Why we’re in favor of ranked-choice voting and even-year elections

As democracy advocates who work to increase voter access and participation throughout Washington, we are dismayed by comments put forward by Secretary of State Steve Hobbs. In 2023, just 36% of those registered voted in the general election. Local jurisdictions must have more options to increase voter turnout.

It is maddening that the state’s top election official ignores research supporting the efficacy of RCV and even-year voting. The secretary is entitled to his opinion, but it is not based on facts.

We believe that democracy works best when every possible eligible voter votes and when as many communities as possible are represented in public office. Two things have been shown to help reach those goals: 1) even-year voting and 2) ranked-choice voting.

Let’s take those one at a time: Even-year voting increases voter turnout by consolidating lower-profile races such as council seats or water and sewage districts into the even-number years, which is when we traditionally vote in more high-profile state and national elections. These lower-profile offices profoundly affect people and communities directly.

Since 2010, Washington turnout has averaged 43% in odd years and 74% in even years. That’s a lot of missing votes for local races. Even more worrying: The participation drop-off isn’t distributed evenly. Data from The Urbanist shows that voters from wealthier neighborhoods tend to vote in odd years; less affluent voters don’t.

So not only do odd-year elections depress participation, they privilege the votes of people who already are privileged. This is not just a democracy issue; it’s a social justice issue.

In various speeches and interviews, Secretary Hobbs has said that people don’t read all the way down the ballot. Not only does that imply that he thinks voters are too lazy or disinterested, but it also isn’t true. Sightline Institute analysis of Washington data shows that when elections are held in even years, not only do more people show up, but those in public office are more representative of their communities.

Secretary Hobbs also criticizes ranked-choice voting. This sounds complicated, but, after New York City’s first ranked-choice election in 2021, Common Cause/NY and Rank the Vote NYC surveyed voters who strongly supported the approach and were eager to use it in the future. Voters find RCV simple because ranking is something we all do, every day. If the ice cream store is out of a flavor, like chocolate, we don’t just give up. We’ll choose our second-favorite flavor, strawberry.

With RCV, voters pick their favorite candidate, as in any election. Then they have the option to list one or more backup choices, in case their favorite can’t win. It’s that simple.

Ranked-choice voting was approved by Seattle residents and has been adopted in Alaska, Maine and much of Utah. And looks to be on its way to approval in Oregon.

Hobbs argues that RCV is too confusing for non-native English speakers or people with disabilities. He also says that voters will not fill out RCV ballots correctly.

But a median of 71% of voters rank multiple candidates in RCV elections; and in competitive contests (those with five or more candidates), that rises to 74%, according to FairVote. Multiple studies confirm that RCV does not increase errors or uncountable votes.

The secretary of state’s job is to make it easier for people to participate in democracy. Hobbs doesn’t seem to be committed to that.