Readers here know I am not a fan of Ranked Choice Voting in Irvine. I’m still not, but I see the headline drew you in. We see a lot of stats from studies about RCV that just doesn’t ring true. OC ROV cannot handle an RCV election without significant investment. A judge’s order that Huntington Beach is being compelled to hosting a RCV election would should cut down on Irvine’s full cost. But HB is a charter city and, we’re told, the city should win on appeal if it can make an arguement that adding districts in HB is cheaper than adding RCV.
Meanwhile, the biggest advocates for RCV are Irvine Council member Kathleen Treseder, who got like 22 percent of the vote in 2022, and Betty Martinez-Franco, who survived an election in 2025 because there was no RCV. not sure how you can get behind this. And I think the tab will run into the millions. Irvine’s city council will budget $710K for RCV and will abandon it if the costs exceed the allocated budget. I think its going to cost us a lot more. The city is already bleeding money from council staffing positions, new department headcounts, and the cost of running the Great Park amphitheater, among other expenses asscoiated with publis safety and infrastructure.
RCV is often sold like the sleek new upgrade democracy has supposedly been waiting for: smarter, fairer, more modern, and probably available in matte black if you ask nicely. But before anyone starts ordering celebratory cupcakes, it is worth pausing over one hilariously inconvenient number: the United States has roughly 10,499 voting jurisdictions, and only 62 of them use ranked-choice voting in some form.
That works out to about 0.56%. Not 5.6%,less than one percent. Not “a growing national consensus.” Not “the future is now.” About six-tenths of one percent. If ranked-choice voting were a restaurant, it would still be begging relatives to leave Yelp reviews. I have been using a stat that 99.98% of all cities, counties, states, towns, villages and hamlets don’t use RCV. I should have been counting voting jurisdictions. Which makes the percentage “better” but not by much. My mistake.
Supporters of ranked-choice voting often dismiss critics by waving them away as parroting these as Republican talking points. Convenient. Also lazy. When a reform is used in only 62 out of 10,499 voting jurisdictions, skepticism is not exactly fringe behavior. It is the default position of almost the entire country. And it’s actually non-partisan.
At that adoption rate, opponents do not need a party memo. They can simply point to the map, squint at the microscopic footprint, and ask why everyone else has not joined the revolution. Maybe the other 99.41% of jurisdictions are not all trapped in a smoky back room plotting against reform. Maybe they have budgets, voters, equipment contracts, legal timelines, staff shortages, and a healthy aversion to turning election night into a graduate seminar.
Then there is the cost. A county registrar of voters does not just sprinkle ranked-choice dust on existing ballots and call it a day. Implementing RCV for one community can require voting-system review, ballot redesign, software configuration or third-party tabulation tools, testing, certification work, staff training, poll-worker training, public education, outreach in multiple languages, updated procedures, post-election reporting changes, and possibly hardware or vendor upgrades.
Depending on OC’s existing system, vendor contracts, certification requirements, scale, and whether current hardware and software can actually handle ranked ballots, the price tag could plausibly run from hundreds of thousands of dollars into the millions. And that is just to make one community’s election process more complicated in a county office already expected to be fast, accurate, transparent, multilingual, accessible, litigation-proof, and somehow inexpensive.
RCV is advertised as an instant runoff, which is a wonderful phrase because it contains the word “instant” and therefore sounds efficient. But contested elections are not made magically simple because the counting process has more steps, more rounds, more transfers, and more explanations. Close races can still be close. Litigation can still happen. Public records requests can still pile up. Campaigns can still challenge procedures. Voters can still wonder why their second or third choice did or did not matter. Using pizza toppings to explain RCV only works if you only order one topping pies.
RCV does not eliminate election drama. It may simply move the drama from “Who got the most votes?” to “Please enjoy this multi-round tabulation spreadsheet while everyone argues about exhausted ballots.” Very modern. Very tidy. Definitely not the sort of thing that makes public trust harder to maintain when the margin is razor thin.
Another sales pitch for RCV is that it supposedly makes campaigns more positive because candidates want to be everyone’s second choice. Lovely theory. In practice, politics has a stubborn habit of remaining politics. Under RCV, campaigns can still go negative; they just get more creative about it. A candidate can attack a rival as “too extreme” while begging that rival’s voters for a second-place ranking. Outside groups can still carpet-bomb mailboxes with hit pieces. Campaigns can whisper that one opponent is secretly unelectable, another is a spoiler, and a third is gaming the ranking system. The nastiness does not disappear; it just comes with footnotes and a sample ballot. Note the NYC Mayoral race — the primary was Nasty as could e,
If reform advocates are looking for a project worthy of all that energy, maybe they should redirect some of it toward the Electoral College. Unlike RCV, which is still used by a tiny fraction of jurisdictions, presidential elections affect every voter in the country. Reforming how electoral votes translate into presidential power would at least aim at the main stage instead of arguing over whether one city council race needs a fifth-choice bubble.
Here is the central problem for ranked-choice voting evangelists: if the system is so obviously superior, why is its adoption still hovering around 0.56% of U.S. voting jurisdictions? After years of advocacy, white papers, pilot programs, nonprofit campaigns, glowing op-eds, and reform slogans, the country has largely responded with a polite “we’ll think about it.”
That does not prove RCV is evil, unconstitutional, or part of a sinister plot to make voters rank people they already dislike. But it does prove that caution is not extremism. Asking about cost, complexity, auditability, timelines, voter confusion, and contested-election delays is not partisan paranoia. It is basic election administration.
Ranked-choice voting may be beloved by reform advocates, consultants, and people who think every ballot should come with a tutorial. But the numbers are stubborn: 62 jurisdictions out of 10,499 is not a movement sweeping America. It is a niche experiment with a very active public-relations department.
So yes, debate RCV on the merits. Discuss majority winners, spoilers, runoffs, voter choice, and all the usual talking points. But do not pretend that every critic is reading from a Republican script when nearly the entire election-administration universe has declined to use the system. Sometimes skepticism is not a conspiracy. Sometimes it is a county registrar looking at the price tag, the software requirements, the training burden, the timeline, the possibility of a contested election, and saying: “Hard pass.”
I notice that Irvine’s Pro-RCV crew will be giving away free T-shirts, probably to make those out-of-town RCV supporters feel better. You don’t need a free T-shirt,. All you need here is common sense.
And since Irvine voters should know how past elections were done, we’ve had plenty of officials elected with more than 50% of the vote:
In Irvine, California, many mayors and city council members have been elected with more than 50% of the vote, especially in earlier decades or two-candidate races, though multi-candidate races in recent years often result in winners below 50%.
Exact totals are hard to pinpoint without exhaustive historical data for every election (Irvine incorporated in 1971; direct mayoral elections began in 1988), but here’s a breakdown based on available records:Mayors (Direct Elections)Several mayors won with clear majorities (>50%):
- Unopposed or near-unopposed wins (100%): Examples include Mike Ward (1994), Christina L. Shea (1998), and Larry Agran (2000).
en.wikipedia.org
- Two-candidate races with >50%: Beth Krom (2006, ~59.6%), Sukhee Kang (2008, 52%; 2010, ~64.1%), Larry Agran (2002, 53.4%).
en.wikipedia.org
- Other notable majority or strong wins occurred in various cycles (e.g., some incumbents in lower-turnout races).
Recent examples (often multi-candidate fields) frequently fell below 50%:
- Larry Agran (2024): 38.8%.
ballotpedia.org
- Farrah Khan (2022): ~37.8%; (2020): ~47.6%.
- Donald P. Wagner and Steven Choi also often won pluralities in crowded fields.
en.wikipedia.org
Rough count for mayors: At least 8–12+ instances with >50% across ~20–25 elections since 1988 (many via unopposed or head-to-head races), concentrated pre-2010s.
City Council Members
- Pre-2024: Elected at-large (top vote-getters for open seats). Winners often cleared 50% in lower-competition races or when incumbents dominated, but multi-candidate fields commonly produced pluralities.
Great article Dan. Irvine’s greatest strength is turning out to be its greatest weakness. Having UCI in town has created a fantastic amalgamation of town and gown benefits where the best and brightest come to Irvine and many stay. The problem is not with those people, its with the professors who are here and not content to run their classrooms only, they start to believe they can tell everyone else how to run their lives. RCV is a perfect example of an academic dream that has no business being implemented in reality.
And here are the talking points for the pro-RCV crowd and my responses in (parens).
RCV Talking Pts and Counter Arguments
RCV Is a Longtime, Proven System (it is longtime, originally created in 1850 in Europe with a rebirth of sorts in the US around 2009) it is used in only 62 jurisdictions in the US out of 10,449 for .056%)
RCV has been used successfully for over 30 years throughout the U.S., including in many CA cities (7 to be eact). It also has been used in Australia and Ireland for over 100 years. There’s plenty of precedent and the data that shows RCV is a reliable way to vote. ****(what data? nice claim without attribution)***
As of 2022, RCV has been adopted in 62 jurisdictions in the U.S. including Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, Alaska, Maine, and even the Virginia Republican Party which uses RCV to select their nominees for statewide office. And starting last year, Redondo Beach became the latest California city to use RCV for their council elections. ***(It’s best used for awards shows — Oscars, Emmys, Grammys, Tonys)***
Why Use RCV?
RCV ensures the winner will be chosen by the majority of voters through RCV’s “instant runoff”. This is a fundamental principle of our democracy. Our current Irvine elections often elect winners with less than 50% support especially when there are multiple candidates. ****(Irvine’s voter turn out averages around 54% n midterm elections and around 70% during presidential years. That’s a significant chunk of registered voters who don’t bother to vote so it’s likely that even the winning candidate is not elected by a majority of registered voters)*****
RCV encourages positive, issue-focused campaigns, not negative campaigns. When candidates must convince voters to be their 1st ranked choice – or if not their 1st choice, then their 2nd choice – it takes away motivation to negatively campaign against their opponents. This is because they won’t want to alienate voters who chose other candidates as their first choice. ****(IEs and dark money will still campaign negatively against certain candidates; most voters do not look at the “paid for by…”)****(and what stops a voter from selecting the same candidate for ever second, third, forth or fifth vote?)*****
RCV will increase voter engagement and turnout because they see that they’ll have more choices and more voice in the process. Study after study shows that voters like RCV once they start using it. *****(Study after study that are not identified for attribution..nice try)*****
Exit polls and post-election surveys across the U.S. repeatedly show that voters find voting with RCV easy and they want to keep it.****(list the studies/surveys with links to them)*****
Cost of RCV
Compared to other city costs, RCV will be a MINISCULE percentage of the city’s budget – initially only 0.07% to 0.23% of the overall city budget, with it later dropping to only 0.003% to 0.05% ****(The OC ROV has already stated that current election hardware and software are not able to handle an election with RCV; Irvine would bear the cost of hardware and software upgrades. The figure cited as the cost to move Irvine to RCV has no basis in reality)******
Budgets represent the VALUES of our city – and RCV ensures majority rule. RCV represents the importance of improving Democratic representation on the Council in which often winners are elected with far less than 50% of the vote. ****(RCV does not dramatically increase voter turn out; studies are cited that says this is a fact, but those studies are never offered for review or attribution).*****
“RCV Is Too Confusing”
RCV is already successfully used in over 50 cities across the U.S. With the help of the CA RCV Institute, Irvine will roll out a voter education program that’ll be based on “best practices” from these other cities. ***what’s the taxpayer cost of this education effort? Does the RCV Institute do this for free?)******
Irvine is one of the most highly educated cities in the country; if the voters in Redondo Beach who use RCV for their council elections understand it, Irvine voters will too. ***(ass kissing will get you everywhere,and do you think voters in Redondo Beach are dumb?)****
We use RCV in everyday decision-making, constantly “ranking” priorities in our busy lives – what to eat, where to shop, what to buy. RCV is a natural extension of what we do when we have to “rank” choices with limited time or money. ****(This is actually a dumb comparison. No, we don’t. If my wife and I want to join frinds for dinner and the group vote is for sushi, I’m stuck with a teriyaki bowl because I hate sushi. You can make all the choices you want about prioritizing your day, but something will come along and your choices are out the window because of a new element)****
RCV Is Already Banned in 19 States – Note About Alaska’s RCV
These 19 states are controlled by a Republican majority in the state legislature, and NONE of them have ever tried to use RCV. Alaska uses RCV. But when Republican Sarah Palin lost to a more moderate Democrat in a special House election, the Republicans didn’t like the result and are now trying to throw out RCV – which will most likely fail. ****(Polls show Alaska’s RCV experiment is a 50-50 proposition at best. Sinice 99.44% of all jurisdictions are not using RCV, its hard to make an argument being anti-RCV is a Republican talking point. In the 2024 Alaska election, a repeal measure (also Ballot Measure 2) failed very narrowly: ~49.9% Yes (repeal) to 50.1% No (keep) — a margin of only about 737 votes out of ~321,000. This was the closest ballot measure result in Alaska history).*****
Cities and states that have adopted RCV have found that their voters LIKE RCV. And when a group tries to throw it out, it fails because voters find RCV improves their elections. ****(says who; another unattributed statement of “fact” with no basis in reality)****
About RCV and the New York City Mayoral Race
New York City uses RCV for the primary election, NOT the general election.
And during the 2025 NYC mayoral primary, we saw RCV drastically reduce the mud slinging and encouraged more positive campaigning in which the candidates worked collaboratively with some cross-endorsing each other (Mamdani and Landers). ****(You didn’t watch the same primary election I did; there was plenty of nasty campaigining in the primary.)****
But during the mayoral general election, which doesn’t use RCV, we saw the three candidates (Mamdani, Cuomo and Sliwa) attack each other rather than focus on the issues.
With RCV elections, both enthusiastic and broad support are needed to win. Therefore, candidates will still want to be the 2nd and 3rd choice votes of their competitors’ voters. With RCV, this provides a disincentive for candidates to personally attack their competitors, which will annoy those voters.****(Will it? What annoys voters are candidates who don’t collect their lawn signs among other things. And canddiates are going to directly attack opponents or have surrogates do it)*****.
“RCV Can Be Gamed”
One of the greatest strengths of RCV is that it cannot be “gamed” unless you already know everyone else’s votes before you vote, which is not possible before election results are tallied. It’s been proven that gaming RCV is mathematically impossible.
On the other hand, Irvine’s “plurality” elections are very easy to game and that has happened repeatedly in council elections and in our statewide primary elections.
For example, we’ve seen “spoiler” candidates take away votes from other candidate(s), often with help from “dark money” IEs which raises the spoiler candidate’s profile.
Our current elections are often “gamed” by “dark money” PACs, negative campaigns filled with false information, and “spoiler” candidates whose purpose is to split the vote. ****(Everything can be gamed. RCV will not prevent negative campaigning; it will be done on behalf of a certain candidate or against a “leading candidate.”)****
This doesn’t mean RCV eliminates dark money. RCV would instead eliminate or drastically reduce the dirty tricks and gaming that currently takes place and is funded by dark money. ****(I wish this would be true but its not; there will be plenty of dirty tricks to play)****
“RCV Decreases Voter Turnout”
When people believe their vote won’t make a difference in our current “plurality” elections, they are less likely to cast a ballot, thus decreasing turnout. (Apathy decreases voter turnout; every registered voter should cast a ballot and there are plenty of elections where all the choics for that said office are bad. RCV won’t fix this and voters will still hold their nose when they vote.)
But voters using RCV are 17% more likely to turn out for their city’s municipal elections than cities using “plurality” elections. That’s because with RCV people see that their vote will count because they have more choices and it better reflects the will of the majority, not the minority. ***(this has got to be a record for claims made without attribution or proof of any kind)****
Also, the youth voter turnout in RCV cities is higher than youth turnout in non-RCV cities due to knowing that their vote will count more, and not less, if they only had one choice for their preferred candidates. ****(so much for one voter, one vote….this is another claim with no verified data)****
Dan, thank you for clarifying this murky proposal.
RCV defines ballots to include but not limited to “optical scan systems, and touchscreen systems”. Our voter rolls and procedures are already untrustworthy enough without losing our paper chain-of-custody.
In the fine print of the ordinance, the budget for RCV is 0.23% of the general fund. This makes it a flexible number that changes. Since Irvine is $6,000,000 in debt, shouldn’t RCV get -0.23 of our budget? Sigh. Maybe the council is doing a Scarlett O’Hara and will “think about that tomorrow…”
The fact that so few jurisdictions use RCV is partly due to limited awareness of it but also attests to how effective the two-party establishment has been at suppressing it. Around twenty states have now banned it statewide or threatened localities with withholding of funds if they adopt it.
Not all Democrats and Republicans are against RCV—many are strong advocates for it—but at the level of high leadership they both want to protect their duopoly. Adopting RCV is an important step in creating a more competitive political marketplace. Voters deserve no less.
Great article Dan. The City Council has their priorities backwards. The time, energy and yet to be determined $ that RCV could cost the citizens of Irvine is better spent in resolving and reducing our current budget shortfall and projected shortfalls.
This is a great article with even better rebuttals. RCV has extreme socialists written all over it with its lame arguments (makes campaigns more positive?!). Thanks for the talking points, I’ll be using them!
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=7e4ca67a4f&attid=0.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1870965696442114674&th=19f701635b5fa272&view=att&disp=inline&realattid=f_mrox7a5q0&zw This proves that RCV doesn’t elect the most popular candidate. Chart four converts ranked positions to points.