I find myself researching various claims proponents of Rank Choice Voting (RCV) stand behind and my digging doesn’t match their rhetoric. A comment that the NYC Mayoral Primary was positive didn’t ring true in a city where the F-word is used as a comma.
Again, the 2025 NYC mayoral primary was supposed to be a shining example of how RCV would usher in a new era of polite, collaborative, kumbaya‑style campaigning. Remember all those promises? “RCV encourages coalition‑building!” “RCV reduces negativity!” “RCV rewards candidates who appeal broadly!”
Yeah. About that.
A closer look at that primary showed RCV did not reduce caustic campaigning — it simply gave candidates more people to insult.
What we got instead was a political Thunderdome where every contender tried to convince voters that not only were they the best choice, but every other candidate was a walking catastrophe who would personally set the city on fire. If this is the “less toxic future of elections,” then I’d hate to see the alternative.
Let’s begin with the migrant rhetoric, because nothing says “forward‑thinking leadership” like turning asylum seekers into the city’s designated boogeymen. Several candidates treated migrants like a plot device in a dystopian novel, gesturing vaguely at “the crisis” as though migrants were some kind of supernatural force sweeping across the five boroughs. One debate featured a candidate implying migrants were responsible for crime spikes — a claim NYPD data gently pats on the head and says, “Sweetie, no.” And then there was that campaign ad with the ominous soundtrack and shelter footage, which felt less like a political message and more like a trailer for The Purge: Midtown Edition.
Public safety rhetoric wasn’t far behind. Apparently, the fastest way to show you care about New Yorkers is to describe their neighborhoods as “war zones.” Because nothing builds trust like telling residents their block is basically a live‑fire training ground. One candidate’s surrogate even suggested people in public housing were “beyond help,” which is a bold strategy when your job is literally to help people. It’s almost impressive how quickly some campaigns pivoted from “I want to serve this city” to “This city is a smoldering crater and only I can save it.”
Then there’s the personal‑attack free‑for‑all, where candidates sprinted past policy differences and dove straight into character assassination. One contender accused an opponent of “hating the city,” which is a fascinating argument considering the opponent… lives in New York. Social media accounts aligned with campaigns pumped out memes portraying rivals as traitors or puppets, proving once again that nothing says “serious governance” like a poorly Photoshopped image circulating on Instagram.
And of course, the misinformation carnival rolled through town with all the subtlety of a marching band. A viral video claimed a candidate planned to “defund the entire police force,” which turned out to be a wildly exaggerated interpretation of a budget proposal involving — wait for it — a small reallocation. Another rumor insisted someone wanted to “ban cars in Manhattan,” which was actually about congestion pricing. But why let facts ruin a perfectly good outrage cycle?
Community groups didn’t escape the crossfire either. Tenant unions, mutual aid networks, and criminal‑justice advocates were repeatedly labeled “radicals destroying the city,” which is a curious way to describe people who spend their free time trying to keep neighbors housed, fed, and alive. One debate moment went viral when a candidate dismissed a coalition of housing advocates as “chaos agents,” which is a bold take on people whose biggest crime is asking the city not to evict them.
Now, let’s talk about Rank Choice Voting — the reform that was supposed to make campaigns less nasty. The theory goes like this: candidates need second‑ and third‑choice votes, so they’ll be nicer to each other. The reality? Candidates simply expanded their negativity portfolios. Instead of attacking one opponent, they attacked three. Instead of one villain, we got an ensemble cast.
RCV didn’t eliminate caustic rhetoric; it multiplied it.
Candidates weren’t trying to win your second‑choice vote — they were trying to make sure everyone else lost it. The result was a political environment that felt less like a collaborative democracy and more like a group project where everyone hates each other but still has to pretend they’re working together. Now apply this to Irvine city elections and use the way council candidates go after each other every October.
What makes all this rhetoric especially exhausting is how aggressively it avoids actual solutions. New York voters were dealing with real issues — housing affordability, transit reliability, public safety, economic inequality — and instead of hearing thoughtful proposals, they’re treated to a nonstop stream of fear‑mongering, finger‑pointing, and melodrama. It’s like watching a group project where everyone wants credit but no one wants to do the work. Voters deserve better not because the city is perfect, but because it’s resilient, diverse, and full of people who actually care.
The friendly RCV NYC Mayoral primary was a spectacle of snark, fear, exaggeration, misinformation, and performative outrage — all wrapped in the supposedly “kinder, gentler” packaging of Rank Choice Voting. If this is the future of politics, at least New Yorkers can say they saw the chaos coming from miles away.
Leave a Reply