Cambridge shows RCV is a better way to fill vacancies in elected offices
On September 19, Cambridge, Massachusetts filled a vacancy on its city council after Councilor Joan Pickett sadly passed away.
In addition to the difficulty of losing a local official, the city faced a logistical problem; in most jurisdictions, a vacancy requires a special election, likely resulting in low turnout and tens of thousands of public dollars spent, all while citizens are left without a full council for months. For the voters and residents of Cambridge, proportional ranked choice voting (RCV) has offered a better solution.
Special elections are costly, slow, and unrepresentative
Vacancies in elected offices are fairly common. Officials may resign due to their or a spouse’s illness, as Rep. Chris Stewart (UT-02) did in 2023; elevation to a higher office, as Rep. Deb Haaland (NM-01) did in 2021; or criminal or improper behavior, as Sen. Bob Menendez (NJ) did earlier this year. On rare occasions, legislatures can also expel members, as happened in 2023 when Congress expelled Rep. George Santos.
Filling vacancies in a timely manner is important for voters to be properly represented in their government. In some jurisdictions, vacancies are solved by having other elected officials (like a governor or mayor) appoint a replacement; however, this raises questions about whether the appointee represents the electorate’s will.
Other jurisdictions hold special elections to fill vacancies, but these are often slow, costly, low-turnout affairs. For instance, a special election this year to replace a county councilmember in Prince George’s County, Maryland was estimated to cost $1.3 million. After Rep. John Lewis passed away in 2020, his Georgia constituents went over four months without representation waiting for a special election and runoff to be held. The process took so long that the eventual winner only served 33 days.
Cambridge shows a better way to fill vacancies
Because Cambridge uses RCV to elect its city council, it has a faster, cheaper, better way to fill vacancies. Instead of holding a special election, the Cambridge election commission examined the ballots that had counted for Pickett in the original election. Those ballots were instead counted for the voters’ next-choice candidate, excluding councilors who had already won a seat. Then it was a simple RCV count until one candidate, Catherine Zusy, won with a majority.
Put simply, if Pickett had not been on the ballot in 2023, Zusy would have been elected – so Zusy was awarded the seat when filling this vacancy.
Zusy and Pickett shared many policy views and priorities, reflected by the fact that they were both endorsed by the Cambridge Citizens Coalition and Cambridge Voters for Good Government. That Zusy was chosen to replace Pickett is a good sign that filling vacancies using this method is a fair representation of voters’ views.
This method works best for proportional, multi-winner RCV contests, rather than for single-winner RCV. In proportional RCV, each winner represents a distinct subset of voters – so counting the next choice of those who voted for the councilor who vacated the seat is likely to elect another candidate who appeals to the same voters. Particularly in partisan single-winner RCV races, the same process would be more likely to fill the vacancy with a candidate from a different party than the original winner.
Cambridge is not the only city to use RCV to fill vacancies simply and efficiently. In 2021, Corey Astill, a Lehi, Utah City Council candidate, dropped out after finishing fourth in a six-winner ranked choice primary. City officials used the next-ranked preferences of Astill voters to identify a replacement for the general election ballot. With RCV, voters can confidently cast their ballot for their favorite candidate, knowing if that candidate drops out before the results are final, their vote can count for their next choice.
For vacancies in single-winner offices, we recommend holding a special election using RCV. This identifies a majority winner in a crowded field in a single election, and eliminates the need for special primaries or runoffs – saving taxpayers’ money and filling vacancies faster.
For vacancies in multi-winner offices, Cambridge’s proportional RCV system is better for voter representation than either appointments or special elections. Cambridge chooses replacements based on a high-turnout election and can rapidly return to a full city council. Plus, Cambridge saves its taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars.
Cambridge replaces elected officials quickly, cost-effectively, and democratically. If Congress passes the Fair Representation Act, much of the country could reap the same rewards.
