Ranked-choice voting could change Massachusetts elections

Imagine being recalled from office and then immediately re-elected.

The idea sounds far-fetched, but it could happen in Fall River where the mayor, who faces 13 counts of federal criminal charges, could be recalled by voters, but still have enough support to win the same-day recall election.

The scenario is possible because Mayor Jasiel Correia II is one of several candidates slated to run in the recall election, meaning he could win with less than 50 percent of the vote, even if a majority of voters might not want him in office.

The dynamic highlights what a growing number of Massachusetts residents believe is a problem in American elections -- vote-splitting. And to solve it, there’s a mounting effort to implement a new approach called “ranked-choice voting.”

“Ranked-choice voting is an important reform to our election laws that solves the ‘spoiler effect’ and vote-splitting, encourages positive, issue-based campaigns and produces a winner that reflects the will of the majority of the electorate,” said state Sen. Jason Lewis, D-Winchester, who has introduced legislation to implement ranked-choice voting. Eighty-two of his colleagues have signed on as co-sponsors.

The idea sounds somewhat complicated, but in practice it’s relatively simple. Ranked-choice voting allows people to rank multiple candidates in the order of preference. If no candidate earns more than 50 percent of the vote, a runoff is triggered. The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and the votes are shifted to those voters’ second choices. The process repeats itself however many times necessary until one candidate earns more than half the vote.

Between 1996 and 2016, 86 percent of district attorney races with three or more candidates in Massachusetts have resulted in candidates winning with less than 50 percent of the vote. It has happened in half of all such elections for Governor’s Council, 60 percent of the time for governor and 67 percent of the time for lieutenant governor.

Advocates of ranked-choice voting say the system allows voters to cast ballots for candidates they truly support, differing from the current system in which voters often feel forced to cast ballots against candidates they dislike in a multi-candidate race. The process is known colloquially as choosing “the lesser of two evils.”

“When there’s too many candidates, our election system breaks down,” said Adam Friedman, executive director of Voter Choice Massachusetts, a nonprofit advocacy group created to promote the new system of voting in the Bay State. “Ranked-choice voting allows you to vote honestly for the first time ever and you don’t need to vote for the lesser of two evils. You don’t need to compromise what you stand for.”

Friedman points to the crowded Democratic primary election for the 3rd Congressional District in 2018 as one example of where ranked-choice voting could have improved the process. Lori Trahan of Westford ultimately won with 21.7 percent of the vote, beating nine other candidates who received between 21.5 percent of the vote (Daniel Koh) and 0.7 percent (Leonard H. Golder).

“That means 78 percent of voters didn’t vote for the winner,” Friedman said.

Looking forward, a similar dynamic is building in the Democratic primary election for president in 2020. A growing number of candidates, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Cambridge, have announced plans to run, meaning one ultimately could end up winning the nomination without earning a majority of votes, especially in the earlier primary elections. Many progressive Democrats complained when Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders announced his second bid for Democratic nomination, worrying he could pull votes away from other progressive candidates. Sanders ran in 2016 and narrowly lost to Hillary Clinton in the primary.

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has also announced a potential presidential bid as an independent candidate, evoking outrage from Democrats who fear his presence could split votes on the left and help hand a victory to incumbent Republican President Donald Trump. Arguably, similar scenarios played out with former candidates Jill Stein in 2016, Ralph Nader in 2000 and Ross Perot in 1992.

Friedman says ranked-choice voting would eliminate this concern.

“We have a ritual of blaming candidates like Schultz and voters who vote for third-party candidates, but we should blame the system. Everyone should have the freedom to vote their values without flipping the outcome,” he said. “Ranked-choice voting is the only way out of that dilemma.”

Ranked-choice voting might sound foreign, but it already has deep roots in Massachusetts. In the 1940s, Cambridge, Lowell, Medford, Quincy, Revere, Saugus and Worcester all adopted ranked-choice voting, according to Voter Choice Massachusetts. Fast-forward to today, however, and only Cambridge still uses such a system. Amherst in 2018 adopted a charter with ranked-choice voting, which could be used beginning in 2021.

Ranked-choice voting has been criticized for being logistically more confusing and potentially more expensive. In Pierce County, Washington, implementing ranked-choice voting cost the county $1.6 million in 2008, roughly twice the amount of the general election. Ranked-choice voting wasn’t used for every race, meaning it cost a lot more to print multiple styles of ballots.

But in Maine, where voters in 2016 decided to implement ranked-choice voting for federal elections, primary election costs in 2018 -- the first time it was used -- exceeded typical costs by $111,000, falling short of state projections.

Friedman argues the government could ultimately save money because it could reduce the number of elections needed to be held. Theoretically, ranked-choice voting could replace the need for primary elections, or at the very least runoff elections, and be done all in one day.

Friedman also brushes off concerns about ranked-choice voting being too confusing for voters, pointing to Santa Fe, where the New Mexico capital used ranked-choice voting to choose its mayor in 2018. Nearly 90 percent of voters used the rankings, and more than 60 percent ranked all five choices for mayor.

“Not only do voters engage, they engage more deeply,” he said.

State Sen. Becca Rausch, D-Needham, has introduced separate legislation that would give municipalities the choice to implement ranked-choice voting at the local level. Supporters of Rausch’s and Lewis’ bills, which both await a scheduled hearing, are optimistic they could pass this legislative session. And if not, Friedman is bullish voters will want to make the decision themselves.

“If the Legislature doesn’t act, we’re considering taking this to the 2020 ballot,” he said.

Eli Sherman is an investigative and in-depth reporter at Wicked Local and GateHouse Media. Email him at esherman@wickedlocal.com, or follow him on Twitter @Eli_Sherman.