RCV Study Report

Single Ballot Ranked Choice Voting Study Committee Report

Recommendation: Support Ranked Choice Voting Albany’s proposal and its proposed method of conducting all general and special elections for City offices in the city of Albany, New York. (September 2026)

The League of Women Voters of Albany County (LWVAC) is a non-partisan grassroots organization, which encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and aims to influence public policy through education and advocacy.

Although the LWVAC is probably best known for its work to register voters and defend voting rights, we also work to monitor government activities and study government issues. A LWVAC study provides an in-depth and balanced analysis of issues affecting voters in Albany County.

Recently, Ranked Choice Voting Albany proposed an amendment to the city of Albany charter that would abolish primaries and move to a unified general election conducted using ranked choice voting (RCV). In a unified general election all candidates running would be on the ballot. LWVAC has been asked both by Ranked Choice Voting Albany and others if LWVAC supports the proposal.

While both the League of Women Voters of New York State (LWVNYS) and LWVAC support RCV, neither have an official position on abolishing primaries. As such, a study committee was created to research and make a recommendation whether LWVAC should support, oppose, or be neutral regarding Ranked Choice Voting Albany’s proposal.

The study committee recommends that LWVAC support Ranked Choice Voting Albany’s proposal and its proposed method of conducting all general and special elections for City offices in the city of Albany, New York.

Initiation of the Study

As noted above, LWVNYS supports RCV and non-partisan primaries. In the summer of 2025 the organization RCV Albany was formed to bring RCV to Albany. As part of their outreach they invited the LWVAC to be part of their coalition and began researching different ways to conduct RCV elections. Eventually RCV Albany landed on a proposal to adopt a single-vote RCV method of elections. This would entail eliminating primaries and instead having a single election in November. In that November election, all candidates regardless of party affiliation would be on the ballot and that election would be conducted with RCV.

This sparked much debate within LWVAC, over the question of whether LWVAC could take part in the coalition and endorse the proposal which includes a provision that eliminates primaries, given LWVNYS's formal position supporting non-partisan primaries. After consulting LWVNYS, it was decided that LWVAC could have an observer who abstained from decision making on the steering committee. Given the issue’s salience in Albany politics, LWVAC decided to form a study committee to develop a position on the petition. This report is the work of said committee.

Background / Timeline

June 2023 - January 2025: RCV and Primary Systems Position studies conducted by LWVNYS
May 1, 2025: LWVAC concurrence meetings approved the Rank Choice and Primary System positions
June 22, 2025: LWVNYS approved formal Positions supporting RCV, and also supporting non-partisan primaries
December 2025: RCV Albany and Unite NY met with LWVAC and discussed electoral reforms and possible League support. Lars Dahl, Mary Kate Owens, and Joanne Shawhan represented LWVAC.
January 2026: Pat Maxon becomes LWVAC representative to RCV Albany. RCV Albany members decide, after discussion, to pursue single unified election with single-ballot RCV for city elections.
February and March 2026 LWVAC partnered with UniteNY & LWVRC for RCV Education programs at local libraries.
Spring 2026: After many internal discussions, and consulting with LWVNYS and other League presidents, LWVAC decided that LWVAC does not have an official position on the RCV Albany proposal because LWVAC and LWVNYS do not have positions on eliminating primaries.
April 2026: UniteNY announces that they are no longer in support of the RCV Albany petition due to the petition eliminating primaries. This is in part due to possible legal challenges with eliminating primaries.
June 18 2026: A memo from the Chair of the Albany Democratic Party and Secretary of the Working Families Party was sent to the Albany Common Council opposing the RCV Albany proposal, focusing on opposition to the elimination of primaries. This memo was labeled confidential but was widely circulated.
June 20th 2026: At LWVAC’s annual meeting, the adopted annual program included creation of a study committee to research and come up with a recommendation on single ballot RCV elections for elections for officials in the city of Albany.
June 30 RCV Albany reached the initial goal of sufficient signatures to present the petition to the Common Council
August 2026 RCV Albany advocates for approval of their petition in Common Council, in part through public comment at the Common Council meeting. After it became clear that Common Council was not formally supporting the proposal, RCV Albany began collecting signatures to override Common Council to place the petition question on the ballot. Others opposed the petition in the public comment section at Common Council meetings. A Council member presented an alternate proposal to adopt RCV while keeping primaries.
July through October 2026 : LWVAC study committee is active.

League of Women Voters of New York State Position

The first election law reform advocated by the LWVNYS was the one which gave birth to its founding as an organization—the women’s suffrage amendment. Its steadfast dedication to the issues and its history as a responsible presence in Albany has earned the League the respect of legislators, governors, boards of election and the public.

The League of Women Voters of the United States (LWVUS) has a position which allows for support of RCV. State and local Leagues can officially promote RCV as policy and support campaigns with no further action or study. The LWVNYS supports the use of RCV (a.k.a., instant runoff voting), in primary, general, and/or special elections to elect federal, state, and/or local officials. The LWVNYS supports changing from a closed partisan primary system to a primary system (including a nonpartisan primary system) that allows all registered voters to participate, regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof. LWVNYS supports the use of nonpartisan primaries to elect federal, state, and local officials. There is currently no LWVNYS position on eliminating primaries.

LWVAC study on RCV specifically addresses the proposed RCV Albany amendment as it relates to eliminating primaries only, and doesn’t address RCV in general since that position has already been addressed by LWVNYS.

With the adoption of any electoral system, the League believes that education of the voting public is important, and funding for startup and voter education should be allocated.

League of Women Voters of Albany County Study Process

Members of the study group undertook an organized process to evaluate the issue. They reviewed dozens of sources and engaged with key stakeholders about the merits of eliminating primaries and having a single-vote RCV election. Members of the group attended (both remotely and in person) RCV Albany, UniteNY, and Albany Common Council meetings. The study group Chair engaged in outreach to interested organizations, (including political parties) to solicit their view.

The group assembled, and its members reviewed, a wide array of printed and electronic articles and websites and studies on RCV, the issue of primary elections vs. single-vote general elections (with no primaries in advance), and experience of other jurisdictions with RCV and primaries in other parts of the country. For a list of sources reviewed, see the References page at the end of this report.

The study group met regularly on zoom from June 2026 through the end of August to research and discuss what members learned, various perspectives, and the pros and cons of the issue. The group conducted a detailed, point by point review of all the meaningful arguments the study committee could identify both in support of, and against, having a single-vote RCV election (no primary election, and a ranked choice voting general election). The arguments are presented below, with a paragraph explaining the argument, and a paragraph in italics explaining the study committee’s thoughts about the arguments. The study group met via Zoom to discuss these issues, and then voted on what recommendation to offer to LWVAC. From then on, the group focused on the drafting and refinement of this report.

Arguments in support of having a single-ballot RCV election:

Argument #1: Having a single-ballot RCV election would increase the number of people involved in the democratic process.

Due to the heavy enrollment of city residents in the Democratic party, and the structure of Democratic party system, the primary almost always carries the candidate into the office, making the general election for office essentially a non-competitive endeavor. This means that Democratic primary voters have an outsized influence on who is elected in Albany. New York is a closed primary state, so this prevents the 33% of Albany voters who are not affiliated with the Democratic party from having a say in the elections. The neighborhoods with the highest percentages of non white voters have the highest percentage of eligible voters who are currently not enrolled as a member of any party and thus unable to vote in a closed primary. By having a single ballot RCV election in November all registered voters will be eligible to vote in the election, thus increasing voter participation. In addition, even among registered Democrats, turnout is higher in November so more Democrats would be involved in the political process as well. Adopting RCV without changing or eliminating primaries would not deliver these benefits.

Our committee found this argument very compelling. The League is broadly in support of efforts to increase the number of people engaged in the democratic process. Removing primaries will let all voters have a say in the vote that typically determines the election outcome. Given the large number of voters who are registered as Democrats, the study committee is skeptical that this will significantly change election results, but the committee supports the effort regardless of its impact.

Argument #2: Having a single-ballot RCV election would open up the political system and structure in Albany.

As mentioned above, the winner of the Democratic primary almost always carries the candidate into the office. The existing primary system has, in practical application, allowed one single party to determine, through the primary, who the winner of the general election will be, with the general election serving only to ratify the result determined in the primary. This discourages many eligible voters from participating in the electoral system, as voters not registered in that party are not allowed to vote in its primary, and the outcome is determined even before the general election is held. Having a single-ballot RCV election would make the determining vote open to everyone and not concentrate power in the hands of the party leaders who have outsized influence over the primaries.

The committee largely agreed with this argument. From our experiences, the best electoral outcomes occur when the political system is less centralized and grassroots activists are able to mobilize. However, the study committee recognizes that there are other proposals, aside from single-ballot RCV elections, that would have a positive impact on the political system.

Argument #3: Having a single-ballot RCV election can increase nonwhite elected representation.

Research has shown that eliminating closed primaries can increase the number of nonwhite elected officials. This is a particularly noteworthy aim in a city that has a substantial nonwhite population and has only elected one nonwhite mayor in history.

The committee agrees with this argument and supports efforts to ensure that Albany’s elected officials are representative of the residents of Albany.

Argument #4: Having a single-ballot RCV election has been successful elsewhere.

There is precedent for single-ballot RCV in many US cities. While the list of municipalities changes over time, as of the writing of this study, there are at least 25 municipalities that have been identified as having this method of election. The model has been received positively in these jurisdictions.

The committee supports this argument. Almost every municipality seems glad to have made the switch. There have been cases of municipalities voting to support the reforms, then voting with even higher margins to support single-ballot RCV when it was later challenged.

Argument #5: Adopting single-ballot RCV will reinvigorate voter participation in Albany.

Having single-ballot RCV elections provides an opportunity for a fresh introduction to democracy in action through active education and voting. The associated voter education efforts along with increased candidate contact during voter education, would mark a major change in Albany politics. Any electoral change would require voter education, so there is merit to having a proposal that gets voters engaged.

Many members of the committee have remarked that at least among the people they talk to, more folks are excited and engaged with the discourse around election reform than almost every other issue in local government. There genuinely appears to be a large pool of residents who are disaffected with the current process and would be more involved in local politics if there were a more inclusive electoral system.

Argument #6: Thousands of voters in Albany have supported the RCV Albany petition.

RCV Albany has submitted over 3,200 signatures to the city clerk's office in support of single-ballot RCV elections. Those citizens want the opportunity to vote on the proposal.

The League is generally in support of citizen initiatives that give voters more say in policy making decisions.

Argument #7: Having a single-ballot RCV election would represent a departure from the existing way elections are held, it would not represent a departure so large that Albany voters wouldn’t understand the new system.

There still are a number of similarities that could help ease the transition. Parties can still endorse and spend money on their preferred candidates ahead of the election as they currently do. Primaries are already not held in Albany when there is only one candidate who is on the party line.

The League of Women Voters has been involved in voter education for over 100 years and believes that voters can understand the new system if enough outreach is done. Many members of the committee felt that teaching people RCV will require more effort than explaining that there are no primaries for city office elections. In addition, research shows that most voters do understand and support RCV where it has been implemented.

Argument #8: Adopting single-ballot RCV will address voter confusion and fatigue.

By having one single election, there would be a shorter campaign season and voters wouldn’t be asked to vote as often. This will reduce voter fatigue and keep more eligible voters engaged in the electoral process.

The committee agrees with this argument. While this study is not focused on consolidating election days, research does suggest that asking voters to vote less often

leads to more voter participation.

Argument #9: Removing the primary election will save money.

After initial implementation costs are paid for, there would be recurring cost savings to the County Board of Election from holding only a single consolidated election, instead of two elections (primary and general) in the same year. There would be no saving from adopting RCV without eliminating primaries.

The committee agrees that in the long run it will be less costly but believes the costs are small enough that Albany should adopt the voting system that is best for all eligible voters, not necessarily the voting system that costs the least.

Argument #10: Eliminating closed partisan primaries would lead to fewer extreme candidates being elected.

During general elections, candidates have to appeal to all voters. Primaries tend to attract only the most devoted and active members of each party’s political base, thus contributing to driving parties toward increasingly more extreme positions.

Our committee was less supportive of this argument. While the League opposes polarization, the League does not endorse a particular ideology. Our committee believes that on a national level, removing primaries might reduce political polarization but the city of Albany changing how it conducts elections will not play a major role in reducing polarization.

Arguments against having a single-ballot RCV election

Argument #1: Putting all candidates on one ballot could lead to larger numbers of candidates on the ballot.

By removing primaries, it is possible that the number of candidates running increases significantly, overwhelming voters. Frequently cited are statewide elections in Alaska, where there is a non-partisan primary for governor, 17 different candidates are running.

This argument may be compelling elsewhere but the committee does not find it compelling in Albany. Research shows that there are very few local races in upstate New York where more than five candidates run for office. In addition, in races like Alaska’s governor’s race where there is an unwieldy slate of candidates running, almost all of the candidates are affiliated with one party. If traditional primaries still existed there, voters would still see a huge number of candidates on the ballot. The huge number would just be on the primary election ballot instead of the general election ballot.

Argument #2: Primaries perform a valuable screening function.

Primaries give members of the public and media outlets more time to investigate candidates. Eliminating primaries would deprive all political parties of the opportunity to identify and deal with problematic candidates who have backgrounds that would keep general election voters from voting for them. Eliminating primaries also shortens the amount of time that voters have to become familiar with candidates.

The study committee thinks that this might be an issue in localities that have competitive general elections, but is not an issue in Albany under our current closed primary system. As mentioned earlier, the winner of Albany’s Democratic primary election is almost always the winner of the general election. Currently, all of the vetting of candidates and voter research has to be conducted ahead of the primary because the primary is the election that typically determines the outcome of the election. By removing primaries, this proposal merely changes when the vetting and candidate research by voters happens.

Argument #3: Removing primaries would weaken the power of political parties to advance candidates ahead of the election.

Adopting a single ballot RCV election would hurt both minor and major political parties. It would disadvantage minor parties in New York by removing fusion voting and preventing minor parties from having their own ballot lines. Larger parties would lack the opportunity to identify prior to the general election which of the candidates from their party would be the strongest vote-getter. Parties also wouldn’t be able to control who wants to be listed as affiliated with their party.

As a nonpartisan organization the League does not support or oppose political parties. The study committee does agree that minor political parties would be hurt by removing fusion voting but also believes there are strong benefits to minor parties under the new system, like being able to have a registered member of their party run in an election without being considered a spoiler candidate. The committee disagrees with the argument that larger parties won’t be able to control who is listed with the party because under the current voting system, any candidate can run in a primary as long as they are a registered member of that party. Regardless of how party leaders feel about that candidate, if they get enough signatures, the candidate will be listed on that party's ballot line in the primary. If they win the most votes in the primary they will be listed as the party’s candidates in the general.

Argument #4: Significant voter education would be required.

Many voters in the city are not familiar with single ballot RCV elections. Implementing this proposal would require a substantial effort to educate the public about the elimination of primaries in addition to educating voters about RCV. Voters would have to conduct more research and candidates would also need to do additional outreach, as candidates typically communicate their values and platforms through party affiliation.

The study committee does not think voter education is a barrier to adopting this method of voting. NYSLWV’s position on RCV states that NYSLWV “believes that with the adoption of any electoral system, education of the voting public is important, and funding for startup and voter education should be allocated.” Understanding how RCV works is complex as well as understanding that there will be no primaries. However, the need for significant voter education isn’t enough to stop the League from supporting RCV. The committee also doesn’t believe voters will have trouble researching candidates either, because that is already needed in primaries. Regardless of the position that LWVAC adopts, the League will continue voter education efforts, especially if a new system of voting is approved by voters.

Argument #5: There are many possible legal issues with removing primary elections.

There has never been a local initiative to remove primaries in New York, so the proposal would be in uncharted legal territory. Under the NYS John Lewis Voting Rights Act, the NYS Attorney General's office must review the proposed initiative. Removing primaries may also be subject to judicial review under New York State law.

The study committee believes that while there are possibly legal issues, the League regularly supports positions that require changes to state law. If legal issues create problems for any initiative, the League recommends changing strategy not rejecting the whole proposal.

Argument #6: Support for removing primaries may not be as widespread as stated by RCV Albany supporters.

Multiple political parties and petition signatories have said that they signed the petition without realizing that the petition would eliminate the primaries. It’s possible that many more signatories want to reconsider and have a more deliberative process before deciding what method of RCV the city would adopt.

The study committee does not find this argument to be compelling. If the organizers behind the proposal succeed, this proposal will have to be approved by a majority of voters. In addition, as noted earlier in the report, the League supports positions based on their merit, not on if they are popular.

Argument #7: There are a number of relevant organizations that oppose eliminating primaries but may support adopting RCV.

For example, both the Democratic and Working Families parties objected to eliminating primaries but didn't object to adopting RCV; it is possible they would sue to attempt to stop the elimination of primaries. The Albany Common Council similarly seems to have a preference for adopting RCV while leaving primaries alone.

The study committee feels similarly about this argument as it does with argument 5. The League regularly supports proposals that encounter opposition from other parties. If it becomes clear that it is impossible to pass a reform that the League supports, the League adjusts strategy but that doesn’t mean the League opposes the cause.

Argument #8: Other electoral reforms can provide similar benefits.

The League already supports other efforts to enfranchise voters like supporting non-partisan primaries which could have the same positive effects as eliminating primaries, but without legal issues as the change would be made at the state level.

The League supports many proposals to improve democracy. If the League supports this proposal, the League will continue to support other reforms. The study committee has made this recommendation based on whether this proposal is a form of voting with benefits to voters, not on whether this is the best possible form of voting.

Our Recommendation

In conducting research, the study committee consulted numerous sources (see references on the following two pages), and focused in particular on the 2020 Voter Representation/ Electoral Systems Position of LWVUS. The full position is linked here, but the brief statement says the League will “Support electoral systems at each level of government that encourage participation, are verifiable and auditable and enhance representation for all voters.” The committee believes that single ballot RCV elections meet those requirements. After reviewing the arguments, the committee largely concurred with the arguments in favor of this proposal, and were not persuaded by the arguments against single ballot RCV elections. As such, the study committee recommends LWVAC support Ranked Choice Voting Albany’s proposal and its proposed method of conducting all general and special elections for City offices in the city of Albany, New York.

The committee wants to be clear about what this recommendation does not mean. Adopting this recommendation does not mean that the League is opposed to 1) non-partisan primaries, 2) adopting other forms of RCV elections, or 3) that the League will only work with the RCV Albany Coalition moving forward. LWVAC can work with whoever the LWVAC wants to, and will continue to support other electoral reform measures, even if those measures don’t involve RCV or removing primaries. Ultimately, LWVAC’s involvement with efforts to change electoral systems will continue to be guided by LWVAC’s Advocacy Committee and Board.

Conclusion

Per LWVAC’s bylaws, any changes to LWVAC’s program outside of the annual meeting must be presented to members at a membership meeting. The study committee will host a membership meeting on September 29th, 2026 over zoom, to walk through the report and answer any questions that LWVAC members have on the report, the recommendation or the overall process. Per the bylaws, that meeting will be purely informational and no vote will occur. The following membership meeting will take place on October 14th. At that meeting, there will be a vote by LWVAC’s members to adopt or reject the recommendation of the study committee.

References

The study committee reviewed countless documents, articles and websites while evaluating the merits of the proposal. Only the most useful and relevant sources are listed here. In addition, there were some private emails and documents that were reviewed but not included as per the request of some of the parties involved. Please note: these are live links for readers’ convenience.

Laws and legal documents

City of Albany Charter

Election Law Sec. 17-210 Preclearance

Municipal Home Rule Law

NY State Constitution Article IX

League of Women Voters Materials

CGR Report for LWV Rochester July 2024

LWVAC Bylaws

LWVNYS Impact on Issues 2025

LWVNYS Study on Ranked Choice Voting January 2025

LWVUS 2024 Impact on Issues re voting

LWVUS Clearinghouse of 14 LWV Studies of RCV