RCV Elects Candidates Who Best Reflect the Community's Values and Priorities

SACRAMENTO’S CURRENT SYSTEM EXCLUDES MOST VOTERS 

Primary Elections have abysmally low voter turnout, compared to General Elections. For example, in 2020, the Primary turned out barely half as many voters than the General Election. The Primary Election excluded nearly 100,000 voters who cared enough to cast a vote in the General Election.

The gap between Sacramento's Primary voter turnout versus its General voter turnout, is enormous. So if a candidate can win the Primary outright, and avoid running in the General, they can get elected with just a fraction of the community's support. 

That fraction of voters also misrepresents the community. The small turnout of voters in Primary Elections consistently underrepresents younger voters and voters who don't own a home, compared to the General Election. (See the data here).

That's a problem, because three out of every four races for Sacramento’s City Council are decided in the Primary.  

Most of the time, a candidate is elected to City Council without ever running in the General Election, where more people vote.

Only the small share of voters who vote in the Primary is picking the City Council Member in most cases.

As a result, candidates are often elected with support from only a small share of the voters.

In recent elections, candidates have won election to Sacramento's City Council with the support of only 21% or 22% of the district's voters.

Sacramento residents feel disconnected from their local elected representatives - because most of them have never seen their representative’s name on a ballot. 

DEMOCRACY IS STRONGEST WHEN ALL VOICES ARE HEARD. RCV MAKES MORE VOICES HEARD.

By eliminating low-turnout Primary Elections and having every candidate run in the higher-turnout General Election, RCV better aligns the outcomes of elections with the wishes of the majority of voters. RCV enables a wider range of voters to vote, and enables a wider range of candidates to run a viable campaign. 

Not only would RCV move Sacramento’s Council elections to the higher-turnout General Election, but RCV also uniquely motivates candidates to reach out to a wider range of community members. (See Ranked Choice Voting and Participation: Impacts on Deliberative Engagement. Smith, Haley. June 2016). 

RCV encourages candidates to consider a wider range of voters because, if a candidate can’t get your vote, they at least want you to mark them as your 2nd choice. This dynamic motivates candidates to reach out to the whole community, instead of catering to their narrower “base” of supporters. 

RCV ALSO SOLVES THE "LAME DUCK" PROBLEM.

When a candidate wins election to City Council outright in the Primary (which can be as early in the year as February), they must still wait until December to get sworn-in and start the job. In the meantime, somebody else occupies their Council seat as a "lame duck." 

This "lame duck" problem is especially bad in cases where the voters elect, in the Primary, to replace an incumbent with a new candidate. 

For example, in the February 2020 Primary Election, voters in Council District 4 made a distinct choice to replace their Council representative with a new person. But, even after winning election, the new person couldn't be sworn-in until December -- almost a year from the date the voters made their voice heard.

By moving all decisions to the November election (the General Election), RCV would eliminate this needless "waiting period" and let the voters' wishes go into effect sooner.

RCV ALSO IMPROVES REPRESENTATION BY REDUCING THE ROLE OF MONEY IN POLITICS

Whenever a candidate wins in the low-turnout Primary outright, that candidate becomes a City Council member with only a small fraction of the community's support. 

That's a bad thing. But the flip side isn't much better. 

Here's why: If no candidate wins the Primary outright, then Sacramento's "run-off" system requires the top two vote-getters to run again in the General Election six to eight months later. This means each candidate must fundraise for two campaigns, doubling their reliance on moneyed interests.

In Sacramento, on average, a candidate must raise nearly a quarter of a million dollars to run both campaigns successfully. 

This is based on data from the previous five election cycles, where the average winner of a run-off had to raise and spend $241,367!

RCV would reduce the fundraising burden on candidates by making the voters heard in a single election, not two.

Cities using RCV don't need to administer two elections. Instead, their voters select a winner in a single high-turnout election. So with RCV, candidates only need to run once, cutting their demand for campaign contributions roughly in half.

For example, the last five election cycles in Sacramento show a candidate, on average, needs to raise $115,084 to place in the "top two" in a Primary Election. So we can consider $115,084 as roughly the average amount a candidate needs to raise to run a single campaign in Sacramento. Now, compare that to the $241,367 required to run two campaigns.

Over the last five election cycles, the average candidate in Sacramento has needed to raise nearly a quarter of a million dollars to run both campaigns successfully. 

RCV would reduce the need for candidates to fundraise because, with RCV, candidates only need to run once, not twice. 

By reducing the need for candidates  to fundraise, RCV allows candidates to spend more time talking with community members, instead of catering to high-moneyed interests. And it also enables a more diverse field of candidates to run.

This might explain why RCV improves diversity and representation on the campaign trail and in public office.

Cities with RCV have better electoral outcomes for women and people of color. Over the last decade, women have won 48% of all municipal RCV elections. As of April 2020, nearly half of all mayors (46%) and city council seats (49%) decided by RCV are held by women. By comparison, women comprise only 23% of mayors in non-RCV jurisdictions (See In Ranked Choice Elections, Women WIN, by RepresentWomen. 2020.)

Cities that adopted RCV also saw increases in the percentage of candidates of color running for office. The probability of female candidates and female candidates of color winning office also went up. (See The alternative vote: Do changes in single-member voting systems affect descriptive representation of women and minorities?, by Sarah John, Haley Smith, and Elizabeth Zack. 2018.)

In a time of scarce resources, RCV also saves taxpayer money.

While Sacramento wastes taxpayer money administering two elections to make one decision, cities using RCV save money by administering just one election. By using RCV to consolidate elections, for example, San Francisco saves about $2.5 to $3.1 million every election cycle.

As the City of Sacramento looks at a budget deficit of over $50 million going into FY 2024-25, the City should be doing everything it can to eliminate waste. That starts with ending the duplicative habit of administering two elections to make one decision.

The math is clear. Cities that use RCV enjoy the benefits of two rounds of voting in a single higher-turnout election that can be far more representative, efficient, and fair than Sacramento’s run-off system. Sacramento should switch to RCV.