A Honolulu resident warns voters about RCV
by Staff Report
The Honolulu Charter Commission has placed 20 charter amendments on the November ballot, including one that would implement ranked-choice voting (RCV) in Honolulu for mayoral, City Council, and prosecuting attorney elections beginning in 2032. A Honolulu resident named Jamie Detwiler recently wrote an op-ed in Hawaii’s biggest paper, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, warning her fellow voters about the dangers of adopting RCV ahead of the election:
“RCV isn’t new; it’s been used in a few other cities and states for years. Seeing its repeated failures has convinced me that implementing it in Honolulu elections would make a bad situation worse.”
In her piece, Jamie pushed back against claims made by pro-RCV groups like FairVote and Unite America that the system saves local and state governments money.
“The claim that RCV saves money has been pushed by lobbyists for years. Since runoffs can be expensive, an instant runoff should save money, right? The truth is that New York City spent $15 million on its RCV voter education campaign, and San Francisco, a city that adopted RCV in 2002, spent $100,000 on its last voter education campaign in 2024. What should be a one-time investment to teach voters how to use the system turns into a recurring cost. On top of the price of educating voters, expensive voting machine upgrades can be required to run the system.”
Another major claim often made by RCV supporters is that it increases voter turnout. As Jamie pointed out, however, that couldn’t be further from the truth:
“Alaska adopted RCV in 2020. Increased voter turnout was one of the measure’s selling points, but that promise never materialized. Voter turnout in the state has actually decreased since RCV was implemented in 2022. Voter turnout during its 2022 midterm election was lower than in 2018 and 2014. Turnout also declined during the 2024 presidential election compared to 2020.”
Honolulu voters would be wise to heed Jamie’s warning and avoid adopting a system with a long history of confusing voters, increasing costs, and decreasing voter turnout.