Kyrsten Sinema could have stayed in Arizona’s Senate race with ranked choice voting
Earlier this month, independent Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema announced that she would not seek re-election in November. With ranked choice voting (RCV), Sinema could have stayed in the race without playing “spoiler,” and Arizona voters could have more than two real choices on the ballot.
Kyrsten Sinema left the Democratic Party in late 2022 to become an independent – describing the new affiliation as a “reflection of who (she’s) always been.” Her new status also triggered much speculation about this year’s Senate race. Prior to Sinema’s departure, polls showed a tossup between likely Democratic nominee Ruben Gallego and likely Republican nominee Kari Lake, with Sinema pulling about 20% support.
An independent Sinema bid would likely have “siphoned votes” from both major-party candidates. The race would likely be won without a majority – with a potentially unrepresentative outcome determined not by voters’ true preferences, but by the number of candidates running.
In fact, Republicans tried to seize on the potential for left-leaning voters to “split” between Gallego and Sinema – just as Democrats have done in other races. A December ad from the National Republican Senatorial Committee called Gallego a “deadbeat dad” and emphasized Sinema’s support for President Biden’s agenda. The ad likely aimed to convince some potential Gallego supporters to back Sinema instead, helping the Republican candidate to squeeze through to victory.
If Arizona used RCV to elect its leaders, Sinema could have run without playing “spoiler.” Sinema’s supporters could have ranked Sinema first, and indicated their backup choice between Gallego and Lake. Thus, a vote for Sinema wouldn’t be a vote “taken away” from one of the two major parties. By addressing vote-splitting, RCV encourages more candidates to run and gives voters more choices.
Known as one of the most bipartisan U.S. senators, Sinema cited her disillusionment with the state of American politics as her reason for bowing out of the race. When Sinema announced she would not run, she expressed, “Because I choose civility, understanding, listening, working together to get stuff done, I will leave the Senate at the end of this year . . . Compromise is a dirty word. We’ve arrived at that crossroad, and we chose anger and division. I believe in my approach, but it’s not what America wants right now.”
Indeed, “choose-one” elections create toxic campaign cycles, advance candidates who lack broad support, and leave voters feeling like their voices are not heard. With RCV, successful candidates make broad appeals and compete for secondary support. Early evidence shows that RCV may increase bipartisan behavior in competitive jurisdictions, like Arizona. In fact, some of the most bipartisan members of Congress have already been elected or re-elected under RCV. These include Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-AK), and Representative Jared Golden (D-ME).
A federal bill called the Fair Representation Act, which was re-introduced last week, would take larger strides in addressing the congressional dysfunction that prompted Sinema to leave – including by establishing RCV for all U.S. Senate elections.
RCV would give Arizona voters more choice and more voice. Politicians like Kyrsten Sinema could run without spoiling the race, and operate under better incentives once in Congress.
