may appear chaotic but ranked choice voting is not the cause. RCV is working as designed, giving voters more voice, encouraging broader participation, and reducing the dominance of insiders.

The imperfections stem from how the city conducts elections, including limiting access to primaries for unaffiliated voters, creating unnecessary delays in producing results, and administrative missteps that are embarrassing.

RCV can’t fix those problems on its own. But it is pushing the city toward a more representative and competitive democracy. And in this mayoral race, it is giving voters something they rarely have: a real sense that their choices matter