California District 16 primary would have benefited from ranked choice voting
Eight weeks after California District 16 held its congressional primary election, voters finally learned who will advance to the general election. The primary drew 11 candidates, and the winners received just 21% and 17%, respectively. If California used ranked choice voting (RCV) in the primary or general election, voters would have more choices and the results would be much faster – and more representative.
California uses a “top two” voting method in which all candidates appear on a single primary ballot, and the two candidates with the most votes advance to the general election in November. In the District 16 primary, Sam Liccardo clearly won the first-place slot.
The 2nd and 3rd candidates – Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian and State Assemblyman Evan Low – both received exactly 30,249 votes in the first count. Under California law, all three would have advanced to the general election – but a voter-requested recount dragged the process out another month, and saw Low come out ahead by just five votes.
RCV would make more votes count in the primary
In close races like this, it’s especially important that every vote has its maximum impact – yet just 38% of voters selected Liccardo or Low. That means 62% of voters aren’t represented in the results.
| Candidate | Vote % | Vote # |
| Sam Liccardo (D) | 21.10% | 38,492 |
| Evan Low (D) | 16.60% | 30,261 |
| Joe Simitian (D) | 16.60% | 30,256 |
| Peter Ohtaki (R) | 12.80% | 23,283 |
| Peter Dixon (D) | 8.10% | 14,677 |
| Rishi Kumar (D) | 6.80% | 12,383 |
| Karl Ryan (R) | 6.30% | 11,563 |
| Julie Lythcott-Haims (D) | 6.20% | 11,386 |
| Ahmed Mostafa (D) | 3.20% | 5,814 |
| Greg Tanaka (D) | 1.30% | 2,421 |
| Joby Bernstein (D) | 0.90% | 1,652 |
| Total | 182,188 |
If the California District 16 primary used RCV, that 62% of voters could have ranked backup choices on their ballots, and consolidated around a viable candidate they liked. Since Low edged out Simitian by just five votes, second choices from the 83,000 voters who didn’t pick one of the top three candidates would have been decisive.
RCV would allow a larger general election field
Compare this to what might happen if California used a similar voting method as Alaska – advancing four candidates to the general election instead of two, and using RCV in the general election to ensure a majority winner.
Notably, Low did not want a recount and accused the Liccardo campaign of engineering it (Liccardo denied this), perhaps to elevate a preferred opponent – a loophole in California’s top-two primary that Adam Schiff exploited in California’s U.S. Senate primary. If California’s District 16 advanced four candidates, that would include all three of Liccardo, Low, and Simitian – the remarkable tie, lengthy recount process, and finger-pointing rendered moot.
It would likely also include fourth-place finisher Peter Ohtaki, a Republican. Right now, Republicans in District 16 are completely shut out of the general election; they have no skin in the game. If we value civic participation, this is probably not a recipe for engagement. While the chances of Ohtaki winning the general election would be slim, given the strong Democratic tilt of the district, he would give voice to a significant portion of the electorate, and give voters a wider set of choices.
No matter how California runs its elections, there’s always the possibility of a razor-thin outcome and even a drawn-out count or recount – that’s okay. But in a single-choice voting with a crowded field of 11 candidates, things are more likely to get complicated, unrepresentative, and sometimes flat-out weird.
Ranked choice voting would be an easy upgrade with a much more representative result. Whether RCV is used in the primary, general election, or both, it would be an improvement over the current method.
