On Nov. 5, Oakland, California residents voted overwhelmingly to recall the city’s far-left mayor Democratic Mayor Sheng Thao, who was elected two years ago using ranked-choice voting. Since then, she has been blamed for increasing crime and disorder in the city. This was the first successful recall of a mayor in Oakland’s history, with 61.6% of voters in favor of removing Mayor Thao and only 38.4% opposed.
The recall wasn’t just an indictment of the failures of progressive governance; it was an indictment of ranked-choice voting, or RCV.
Thao’s win in 2022 was made possible by RCV. The novel election system creates winners out of losers by allowing a candidate who received more second-place (or third-place, fourth-place, etc.) votes to win even if another candidate had more first-place votes. This is exactly how Thao squeaked out a 677-vote win.
Her opponent, former Democratic Oakland City Councilmen Loren Taylor, received the most first-place votes but was under 50 percent in the initial round. Because of that, Thao was able to win in the ninth round. And while she had 50.3 percent of the remaining votes, that total was just 45.6 percent of the votes cast in the first round (11,787 “exhausted” ballots were excluded by the final round).
Taylor criticized the complex election process in his concession speech. “Ranked-choice voting as it is isn’t working,” Taylor told a reporter. He noted the high number of discarded ballots, pointing out that this went against the promises made by advocates when they convinced the city to adopt RCV.
Since then, the quality of life for Oakland residents has decreased dramatically. Reports of violent incidents increased 21% last year compared to 2022, and robberies jumped 38%. Instead of aggressively targeting violent gang members, Mayor Thao focused on “ceasefires” and misleading crime statistics to take the heat off herself.
Thao’s entire mayorship can be blamed on the complexities of ranked-choice voting. A system that allows a candidate to win by receiving the most second place votes and disenfranchises voters by eliminating their ballots should be outlawed in state, local and federal elections.
One of the last mayors elected before Oakland made the switch to RCV was former California Gov. Jerry Brown — a ranked-choice voting critic. As governor, he vetoed a bill to allow all cities in the Golden State to use RCV. And while he was mayor of Oakland, Brown reduced crime, grew the city’s population and expanded charter schools, a far cry from what Thao has done.
Last June, Thao’s home was raided by the FBI. Her failures led to the campaign “Oakland United to recall Thao,” which collected more than 40,000 signatures to initiate a recall. The recall campaign was supported by the Oakland Police Officers’ Association, former Democratic Mayor Libby Schaaf, prominent local business leaders, and even Elon Musk.
Ranked-choice voting is promoted as a way to elect popular, moderate candidates. Yet before it was adopted, Oakland actually had moderate, effective mayors. What RCV actually gave Oakland was an unpopular mayor who is now the first to be recalled in the city’s history. There is talk that Oakland’s next move will be to repeal ranked-choice voting. If not, they could end up right back where they started.
Harry Roth is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and the director of outreach at Save Our States, where he manages the Stop RCV Coalition.
How do you waste $15 million? Just ask the folks over at the Make Elections Fair Committee. Last week, their insane attempt to force a California-style elections system of ranked choice voting and jungle primaries went down in flames. Prop 140 failed miserably with nearly 60 percent of the electorate voting “No.” And it wasn’t for lack of funding.
With a huge amount of money coming from the pockets of out-of-state billionaires, the Make Elections Fair Committee spent at least $15 million—giving them a 20:1 spending advantage. That’s right. For every $1 spent trying to defeat the initiative, the Prop 140 committee spent $20 trying to pass it! And they still lost by a wide margin!
That’s legendary. If any business idea ever failed that badly, it would be banished and never spoken of again. And that’s exactly what should happen with ranked choice voting and its ugly cousin jungle primaries (which was already overwhelmingly rejected by Arizona voters back in 2012)…
An attempt to transform Arizona’s elections systems on Tuesday night fell well short after voters went to the polls.
Proposition 140, which would have imposed a mixed system of Ranked Choice Voting and jungle primaries for future elections in Arizona, was defeated with almost 60% of the vote share, as of Wednesday evening.
“We are so grateful for the Arizonans who stood up to oppose this radical transformation of our elections systems,” said Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb and former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould, co-chairs of the No on Prop 140 Committee. “Voters of all political persuasions wisely concluded that Prop 140 would do irreparable harm to our state if enacted. Arizona elections must be free, fair, and transparent, and that is what our system remains after this just result.”
One of the measure’s fiercest opponents, Scot Mussi, the President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, praised the outcome. He said, “Prop 140 was one of the worst ideas to ever be proposed in our great state, and it is fitting that it met its demise from a vast majority of Arizonans. Radical leftists, out-of-state billionaires, and scheming consultants tried to hoodwink voters into adopting this failed system, spending millions of dollars and duplicating signatures to qualify for the ballot. We are so pleased that millions of Arizonans did their homework and said ‘hell no’ to, what would have been, a disastrous transformation of our elections system. California can keep their destructive policies and systems on their side of the state line.”
The organization behind Prop 140, Make Elections Fair Arizona, did not appear to issue a statement as of Wednesday on its website or social media platforms. Immediately following the close of polls on Tuesday night, its account promised to be “back online soon with an Election Day campaign update,” but that does not seem to have materialized yet.
In a Wednesday press release, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club highlighted the defeat of Ranked Choice Voting questions in several states in Tuesday’s General Election. Those results were as follows:
Colorado: Proposition 131 was defeated with almost 55% of the vote
Idaho: Proposition 1 was defeated with almost 70% of the vote
Montana: Both CI-126 & 127 were defeated
Oregon: Measure 117 was defeated with almost 60% of the vote
South Dakota: Amendment H was defeated with more than 65% of the vote
Nevada: Question 3 was defeated with almost 54% of the vote
Alaska: Measure 2, which repeals the state’s ranked choice voting system, appears headed toward passage
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The outcome of a new poll is indicating the defeat of Proposition 140, the “Make Elections Fair Act,” which proposes to overhaul Arizona elections with ranked-choice voting and open primaries.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) released the poll on Tuesday, conducted by Data Orbital. The pollster surveyed over 500 voters over the past weekend to gauge their support for Prop 140; only 42 percent of respondents expressed support for the measure, with those who have already voted at 38 percent in support.
AFEC President Scot Mussi stated in a press release that the poll results indicated an opposition to election reforms similar to those adopted by California.
“This latest poll demonstrates that Arizonans do not appreciate these special interests attempting to commandeer our elections for their radical agenda,” said Mussi. “Arizona voters are diligently doing their research on Prop 140, and they are being turned off by its dangerous effects on our state’s elections and future.”
Mussi remarked that the defeat of Prop 140 would be “sending a message to these out-of-state billionaires and California liberals” that Arizonans won’t adopt “a system run by a partisan election official and his band of unelected bureaucrats.”
By “partisan election official,” Mussi was referring to the Secretary of State — under Prop 140 reforms, the secretary decides the number of candidates who may qualify for the general election ballot in every race, even their own. Theoretically, that could mean a general election ballot consisting of only one party.
AFEC also criticized Prop 140 for its speculated potential to increase tabulation errors, lengthen voting lines, and delay election results.
41 percent of respondents said they were not supportive of the measure. Eight percent said they were undecided, and five percent said they could not recall on how they had already voted on the measure.
The poll surveyed 261 males and 289 females, and respondents were nearly evenly split on whether they were “extremely likely” to vote (291) or had already voted (231). A select few were only somewhat likely (15) or “50/50 likely” (13).
A majority of respondents were 65-and-over, white, Republican, in possession of some college education but no degree, and had voted in the last four elections.
Respondents were heavily weighted in the 65-and-over crowd at 33 percent (182 respondents), with decreasing numbers of participation as the age brackets went younger: 17 percent at ages 55 to 64, 14 percent at ages 45 to 54, 14 percent at ages 35 to 44, 13 percent at ages 25 to 34, and eight percent at ages 18 to 24.
A majority of respondents self-identified as white (71 percent), followed by Hispanic (20 percent), African American (four percent), Asian (two percent), and other (two percent).
Also, more respondents were Republicans: 39 percent. 32 percent of respondents were Democrats, 25 percent of respondents were independents or unaffiliated, and about four percent were “other” voters.
42 percent of respondents received some college education but no degree. 25 percent had a bachelor’s degree, 15 percent had a high school degree or an equivalent, over 14 percent had a graduate degree or higher, two percent didn’t have their high school diploma, and one percent refused to answer.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey announced his opposition to Proposition 140 in a press release from the ‘No on Prop 140’ Committee last week. Prop 140 would convert the Arizona elections system into what has been referred to as “a California-style election scheme built around ranked-choice voting and jungle primaries.”
“Prop 140 would hand the keys to our elections over to a future Legislature, and potentially give a blank check to one partisan politician — the Secretary of State — to determine on his or her own which candidates advance to the general election,” Ducey said.
“Like many Arizonans, I am open to reforms, but this is a recipe for disaster and unintended consequences. We can do better. Join a bipartisan coalition of Arizonans in voting No on Prop 140.”
“We are grateful for Governor Ducey’s staunch opposition to Proposition 140,” said Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb and former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould, co-chairs of the No on Prop 140 Committee. “Governor Ducey, like many Arizonans of varying political persuasions, realizes the irreversible harms this ballot measure would inflict on our state. We must not allow Arizona to fall prey to this dangerous election scheme. Vote NO on Prop 140!”
As previously reported by AZ Free News, the efforts to impose this new system of voting on Arizona is being bankrolled by a group known as ‘Unite America’ (formerly known as the Centrist Project) which gave over $1.7 million to boost the Make Elections Fair PAC earlier in October.
This group, headed by Kent Thiry, a wealthy political figure who has spearheaded progressive political causes in Colorado, has and is still pushing similar reforms in states such as Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
They don’t want you to read the fine print!‼️
Prop 140 gives 1 partisan politician the power to decide who appears on the ballot-even in their own race! This California-style election scheme is designed to benefit the wealthy special interests behind it.
The committee explained that Prop 140 would add 15 new amendments to the Arizona Constitution. It would:
Allow one partisan politician, the Arizona Secretary of State, to decide how many candidates qualify for the general election ballot for every single contest, including his or her own race.
Result in some races where candidates from only one political party appear on the general election ballot.
Force voters to navigate two completely different voting systems on the same ballot, with some races requiring voters to rank candidates under a rank choice voting system and others that do not.
Increase tabulation errors, create longer lines at the polls, and significantly delay election results.
Ducey, returning to political news after an extremely public and acrimonious split with Trump-supporting Republicans, endorsed both President Donald Trump and AZGOP Senate candidate Kari Lake for the 2024 election in August. “Much is on the line this election year & I’m encouraging all eligible Arizonans to vote & prioritize the issues that most affect our state & nation. I will be voting for Republicans up & down the ballot in November — and both Donald Trump and Kari Lake have my endorsement,” he wrote in a social media post.
Ducey explained:
“The border must be secured.
Inflation must be tamed.
America must be respected around the globe and World War III must be avoided.
The Supreme Court should not be restructured by Chuck Schumer.
The TCJA [Tax Cuts and Jobs Act] must be extended and made permanent.
School choice must be supported.
Differences aside, there is too much on the line and only a Republican in the White House and a majority in the House and US Senate can ensure it.”