The California governor’s race shows why we need ranked choice voting

Key Takeaways:

• A reader warns that a governor could be elected with minimal backing
• The letter proposes ranked choice voting as a fairer method
• Ranked choice voting is seen as a way to secure majority support
• Many voters want broader representation in their elections
• The Los Angeles Times published these views on December 3, 2025

The Concerns Over Minimal Support

California’s gubernatorial race has drawn criticism from an observant Los Angeles Times reader who questions whether effectively representing the state is possible when the winner may only hold a portion of the overall vote. In the letter, the reader points out, “It is unreasonable that Californians should be saddled with a governor who has a relative sliver of support.”

Why Ranked Choice Voting?

Ranked choice voting (RCV) is presented as the solution. Under RCV, voters rank candidates in order of preference, which helps ensure that the eventual winner commands majority support. As the letter notes, “With ranked choice voting, the winning candidate will likely have support from a majority”—a stark contrast to the current setup, where multiple candidates can crowd the field.

Broader Implications for California Politics

The letter goes on to emphasize the importance of cultivating broader consensus in a state as large and diverse as California. By introducing a system that prioritizes majority backing, the letter argues, leaders can better reach and engage citizens. This in turn could foster a more inclusive form of governance, reinforced by a governor who enjoys undeniable legitimacy.

Looking Ahead

Ranked choice voting has gained attention across the country, and its proponents see the California governor’s race as an ideal test case. The letter’s author believes that adopting this system could strengthen California democracy and remind residents that their votes—and the leader elected—truly reflect the state’s collective will.