近距离内射合集

Advocates are making a strong push to bring ranked choice voting (RCV) to the city of Albuquerque. We believe it would be a mistake 鈥� and a disservice to voters.

We鈥檝e helped elect Democrats and progressive candidates across New Mexico, many of whom support electoral reforms like RCV. But we鈥檝e also seen RCV up close, from inside campaigns. Between us, we鈥檝e managed more RCV races than almost anyone in the state. And what we鈥檝e seen raises real concerns.

Supporters make different arguments depending on the audience. To conservatives, they emphasize cost savings. That point is undeniable 鈥� runoffs cost money. But context matters. In 1997, Albuquerque elected Mayor Jim Baca in a five-candidate race with just 28% of the vote and no runoff. Voters rejected that lack of a clear mandate and, in 2013, chose to require a true majority 鈥� over 50% 鈥� ensuring winners have broad support, with runoffs when needed.

Other claims 鈥� that RCV prevents vote splitting, increases turnout, or leads to more diverse representation, including working people, first-time candidates, women and people of color 鈥� are far less clear and overstated. What we do know is how RCV changes campaigns 鈥� and not for the better.

First, RCV discourages honesty and clear contrast.

RCV incentivizes candidates to hide differences in their policies and values in order to curry favor for the second place votes of opponents. We have seen this happen in every single RCV race. Campaigns become more cautious and less transparent. Voters get less clarity, not more.

We鈥檝e seen this firsthand. In Santa Fe鈥檚 first RCV mayoral race, candidate Alan Webber was asked at a forum who his supporters should rank second 鈥� and he suggested Ron Trujillo, despite major differences. That may be strategic under RCV, but it鈥檚 not helpful for voters trying to understand real choices.

Second, RCV empowers dark money.

When candidates avoid direct contrast, outside groups step in to do it for them.

Independent expenditure political action committees carry the negative messaging, often with less transparency. The result is more outside influence and less accountability.

Third, and perhaps most anti-democratic, RCV gives outsized power to the weakest candidates.

In a race with two strong candidates and a distant third, that third candidate can become the kingmaker. Their supporters鈥� second-choice votes can decide the outcome, giving disproportionate influence to a small minority of voters. That dynamic can pressure candidates to make concessions that don鈥檛 reflect the broader electorate.

Supporters argue RCV leads to better outcomes 鈥� but real-world results tell a different story. Advocates point to the all-woman Las Cruces City Council as evidence, but the 2023 mayor鈥檚 race shows otherwise. That year, progressive candidate Kasandra Gandara 鈥� who would have been Las Cruces鈥� first woman mayor 鈥� led in early rounds, only to lose in the eighth and final round to a more moderate candidate based on redistributed votes.

RCV also favors candidates with the most resources. Because campaigns must reach a broader pool of voters 鈥� not just those they aim to persuade 鈥� it increases the cost of campaigning. Candidates with the money to communicate widely through mail, digital and field operations have a clear advantage. That dynamic does little to help working people or first-time candidates.

At its core, RCV replaces a simple question 鈥� 鈥淲ho has majority support?鈥� 鈥� with a more complicated system that can produce less clear outcomes.

It is worth noting that in all of our years of polling and running campaigns, never have voters said 鈥渢he most important issue to me is RCV.鈥� RCV seems to be a solution in search of a problem, propped up by well-meaning advocacy groups but far from the minds of New Mexico鈥檚 voters. 

Albuquerque鈥檚 current election system, including runoffs when needed, is simple and clear: voters know the winner must earn over 50% of the vote. Candidates can clearly present their differences, and voters can make informed decisions without complicated calculations or strategic ranking.

Neri Holguin and Sandra Wechsler are Democratic campaign managers.