Next week, in the general election, D.C. residents will have the chance to vote on Initiative 83, also known as the Ranked Choice Voting and Open the Primary Elections to Independent Voters Act of 2024. If passed, this proposal would implement ranked-choice voting (RCV) in the District while allowing independent, unaffiliated voters to participate in primary elections currently open only to registered party members. Simply put, Initiative 83 would significantly impact election processes and participation for D.C. residents.
Key Elements of Initiative 83
Beginning in 2026, elections for all public offices, except party-specific roles, would use RCV. Under this system, voters would rank candidates by their preference. If no one receives a majority of votes, the lowest-ranked candidate would be dropped from the ballot, and votes would be reassigned based on their second preference. This process would repeat until a candidate secures a majority of votes.
Additionally, Initiative 83 would open D.C.'s primary elections to independent voters, allowing over 73,000 unaffiliated residents to participate. However, only independent voters would be able to do this. Registered party members would still be restricted to voting within their party primaries.
Background and Development of the Initiative
The idea behind Initiative 83 came out of the Make All Votes Count campaign led by D.C. activists. Advocates argued that RCV and open primaries could lead to broader representation, especially in a city where many races are determined mainly during the Democratic primary. However, the proposal has faced opposition, including a legal challenge from the D.C. Democratic Party, which argues that the measure violates D.C.'s Home Rule charter and could interfere with traditional party dynamics.
History of Ranked-Choice Voting
RCV has a history rooted in reform movements from the early 20th century. Initially developed in the late 1800s in the U.K. and Australia as a "preferential voting" method, it spread internationally as advocates aimed to reduce vote-splitting and ensure that winning candidates held a majority of voter support. By the early 1900s, several U.S. cities adopted versions of RCV. However, many abandoned it due to concerns over complexity and cost.
RCV has experienced a modern resurgence in the U.S. as cities, states, and organizations look for ways to improve representation and make elections fairer. In 2004, San Francisco became one of the first U.S. cities to re-adopt RCV. Maine became the first state to implement RCV in 2016 for federal elections, followed by Alaska in 2020. Today, several jurisdictions, including New York City and Minneapolis, use RCV for local elections, and more cities and states are considering it.
Who RCV Typically Benefits
RCV can benefit independent or third-party candidates, as it reduces the "spoiler effect," where a minor candidate can siphon votes from a major one, potentially shifting the election. By allowing voters to rank choices, RCV enables more votes to transfer to the voter's next preferred candidate, often benefiting candidates outside the two major parties.
Since RCV requires candidates to gather a majority, it usually benefits moderates, incentivizing them to campaign for second and third-choice votes. This process can lead to more coalition-building and less divisive language since candidates must appeal to a broader range of voters.
Supporters argue that RCV helps represent broader voices, particularly benefiting diverse communities. Studies in cities like New York and San Francisco have suggested that RCV can increase voter satisfaction by ensuring that the winner has a majority of support and offers more choices.
Disadvantages of Ranked-Choice Voting
While RCV has its supporters and benefits, there are also several potential drawbacks to consider. The complexity and newness of RCV are perhaps the most significant drawbacks, which may confuse some voters and lead to mistakes on the ballot. This complexity may affect certain groups, such as older adults, non-native English speakers, and less experienced voters, whose ballots might be disqualified if errors are made.
Another concern is the increased costs of elections due to the need for updated voting machines, additional staffing, and voter education campaigns. Although RCV aims to ensure majority support, final results may sometimes show winners with less than 50% of total votes cast if many ballots are only partially filled. Some voters may also feel "exhausted" by the task of ranking multiple candidates, potentially leading to fewer rankings and a reduced impact on final rounds of counting. Counting votes in RCV elections also takes longer since votes must be tallied in rounds, which could delay results by days or weeks.
Pros and Cons of Initiative 83
Supporters and opponents of Initiative 83 have raised several arguments for and against the proposal. Here are some key points each side emphasizes:
Pros of Initiative 83
Supporters of Initiative 83 highlight several advantages. Opening primaries to independent voters allows a larger portion of D.C.'s population to participate in choosing local candidates, giving more voice to those who may feel excluded from the current process. Ranked-choice voting (RCV) also encourages candidates to appeal to a broader base since they aim to secure second-choice votes and first-choice support. This dynamic can lead to more positive, inclusive campaigns and less division. Additionally, RCV's requirement that candidates have majority support means election results better reflect the preferences of the whole voter base, which many believe leads to fairer outcomes.
Cons of Initiative 83
Critics of Initiative 83 believe RCV can be confusing and lead to unintentional errors, potentially affecting seniors and communities of color more than others. This could result in higher rates of discarded ballots, which some say could disenfranchise certain groups. Another concern is that allowing independents to vote in primaries may weaken party cohesion by introducing voters who are outside traditional party structures, possibly complicating candidate selection in D.C.'s established primary process. Additionally, the D.C. Democratic Party has raised legal objections, questioning whether RCV aligns with the Home Rule Act and how this change might impact D.C.'s broader statehood efforts.
Initiative 83 Supporters and Opponents
The campaign to support Initiative 83 is led by Yes on 83, run by Make All Votes Count DC. It is supported by several key public figures and organizations (Source: Ballotpedia.org).
Supporters
Officials and Organizations in Support:
Markus Batchelor, former member of the D.C. State Board of Education for Ward 8, and Councilmember Christina Henderson
FairVote, Rank the Vote DC, Represent.Us, and RepresentWomen
Supporting Arguments:
Lisa D. T. Rice, one of the initiative's leading advocates, argues that "open primaries and ranked-choice voting" would help candidates focus more on values and accountability, making them work hard for voter support.
Philip Pannell of Make All Votes Count DC has long advocated for RCV, saying it guarantees a majority winner, supports minority candidates and fosters civility in campaigns. He explains that RCV deepens the principle that "every vote counts," encouraging more positive campaigning.
Make All Votes Count DC outlines additional benefits: RCV promotes diversity by helping elect more women and people of color, reduces the need for strategic voting, and motivates candidates to campaign across all neighborhoods, including those historically less engaged in voting.
Opponents
Leading the opposition to Initiative 83 is the Vote No on Initiative 83 campaign, with the support of the Democratic Party of Washington, D.C.
Key Opponents:
Activists like Renée L. Bowser and Peter Rosenstein
Opposing Arguments:
Activist Renée L. Bowser believes the initiative weakens the Democratic Party's role in promoting candidates who align with its core values.
Charles Wilson, chair of the D.C. Democratic Party, argued that allowing independents in primaries could dilute the party's influence.
Peter Rosenstein, a local LGBTQ and Democratic rights advocate, raised concerns that RCV may encourage candidates to avoid strong positions to attract broader support, leading to less clear platforms. He also criticized RCV's potential for strategic "gamesmanship" between candidates, as seen in recent New York City elections.
The Democratic Party of Washington, D.C., has stated that while RCV could be beneficial in other contexts, it may not address D.C.'s unique needs and could create challenges related to voter turnout variations across different wards, potentially impacting fair representation.
Vote on Tuesday, November 5
Whether for or against the proposal, it's essential to understand Initiative 83's potential impacts. To read Initiative 83 in full, click here. Remember to make your voice heard at the polls on Tuesday, November 5!
Comments