Question 1 on the ballot for the upcoming city election is predominantly about ranked choice voting but also removes from the City’s Charter the requirement that candidates must win 40 percent of the vote to be elected.
If Question 1 passes, it will take just 12.5 percent of the voters putting a candidate as their first choice to elect them to council on the first round, regardless of how little support the candidate has among the remaining Greenbelt population. Standard ranked choice voting in multi-seat elections requires dividing 100 by the number of seats plus one to determine the minimum threshold necessary to win a seat. This means dividing 100 by Greenbelt’s seven city council seats plus one, or dividing 100 by 8, producing a 12.5 percent threshold. (See the October 2 issue for more on this.)
Thus, Question 1 does not just bring in ranked-choice voting; it also radically changes the level of support a candidate needs to get elected.
If the question passes, one can imagine a polarizing candidate who can win the support of 12.5 percent of Greenbelt voters and be elected. Candidates could also run as representatives of special interest groups, appealing greatly to a particular segment and never have the need to garner broad support.
There is a danger that challengers and incumbents alike might seek to distinguish themselves to special interests or single-issue voters rather than the most residents. In fact, candidates presenting themselves as consensus candidates in the Greenbelt cooperative tradition may not stand a chance.
The percentage of votes required to win a city council election in Greenbelt was once 50 percent. It was reduced to 40 percent when it was clear that returning all five (at the time) seats outright was difficult and run-off elections abounded. Since the threshold was changed to 40 percent run-off elections became a rare occurrence.
Needing the support of just 12.5 percent of voters, it is likely that seven candidates will be elected with just the first two or three levels of the ranked-choice ballot; in which case, a voter’s fourth through seventh votes won’t make a difference. This is the direct opposite of what many in favor of ranked-choice voting are seeking.
It is truly unfortunate that the mathematical effect of seven council seats within ranked-choice voting reduces the level of support that a candidate needs to get elected to 12.5 percent, and also that the extent of that reduction – from 40 to 12.5 percent – is not spelled out on the ballot.
Though we appreciate the potential of ranked choice voting to possibly return fewer incumbents, in the current, divisive political climate, we find these potential consequences of the prospect of lowering Greenbelt’s bar for election to 12.5 percent to be deeply troubling and possibly politically dangerous.
