Ranked Choice Voting provides an interesting manner of refracting the voice of the electorate, by inviting citizens to select three or four top candidates. But in an economically divide city, the basis for assembling a plurality can effectively segment the vote into different economic constituencies that may paradoxically not necessarily align with the public interest: in Oakland, several candidates gained backing among residents unsure how Oakland's big-city problems could be addressed, but unhappy with the status quo and fearful of an apparent rise in crime and poor policing, in ways that directed debate in the election in ways that may even have alienated other sectors of the city. Did Oakland benefit from the system of Ranked Choice Voting, and can one interpret the Registrar's map of voting preferences for signs of how the city broke for different candidates, and failed to involve that much of the electorate? Although the practice of voting for several ranked candidates did not play so decisive a role in the 2014 Mayoral election as it did in 2010, direct candidates court specific sectors of the city that do not easily square with representing the public interest? If so, can one read the voting maps of Oakland's Registrar of Voters against recent open data maps of the city to suggest how the institution of Ranked Choice Voting helped shape the issues that became most central to the vote of 2014? What struggle will the legitimacy of a RCV-selected mayor face in representing Oakland's collective interests, lastly, rather than the plurality of voters by which she was elected?
Continue reading →![]()
