Is This Any Way to Run an Election?

Over six years ago (March 26, 2020), I published an article “Voting Paradoxes?” that showed how a candidate disliked by most voters can win an election.

After I wrote that, it happened in Santa Barbara. Randy Rowse became mayor while winning just 38.6% of the vote. Because two opponents split the opposition vote. Nearly two-thirds of voters preferred someone else, but Rowse became mayor. He may be a perfectly fine mayor, but is this a functioning democracy?

Something even more bizarre almost just happened in the California governor’s race. Governor Schwarzenegger and Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado, both Republicans, in 2010 pushed through Proposition 14 that completely changed how we voted for governor.

In the past, each party voted for a candidate from their party during a primary election. In November, these candidates faced off in a final election. The system was dominated by the Democratic and Republican parties, but there were also Greens, Libertarians, and others fielding candidates in November.

Proposition 14 created a “top two” system where the top two vote getters in the “primary” would go on to the November election. Regardless of which party they were from. This was pitched as “opening up” the election from party control.

In fact, it was just a stealth mechanism for Republicans to have a chance of winning with a minority of votes.

Here is a hypothetical example: 62 candidates run for governor. Two Republicans get 20% each. And the remaining 60 Democrats get 1% each. Meaning that in November two Republicans are on the ballot and no Democrats. Even though 60% of voters preferred a Democrat.

Well, that is pretty close to what almost happened during this 2026 election. Sixty-one candidates were on the ballot for governor. From February 17 to April 6, two MAGA Republicans polled at the top, each at around 15%. If the election were held during that time, it would have guaranteed a Republican would have won the November election, even though the overwhelming number of voters would have preferred someone else.

During this period on up to election day, Tom Steyer was polling quite well with a strong message about the Climate Crisis: Using sustainable energy to help the environment while making energy more affordable. He also pushed for universal single payer healthcare and expediting housing construction.

But he was still below the Republicans. Because so many Democrats were splitting the vote. Out of nowhere, Xavier Becerra soared from single digits to first place. Did he have many enthusiastic supporters? No. He rarely even talked about why he was running. He had very little success to show from the previous offices he’d held. But he was perceived as a “safe” candidate to defeat the scary MAGA Republicans.

Meanwhile, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan had an actual successful track record on issues most Californians care about. Notably, housing and homelessness, crime reduction and streamlining government. But he did not have Steyer’s money or Becerra’s name recognition, so he was considered less “safe.” Even though he was probably most qualified to run California successfully.

Is this any way to run an election? This absurd system gives us neither the best outcomes for governance nor does it reflect the popular will of the voters. Note that these are two separate and equally important issues.

The traditional system of party primaries was also not ideal to pick the best person for the job or the popular choice, but it was better than this Republican-engineered “top two” system.

As I discussed in my previous article, Ranked Choice Voting systems are far superior for popular choice selection. There are many versions.

Some versions try to identify who inspires the strongest support.

Others favor candidates who offend the fewest people.

Think of “enthusiasm” versus “consensus.” Consider pizza toppings: Anchovies, Cheese, Pepperoni. Lovers of anchovies may be passionate. They may get the highest number of first choice votes. But Cheese may be the choice most can live with.

With our planet’s future at stake and unpopular sacrifices needed, maybe we need a different selection system entirely? Maybe we need to elect or appoint representatives of future generations who also get a vote?