By Paul Craney.
Boston voters deserve a government that gets the basics right. Before the City of Boston embarks on an experiment that will fundamentally alter the city’s elections in a very complex manner, it should first prove it can effectively manage the straightforward, reliable system we already have.
Right now, the Boston Elections Department is in state receivership. Why? Because it failed at core responsibilities like managing ballots and election security.
Yet, instead of addressing this dysfunction, some on the Boston City Council are pushing to adopt Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), a confusing and convoluted system that would only make things worse.
Ranked Choice Voting is being sold as a modern solution to improve democracy. But in practice, it’s a system that benefits political insiders and activists at the expense of average voters.
Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom of California vetoed a RCV proposal in his state six years ago, noting that it “has often led to voter confusion” and that “the promise that ranked choice voting leads to greater democracy is not necessarily fulfilled.”
The warnings from Newsom should be a wake-up call for Boston.
It’s not just theory; it’s backed by data and experience. RCV often disenfranchises voters, especially seniors, new citizens, and those less familiar with the political process. If you don’t guess correctly which two candidates will make it to the final round, your ballot could be discarded before the winner is selected. That’s not voter empowerment; it’s a guessing game dressed up as reform.
Advocates claim RCV elects candidates with majority support. In reality, it delivers what’s called a false majority—a win based not on the total votes cast, but only on the ballots that weren’t exhausted by the final round. That means thousands of voters can participate in an election, only to have their votes thrown out because their preferred candidates were eliminated early. The person who “wins” might not be the candidate with the most votes in the first round or the one most voters supported overall.
Boston already has a runoff system that allows voters to choose among top candidates in a head-to-head contest. It’s simple, transparent, and familiar. Replacing it with an opaque, multi-round algorithm would sow distrust, especially at a time when faith in our institutions is already fragile.
National and outside groups loom large in almost all fights over RCV because they are led by the political activists who stand to benefit most from it. These are the same groups who, in 2020, spent nearly $10 million trying to push RCV statewide, only to be rejected by 55 percent of Massachusetts voters, including majorities in nearly 80 percent of cities and towns. In that campaign, opponents spent less than $10,000. When a 1,000-to-1 spending advantage isn’t enough to persuade voters, maybe the problem is the product.
Since then, states like Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon have rejected similar efforts to impose RCV. It’s clear voters around the country don’t want it and Boston should reconsider the idea.
Even some Boston city councillors see the writing on the wall. Ed Flynn rightly warned that RCV would undermine voter confidence, which is already at a historic low across the nation. If the council wants to restore trust, it should focus on cleaning up its own house before attempting a complete redesign the city’s democratic system.
Let’s be clear: fixing Boston’s elections starts with basic competence and understanding, not over complexity. Voters want accountability, transparency, and integrity, not a convoluted voting experiment that discards ballots to determine a winner.
Mayor Wu should veto this proposal, just like Gavin Newsom did. If the mayor does not, the Legislature should reject Boston’s attempt to impose ranked choice voting.
Newsom said it best, “Ranked choice is an experiment.”
Paul Craney is executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance.
