Ranked Choice Hypocrisy: Irvine Politicians Preach Democracy While Avoiding a Public Vote

For those who might not know, I still hold an elected position in Irvine.  I’m on my Homeowner’s Association Board.  This is my second time around since 2006 and it’s government at a very basic level.  And unlike some HOAs, we decided not to do political endorsements using our HOA titles.  And the number of ballots that are returned are terribly few.  I like helping to make my neighborhood better.

While chatting about a recent street slurry job with one of my longtime neighbors, we started talking about the current Irvine City Council.  I mentioned that they voted for Ranked Choice Voting, which my neighbor — a former CFO  – –  had no idea what it was.  I did my best to explain it and said the council decided this on their own.  And told him how Mayor Larry Agran wanted to put it to a public vote but was shot down by the city attorney.  And the council moved forward to implement RCV without a vote of the people.

How democratic.

For politicians who constantly remind us they are “defending democracy,” certain members of the Irvine City Council sure seem allergic to asking voters what they think.

How ironic that the council voted to implement RCV while refusing to put the issue before the very people whose votes will now be counted differently. Agran’s suggestion to let voters decide the matter directly sounds like the sort of thing one might do in a democracy. But no.  That’s not necessary. Translation: “Trust us, peasants. We know what’s best.”

And so the council marched forward. Looking to implement in 2028.

The irony becomes even richer when you realize that only one current council member — Mike Carroll — was elected with more than 50 percent of the vote. That means the people deciding to impose a “more democratic” election system are themselves beneficiaries of fractured, low-majority elections. Apparently, failing to win majority support is no obstacle to redesigning the electoral process for everyone else.

You have to admire the audacity.  Nothing says “empowering voters” quite like refusing to let them vote on the issue.  Voters of Irvine should demand a vote.

Supporters of RCV, as political consultants and nonprofit democracy gurus lovingly call it, always market the system with glowing buzzwords. “More representative.” “More inclusive.” “More democratic.” “More civil.” If they sold used cars, they’d promise free unicorns with every purchase.  I don’t believe for a second it will be more civil.  There’s little civility on the council today.

When it comes time to actually trust voters with the decision to adopt the system, democracy becomes terribly inconvenient.  That contradiction is impossible to ignore. If RCV is truly such a miraculous improvement over traditional elections, why not make the case to Irvine residents and win at the ballot box? Why avoid a citywide vote altogether?

Probably because the more voters hear about Ranked Choice Voting, the less magical it sounds.

Under RCV, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If nobody wins a majority, the lowest vote-getter is eliminated and their votes redistributed based on second choices. The process repeats until someone crosses 50 percent.

Sounds simple enough — until it isn’t.

In practice, Ranked Choice Voting often produces confusion, voter fatigue, delayed results, and election outcomes where the eventual “winner” wasn’t actually the first choice of most voters. It’s politics and elections by spreadsheet.

Imagine explaining to your grandmother that her candidate was winning on election night, then lost three days later after “exhausted ballots” and seventh-choice transfers were tabulated in Round 11 of the municipal elimination tournament.  Nothing screams public confidence like turning elections into fantasy football scoring.

And then there are exhausted ballots — one of the dirty little secrets RCV advocates rarely mention in their TED Talks about civic enlightenment. If voters don’t rank enough candidates, their ballot can effectively stop counting in later rounds. That means voters who participated can wind up disenfranchised simply because they didn’t complete a complicated ranking exercise to the satisfaction of election administrators.  So much for every vote counting.

Even better, Ranked Choice Voting tends to reward candidates with broad but shallow support rather than candidates with actual conviction-driven voter enthusiasm. Under RCV, being everyone’s third-favorite candidate can become more valuable than being thousands of voters’ passionate first choice.

It’s the electoral equivalent of deciding dinner with a group of coworkers. Nobody loves the bland chain restaurant, but everybody can tolerate it, so congratulations: another exciting night at Applebee’s or Olive Garden.

RCV also creates longer ballot-counting periods, meaning election outcomes can drag on for days (weeks?). In an era where public trust in elections is already fragile, Irvine’s leaders apparently concluded the best solution was to make election results even more difficult for ordinary people to understand in real time.

Of course, the political class loves Ranked Choice Voting for reasons they rarely say out loud. The system weakens outsider candidates, advantages well-connected coalition-builders, and creates fertile ground for consultant-class politics where endorsements, alliances, and insider coordination become even more important.  Council members wrapped themselves in the language of democratic reform while simultaneously denying voters a direct voice on whether they wanted reform at all. It’s like forcing someone into a “mandatory choice seminar.”

One can almost picture the sales pitch:

“Ranked Choice Voting gives power back to the people!
No, you may not vote on whether you want it.”

The whole episode perfectly captures the modern political mindset. Politicians increasingly claim democratic legitimacy not from actual public consent, but from asserting they are morally and intellectually superior to the voters they represent. If the public agrees with them, wonderful. If not, well, experts and attorneys can always explain why public input isn’t technically required.

There is also a deeper question Irvine residents should ask themselves: if RCV is so unquestionably beneficial, why does it so often arrive through government action rather than overwhelming public demand?

Because outside activist circles, most ordinary voters are not lying awake at night begging for ballot tabulation reform. They care about crime, traffic, housing costs, schools, infrastructure, and whether City Hall is spending money responsibly. RCVis largely a boutique political obsession beloved by consultants, academics, and reform organizations that treat election systems like artisanal coffee flavors.

Meanwhile, average residents just want to know who won.  It reminds me of the Orange County Power Authority of being forced upon city residents who had to make the effort to opt out and now, RCV is being forced upon an electoriate that may not want it.  Voters should have a say; add this as a ballot question for the November 2028 election.

So here is where we are: our city council that claims to support “more democracy” while bypassing democracy itself to implement it. A council where most members failed to win majority support now insisting they must redesign elections in the name of majority rule. A reform movement supposedly devoted to voter empowerment that apparently doesn’t trust voters enough to decide whether they want the reform.

You truly could not script a better satire of modern local government.