Authored by: Tyler Clark
Zohran Mamdani was sworn in as New York City’s 112th mayor on New Year’s day. Stacked against adversarial financial support from billionaire-backed, pro-Cuomo Super PACs, Mandani’s longshot victory is remarkable given both his relative youth and limited experience as the chief executive over the financial epicenter of global capital.
However, two notable features of his toppling of the incumbent political dynasty lie within election laws made possible, in part, by NYC’s city charter: Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and the Public Matching Funds Program.
Could Chicago benefit by emulating the Empire State? Matt Martin, an Alderman representing Chicago’s 47th ward, thinks so. In 2023, Martin introduced a resolution to the city council urging them to hear arguments on establishing RCV, which would allow voters to rank each candidate on their ballot according to their preferences — unlike plurality voting where a winner could earn less than half of the popular vote. Further, RCV protects a majority-rule principle by which a candidate must surpass a 50% vote share threshold to prevail.
To be sure, arguments turned toward unfairness in government concern the lack of descriptive representation perpetuated by the current, single-vote plurality election laws have become a peculiar source of attention. Thomas Geoghegan, for example, calls for abolishing the recalcitrant Senate because of an inherent design flaw which overrepresents states with relatively smaller populations; Jesse Wegman proposes ditching the winner-take-all Electoral College due to its unreliability in close presidential races. Unlike plurality voting’s hand in elevating candidates who create durable, regional economic disparities, RCV, by contrast, increases the proportion of minority candidates who may be better attuned to address long ignored policies that disproportionately impact marginalized communities of color.
In a similar vein to these big ticket issues implicated by plurality voting, RCV, as some scholars have found, “would make it more likely that broadly popular candidates would be elected,” by introducing more competition in election campaigns. Voters also tend to favor RCV over time. They find this modern process of electing their representatives less confusing the longer it is implemented. In NYC, for instance, 93% of voters found RCV simple to use according to one Common Cause/Unite America exit poll. With each Cinderella story campaign victory about an unlikely winning candidate comes a heightened enthusiasm for RCV across the U.S., offering clear benefits over plurality voting election laws to everyone from a rural town to a bustling metropolis. Easy participation invites competition.
It is thus within a competitive electoral environment where a Public Matching Funds Program becomes useful. To rein in special interests from influencing elections, and to protect the competitive process alongside increased working-class participation in them, Chicago, like NYC, could establish its own version of a public financing campaign board. This board would serve to provide candidates financial incentives in their campaigns by giving them more funding the more they engage with average Chicagoans, rather than a need to rely on outsized corporate PACs for funding. This could empower more candidates to run for office even without access to wealth. Working class residents who run for office can build viable campaigns with real community dollars over special interest contributions. The public financing program would be voluntary. It would additionally match small dollar contributions so that community members can not only keep their elected officials accountable since most of the source of the funding comes from them, but also helps maintain confidence that city government is functional and responsive to needs. According to the NYC Campaign Finance Board, “a $10 contribution from a NYC resident to a participating candidate in the 2021 election could be worth as much as $90 to their campaign.”
A city charter enabled the creation of both a ranked choice system and a public funds matching scheme in NYC. Modernized election laws enables New York City to usher in a creative new vision of politics which prioritizes achieving genuine affordability and economic justice. As is the case in our nation’s largest city, Chicago can likewise enshrine new legal codes to encourage participation and democratic representation. In a notorious working class city, it is time for our laws to once again prioritize ordinary people first.
About the Author
Tyler Clark is a current 1L at UIC Law. He holds a master’s degree in economics from the University of Utah. His research focuses on Law & Political Economy, Antitrust, and Economic History.
