The New York City mayoral election is shaping up to make Ranked-Choice voting shine. They held the primary yesterday and the super progressive candidate won. The model where there’s a primary and there’s no winner with 50% triggering a run-off typically sees far fewer people show up for that run-off. I think that makes a good amount of voters hold their nose and pick someone more center they think might to better in the general than the person who fits their views. That centrist candidate then offends the super progressive voters who stay home and hurt the chances of the centrist candidate.

Ranked-Choice gives voters options. List in order your preferences. ALL YOUR VOTE BELONG TO US! Don’t like ’em, don’t vote for ’em. But if you do, list them. And hopefully someone you like gets the job.

The way it works, all the first choices are counted. If no one is at 50% + 1 votes, then the 2nd ranked votes are counted for the voters for the candidate with the least votes are counted. If no one is still at 50% + 1 votes, then the votes for the next candidate with the least votes are counted. This goes on until someone is at 50% + 1 vote.

I think a run-off model encourages voters to pick centrist candidates in a primary to go into an election, which sometimes make far from center candidates look less appealing. And too centrist candidates discourage far from center voters from showing up. Think Harris and Romney and McCain and Kerry losing the presidential election. It’s not only this, but it’s a factor. Imagine how many Green Party voters might if given the opportunity might also put as a 2nd choice a Democrat. The Libertarians were split between don’t regulate me (potential Trump voters) and legalize pot (potential Harris voters).

Ranked-Choice encourages voters to vote the real conscience not playing strategic games with their votes. The more places adopt it and the more high profile elections happen with it, the better chance other places take a look and seriously consider it.