Mayor Jacob Frey
While in a traditional election, a 19-point lead would have any candidate feeling comfortable, the ranked-choice voting system used in Minneapolis could mean Jacob Frey’s lead slips away — if his opposition is united enough. Credit: MinnPost file photo by Craig Lassig

On Monday, All of Mpls, a political committee spending money to try to, among other things, re-elect Mayor Jacob Frey and to defeat the police-reform ballot question, released an internal poll with the finding that Frey was leading challengers with 44 percent of first-choice votes. Sheila Nezhad came in second, with 25 percent of first-choice votes, and Kate Knuth came in third with 10 percent.

One should take any poll released by a campaign with a grain of salt, or whole shaker: campaigns typically only release polls when they reflect favorably on their preferred candidates. Also, All of Mpls did not release important details about how the poll was done or any crosstabs.

But regardless of whether the poll is good or not, was the release right to proclaim Frey was in a “strong position” to win re-election? While in a traditional election, a 19-point lead would have any candidate feeling comfortable, the ranked-choice voting system used in Minneapolis means Frey’s supposed lead could be less formidable than it seems — if his opposition is united.

Ranked-choice review

In a normal election — like the ones Minnesotans vote in for president, Congress and State Legislature — voters pick one candidate for each race on the ballot. A candidate wins the election by winning at least one more vote than the next closest candidate.

Sheila Nezhad
[image_caption]Sheila Nezhad[/image_caption]
In ranked-choice voting, now used by Minneapolis (and St. Paul, and an increasing number of municipalities in Minnesota that have adopted variations of the system), voters can rank candidates — up to three in Minneapolis — in order of preference for each office.

When votes are tabulated, if no candidate receives more than 50 percent of first-choice votes, the candidates with no mathematical chance of winning are dropped as a group. Ballots with those candidates as their first choice are reallocated to remaining candidates according to their second or third choices. The process then continues, with the candidate with the least votes dropped after each round, until one candidate reaches at least 50 percent of the votes plus one vote, not including ballots that were exhausted because none of the choices they listed were still in the running.

Kate Knuth
[image_credit]Kate for Mpls[/image_credit][image_caption]Kate Knuth[/image_caption]
In 2017, for example, Frey received 25 percent of first-choice votes. Tom Hoch got 19 percent, former mayor Betsy Hodges got 18 percent, Ray Dehn got 17 percent and Nekima Levy Armstrong got 15 percent. It wasn’t until Levy Armstrong, Hoch and Hodges were eliminated after rounds of RCV tabulation that the race came down to Frey and Dehn, with Frey eventually winning.

Such an outcome is unsurprising in the world of ranked-choice voting. It’s almost always the case that the candidate who gets the most first-round votes also ultimately wins.

Underdog wins

There are exceptions to the rule, though: one, the Oakland, California mayor’s race in 2010, said Jason McDaniel, associate professor of political science at San Francisco State University.

In that open-seat race, former State Sen. Don Perata was ahead in the polls going into Election Day. When first-choice votes were tabulated, Perata led City Council member Jean Quan by more than 11,000 votes. But as lower-performing candidates were eliminated in the RCV process, more of their votes were allocated to Quan than Perata. In what was considered an upset, Quan won by about 2,000 votes.

A particular facet of the campaign made it possible for Quan to upset the first-round frontrunner, McDaniel said: two viable candidates — Quan and City Council member Rebecca Kaplan — were somewhat allied in opposing Perata, who was seen as the establishment candidate.

In a story published after her win, the New York Times described Quan’s strategy as one of aligning with the candidates in the race who were not Perata, focusing on being voters’ second choice.

“She singled out Mr. Perata, a conservative Democrat who had outspent everyone, and aligned herself with the other nine candidates, particularly the other major challenger, Rebecca Kaplan. She came to be seen as the leader of the “anybody but Don” coalition, appealing to voters who were wary of Mr. Perata,” the Times wrote.

‘Don’t Rank Frey’

That strategy of challengers allying to defeat a perceived frontrunner in an RCV election might sound familiar to Minneapolis voters in 2021. In Minneapolis, a “Don’t Rank Frey,” effort encourages voters to rank anybody but the incumbent mayor, denying him late-round votes as other candidates are eliminated.

Nezhad and Knuth have also formed an alliance, appearing together and announcing the other as their second choice. Their partnership has won the endorsement of Rep. Ilhan Omar, progressive political group TakeAction Minnesota and others.

This strategy may be Frey opponents’ best bet to beat the incumbent mayor — but it only works under the right conditions, McDaniel said.

In a scenario where Frey is ahead in first-round votes, Nezhad and Knuth would each have to get 20 percent to 25 percent of first-choice votes, McDaniel said, and they would need about 70 percent of their supporters to rank the other.

The underdog alliance move doesn’t always work: In San Francisco’s 2018 mayoral election, Supervisor Jane Kim and former State Senator Mark Leno campaigned together to try to blunt the edge of Supervisor London Breed, who was perceived as the frontrunner. Kim and Leno each received 24 percent of first-round votes to Breed’s 37 percent, but Breed stayed on top in subsequent rounds of tabulation as lower-performing candidates were eliminated.

No Minnesota candidate who was behind after the first round of ranked-choice tabulation had ever come back to win the election until 2017, when it happened in two Minneapolis’ city council races where the frontrunner was a polarizing candidate — a condition that can also lead to an underdog win. In the race to represent the 3rd ward, which includes Northeast, Marcy-Holmes and part of downtown Minneapolis, Socialist Alternative candidate Ginger Jentzen was ahead to begin with, with 3,297 first-choice votes. DFLer Steve Fletcher got 2,709. By the end of ranked-choice tabulation, though, their roles were reversed. Fletcher had 4,861 votes and Jentzen had 3,844.

In North Minneapolis’ Ward 4, incumbent Barb Johnson led in first-choice votes, with 2,258, while Phillipe Cunningham was in second, with 2,140. By the time the RCV process was finished, though, Cunningham was elected with 2,605 votes to Johnson’s 2,430.

Assuming Frey actually ends up ahead in first-choice votes, could another candidate come from behind to win in this year’s mayor’s race? Sure. But there is one caveat: McDaniel said he’s not aware of it ever happening to an incumbent.

Still, McDaniel said, “that 19-point lead, even if it’s optimistic for Frey, which it probably is from an internal poll, if he doesn’t have a clear double-digit lead in first-place votes, it’ll probably be a close race.”

Join the Conversation

32 Comments

  1. If Minneapolis had its old primary system, the opposition to Frey would be consolidated into a single candidate, and he might be in trouble. RCV fractures the opposition and protects incumbents.

    1. The old primary system (top two candidates advance to the general election) already had many of the purported advantages of RCV — encouraging people to vote their conscious in the primary (which provides a snapshot of what voters think is important), and making sure the eventual winner received more than 50 percent of the vote.

      I’ve always felt that the reform should’ve been for congressional and statewide elections to be more like the old primary system. Take the 2002 governor’s race for example: If there were a second primary* after the partisan primary for the four major parties at the time (Republican, Democrat, Green, Independence) and the top two vote-getters went head-to-head, I think that would have been very interesting. In this case, Pawlenty had about 43-44 percent and Moe was second with like 35 percent.

      How would have the 20 percent who voted Independence, Green, or Other voted in a runoff election?

      (Note: I’ve always felt that we should have runoff elections if no candidate got more than 50 percent. The standard argument has been that it would cost too much money. And so the compromise, I guess, is RCV.)

      The takeaway here with RCV is that any system can be gamed.

      And one thing I think we can all agree on is that almost anything is better than the way California runs its recall elections (which allow an unlimited number of candidates but installs the top vote-getter even if they have less than 20 percent of the vote as governor — if the incumbent is removed. Completely bonkers).

      1. The great irony is that one of the (false) claims of RCV supporters is that is guarantees a majority winner. The old system did that. The last two Minneapolis elections have not had a majority winners.

  2. You mean that the candidate with the most votes could lose? That is an attack on our democracy!

    1. I don’t know as I would go that far, but it is an absurd system.

      Not everyone who identifies as a liberal is down with RCV, even if it is used in the Twin Cities of the Plain.

  3. So Frey gets 49 % of first place votes, and no second or third place. Larry Stooges is third on 51 % of ballots. Could Larry conceivable end up then reaching the required total for a win the election?
    A far.fetched scenario but if that is a possibility, that’s troubling. After the last two years nothing seems too far fetched anymore

    1. It could happen. And it has happened a few times. And when it does, unsurprisingly, the winner does not have much of a mandate and is seen as illegitimate by a lot of voters.

  4. Good article. If a resident likes only one of the candidates, can we list that same candidate on the second ballot? Or we forced to leave it blank?

  5. I’m not a big Frey fan, but the others are worse.

    Frey is the best candidate on the ballot.

    Hopefully the people of Minneapolis use some common sense when voting for mayor.

    1. Andy,

      I totally agree with you.

      Let’s approve the “strong mayor” ballot question, defeat the abolition of the police department, and see if Frey can do a better job. if not, hopefully, there will be better options next time.

    1. Yes, it is. I’ve never understood how it is supposed to deliver the benefits its backers promised.

      I’m all for letting anyone who meets the legal qualifications to hold office appear on the ballot, but then expecting people to make any meaningful choice by ranking candidates is a real leap of logic.

  6. All I can say is Frey’s political ads pop up when I’m watching “Only Murders In The Building” on Hulu. If the guy were in a competitive race of any kind those ads would sink him faster than a iceberg. A bunch of people sitting around nodding while he blah blah blahs… and breaking into applause after a decidedly uninspired finale? I’d be looking for someone else to vote for if I lived in MPLS.

  7. The point of RCV is that it produces a winner who is acceptable to the majority of voters even if (s)he is nobody’s first choice.
    This outcome is most likely in a highly polarized election where the most popular choice gets a plurality, but picks up few second or third place votes.
    The Founders did not visualize political parties, nor the polarization that they are producing.

    1. “The point of RCV is that it produces a winner who is acceptable to the majority of voters even if (s)he is nobody’s first choice”

      I am not sure if you are making a distinction between the “point” of RCV and the reality of RCV, but RCV does not necessarily produce a winner with majority support. Some RCV advocates claim this, but they are simply flat-out lying. The last two Minneapolis mayoral elections produced plurality winners. The old top 2 primary system guaranteed a majority winner, and adopting RCV removed that guarantee, which was the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do.

      2017:

      Valid ballots: 104,522
      Votes for Frey after re-allocation: 46,716
      Votes for Dehn after re-allocation: 34,971
      Exhausted ballots: did not name Frey or Dehn: 22,835

      Frey won with a plurality of 44.69 percent of the vote.

      2013:

      Valid ballots: 79,415
      Votes for Hodges: 38,870
      Votes for Andrew: 24,972
      Exhausted ballots 15,573

      Hodges won with a plurality of 48.95 percent of the vote.

      Some RCV advocates claim that the exhausted ballots shouldn’t be counted, and that there is a “majority” if you only include the final two in the the RCV process. But those 22,835 people in 2017 and 15,573 people in 2013 showed up and cast valid ballots. The idea that their votes shouldn’t be counted because they did not vote for the right people is nonsense. Its no different than discarding all of the third-party votes in a regular election and saying that the Democrat or Republican who won got a majority even they got fewer than half the votes. Seriously, do those 15 to 20 thousand people not matter for a consensus? Does it not matter that the winner or second place finisher was not acceptable to people who actually came and voted? Should they be discarded?

      RCV is just nonsense.

  8. Nezhad and Knuth and Omar.

    Now that’s the kind of zero experience in running anything leadership Minneapolis needs.

    Put Nezhad or Knuth in the Mayor’s office and they too will be Betsy Hodges like gone in 4 years.

    Give Frey 4 more years to show he has learned something in the past 4…

  9. I’ve always found irony to be a slippery concept, but I think it would be truly ironic if MPLS passed question 1 only to end up with a more powerful liberal Mayor other than Frey, regardless what happens with question 2.

    Conservative Democrats don’t seem to realize that the rest of us are in this for long run, and we don’t forget decades of failure. You may win this election or defeat a proposal here and there, but if Frey and Arradondo sit on their victory and fail to deliver the reform they keep promising, their city will remain mired in violence and systemic racism. You can only ignore crises for so long before you get something drastic so let’s not pretend that a Frey victory will be the end of the story here. Democrats always seem to forget that it actually matters what you do between elections, and there will be more elections. You won’t win forever if you keep turning your victories into betrayals’

    The arc of history and trend in MPLS and elsewhere is liberal… so it’s just a matter of time before folks like Frey are dethroned (unless they deliver the reform they promise). Maybe we need someone to play the role of the ancient Roman slave who whispered in the conquerors ear: “All glory is fleating”? And no, that’s not an endorsement of slavery, it’s just a movie reference.

  10. I have to take a little issue here with Ms. Kaul’s decisions regarding polarization and it’s candidates. In the Oakland race for instance it’s most likely that the conservative Democrat was the polarizing figure, as they tend to be elsewhere. There’s no law of the universe that places “establishment” candidates beyond the realm of divisiveness and polarization. Likewise I don’t why you would decide that the Socialist candidate is the polarizing feature of a local race. Is any candidate that challenges the status quo a “polarizing” candidate?

    What we’ve seen here in the virtual pages of these comment threads is conservative Democrats playing the role of polarization; their vicious attacks on fellow Democrats certainly cannot be described as efforts to reconcile or unify. I know the polarization narrative is a big deal among a lot of journalists these days, but it’s a fickle mistress. Why not just say that RCV has produced some electoral upsets rather describe underdogs as “polarizers”?

    1. No, it was the RCV winner in Oakland who was polarizing. She was a terrible mayor, and due to the nature of her RCV win, she was considered illegitimate by the electorate. One term and out.

  11. We ended up with RCV because conservative politicians of either Party who catered to their affluent and comfortable benefactors sat around for decades celebrating the status quo while one crises after another (from unaffordable housing to police brutality and systemic racism) gained permanent status.

    Breaking the death grip of mediocrity and injustice is never easy, and I don’t know anyone who thought RCV would bring the power elite down within a years or two. We’ve only had a handful of elections using RCV and of course it will take some time for politicians to figure out how to use it to their advantage. Those who want to pretend that the old duopoly or one Party rule that ignored a vast majority of constituents while lavishing privilege and gifts upon their affluent benefactors (Consider the stadiums and arenas all over the place while homelessness became a standard feature of Twin City living for instance) may wax nostalgic for the old days… but nothing lasts forever. It may take a few elections for RCV to deliver it’s promise, but that promise is a lot more attractive than the old regime that almost burned our cities down.

    1. Actually, RCV protects the power elite. More specifically, it protects incumbents. It used to be that the opposition would consolidate into an single opponent in a primary, and would have a shot. With RCV, the opposition is fractured. If Frey wins, he will owe some of his victory to the structural advantages given to him by RCV.

  12. Are we required to use RCV, or are we allowed to vote in the #1 ranking and leave #2 and #3 blank?

    1. You are free to vote for the #1 and leave the rest blank. You are not required to rank.

  13. Pat, you need to make up your mind, either RCV is disaster that kept your competent incumbent out of office in Oakland, OR it’s the security blanket that keeps MPLS incumbents in office… but not both. If RCV helps keep incumbents in office… how a mayor only last one term? Obviously it was terribly easy to unseat Mayors in MPLS, they tend to serve as long as they want to. Sure, when wealthy establishment Democrats combine forces with Republican narratives… you manage to unseat Mayors like Hodges, but let’s not pretend that was a common occurrence in the old regime.

    Since your repeating claims I’ll give it whirl: We can worry what kinds of results RCV may produce, but we already KNOW what kinds results the old duopoly produced… several spectacular failures. From homelessness to Trump in the White House and cities on fire all over the country you can brag about getting elected but you own all those failures and crises. It may take a while to figure out how to work RCV, and if you want to compare a few RCV elections to decades of duopoly failure I can’t stop you; but I think we’ll give RCV a chance to shake out before we issue the final judgment on it if don’t mind.

    If I were you guys I’d be worried more about delivering the results you keep promising and less about simply getting elected. This business of walking away from your promises (like only disciplining a single officer, for speaking to the media) isn’t “working”. You better step up and show us what you’ve got instead of just celebrating your “win” this time… the ring leaders at the County Seat say you don’t have THAT much time.

    1. Actually, I don’t need to make up my mind. There was no incumbent in the Oakland race. This article (“in that open-seat race”) even says that. Read more carefully before you go after me. 😉

      The fact that RCV gives incumbents a built-in advantage doesn’t guarantee they will win. Hodges was a spectacularly incompetent mayor, which she reminded us about with that terribly dishonest piece she just wrote. Based on the old system, she would have not even made it to the runoff based on first place votes. The incumbent advantage is based on the assumption that the incumbent will be one of the final two under the RCV system and RCV fractures the opposition instead of uniting it under one opponent. When a mayor is as bad as Hodges, not even RCV could save her.

      I’m not worried about it. I’m just pointing out that it doesn’t live up to its claims. And that in this election, it is likely to give Jacob Frey a boost. But for the most part, RCV has very little impact at all. The Oakland mayor, Jean Quan, was mostly known for regularly falling asleep at meetings and other public events and lost the next re-election.

      1. Thank you Pat, I stand corrected… but my point remains. You use Hodges to illustrate your claim that regardless of RCV, a bad mayor loses… you’re not proving that RCV is better or worse than the old duopoly. Sure Pat… every mayor in the history of MPLS since Humphrey has been a great mayor until Hodges came along… OK then.

        I agree however that RCV hasn’t YET produced all the promised advantages, but Democratic reforms rarely do so overnight, or in a few election cycles.

        And just to remind everyone following along at home… THIS election isn’t about how what kind of mayor Ms. Hodges was.

        1. I certainly don’t think every mayor was great. Hodges was just particularly bad. And the point about Hodges was that if you are a bad enough incumbent, it won’t matter what system you vote under.

          There is nothing ideological about RCV. The advantage it gives to incumbents, and that would be true even if the incumbent was a Democratic Socialist. It just happens that the incumbent in this case (and many cases) is a more moderate candidate. Its about math, not ideology. Again, under the old system, the opposition would unite against the incumbent under the strongest candidate in a 1 v 1 race. Now, under RCV, the opposition is fractured. Just math.

          1. OK, but you realize that people don’t vote for “math”… they vote of candidates based on their campaigns and the stuff they say they[re going to do, and what they have or haven’t done thus far. Again, when Democrats assume that the candidates and what they do are irrelevant because they’ve got the “math”… this is when things go wrong. And things have most definitely gone wrong in MPLS.

            And again, what kind of mayor Hodges was isn’t the point. Keep your eye on the ball and work for the poor bastards who vote for you RCV or not.

            1. No, they don’t vote for math. But math effects the outcome of the elections. I don’t think Frey or any of the Democrats running are assuming anything because of math. Its just that RCV gives incumbents an advantage. Frey would be more likely to lose under the old system than he would with the RCV system.

              1. I think the incumbent advantage you’re describing remains to be seen. We’ll have to put more than two or three elections cycles behind us before we can draw conclusions like that. I think it’s likely that Frey will win today, but I don’t think we can say that RCV is keeping him office.

                1. Ask yourself this: do you think Frey could have been beaten if the opposition was just Knuth or Nezhad, instead of this rank us both/don’t rank Frey business?

Leave a comment