In her recent commentary calling for Minneapolis to abandon ranked-choice voting (RCV), Annette Meeks offers a familiar critique. But her arguments overlook what actually occurred in this year’s elections — and what Minneapolis voters themselves continue to say about the system.
RCV has now been used in Minneapolis and St. Paul for more than a decade. Throughout that time, voters have consistently reported strong understanding and satisfaction. In repeated exit surveys, more than 90% of voters say RCV is easy to use. And this year, a full 76% of Minneapolis voters ranked their ballots in the mayor’s race. If there were widespread confusion or frustration, we would see it clearly in the data. We don’t.
What we did see in 2025 was a hard-fought mayoral election in a city wrestling with real questions about public safety, housing and governance. Those tensions did not originate with RCV. They would have existed — and likely would have been even more polarized — under the old August primary system, which would have narrowed the field early to just two candidates: Mayor Jacob Frey and Omar Fateh. Instead, RCV ensured that all four major candidates remained on the debate stage through Nov. 4, giving voters a broader, more representative, more civil conversation.
Related: It’s time to scrap ranked-choice voting and its empty promises
That broader field reflects one of RCV’s clearest impacts: increased candidate diversity. RCV offers more meaningful choices and creates space for more voices — and voters have taken full advantage of that opportunity.
It is also important to separate criticism of the DFL endorsement convention from criticism of RCV. The well-documented issues at the convention stemmed entirely from party procedures and were wholly separate from the public election. RCV was not used in the endorsement tabulation process, and conflating these issues only adds confusion.
Another claim is that RCV has failed to reduce the influence of outside money. But RCV does not govern campaign finance — federal and state law do. PAC spending has increased nationwide across all types of elections, partisan and nonpartisan, whether they use RCV or not. Minneapolis is no exception. In fact, RCV can help blunt the influence of big money by reducing spoiler fears and encouraging candidates to seek broader coalitions rather than relying on narrow, high-dollar bases.
Turnout in ranked-choice voting strong
Turnout is another bright spot. This year’s 55% turnout was exceptionally strong for an odd-year municipal election and far above turnout in most cities nationwide. Before RCV, Minneapolis municipal turnout frequently hovered in the low 30% range — and even lower during August primaries. RCV didn’t solve every turnout challenge — no system can — but it ensured that far more voters, not fewer, had a voice in choosing their mayor and council.
RCV is not a cure-all. No voting method can eliminate political conflict or guarantee perfect behavior from candidates, parties or interest groups. But RCV has delivered what Minneapolis adopted it to do: ensure majority winners, give voters more meaningful choices, eliminate low-turnout primaries, and open the political process to a broader, more diverse field of candidates.
And importantly, RCV is not a partisan reform. It is used in conservative Alaska, in dozens of Utah municipalities, in New York City, and in small- and mid-sized cities across the country. It is supported by conservatives, moderates, independents and progressives who want elections that better reflect voter preferences.
RCV didn’t fail Minneapolis this year. It helped the city navigate a difficult election in a clear, representative and high-participation process. Instead of retreating from reforms that empower voters, Minnesota should continue building on what’s working — and RCV is one of those things.
Michael Minta is FairVote Minnesota board member and a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota.
