Opinion | Let Michigan voters make democracy work

As the former mayor of Flint, I know what it looks and feels like when people closest to a problem are told by people far away that they don’t have the choice, voice or power to lead in fixing it. Our water was poisoned by decisions made without our input or consent. It took us shouting louder and longer than any group of citizens should ever need to in order to be heard and make change.

Karen Weaver was mayor of Flint from November 2015 to November 2019. (Courtesy photo)

So, when I see the Michigan Legislature holding up the implementation of local election reforms that voters have already approved at the ballot box, I recognize the pattern immediately.

Here’s the situation: Voters in five Michigan cities have gone through the work of thoughtfully and legally amending their city charters to adopt ranked-choice voting for local elections. However, none of those cities have been allowed to implement voting reform because of outdated and conflicting provisions in state election law (despite the fact that Michigan’s Home Rule City Act contains language allowing alternative voting systems.)

Voters did their part. The Michigan Legislature hasn’t.

(For those who may be unfamiliar, ranked-choice voting is a simple change that gives voters the power to rank candidates in order of preference from favorite to least favorite – 1st choice, 2nd choice, and so on. With ranked-choice voting, you never have to worry about “spoiler” candidates or “wasted” votes, and winners are elected with broad support from voters. Watch this video explainer.)

Michigan has a long tradition of letting cities govern their own local affairs, especially their own elections, and with good reason: the people of Kalamazoo know what will work in Kalamazoo better than politicians from other places sitting in Lansing. So, when a city charter amendment passes by popular vote, the Legislature’s job should be to clear the statutory path, not leave the reform stranded in legal limbo.

There’s also a representation case here that matters deeply to me as a Black woman who was the first woman to serve as Flint’s mayor. The research on ranked choice voting is consistent and it is not close.

Candidates of color win 60% of ranked-choice voting elections in non-white majority districts, compared with just 35% in non-white majority districts that use single-choice voting.
Women hold 55% of council seats and 36% of mayors’ offices in cities that use ranked-choice voting, compared to just 43% of council seats and 31% of mayors’ offices in cities that use single-choice voting. 40% of women who win ranked-choice voting elections are women of color.
Young voters ages 18-35 turnout out at significantly higher rates in ranked-choice voting elections. Average voter turnout is 17% higher in cities that use ranked-choice voting.

None of this is guesswork. It’s what happens when cities adopt a different voting method that changes the incentives for candidates to reach beyond narrow bases of support, run more positive and issue-focused campaigns, and build more inclusive and diverse coalitions.

And then there’s this election year. Consider what has happened over the past few weeks in Michigan’s statewide races.

Mayor Mike Duggan ended his campaign for governor after months of warnings that his candidacy could result in the election of a governor opposed by the majority of voters.

State Senator Mallory McMorrow suspended her US Senate primary campaign as national money and party pressure left no middle lane for her to bridge the divide between her two opponents.

In both cases, serious and capable leaders made the calculation that our current voting system forces people to either step aside or risk handing elections to candidates that most voters don’t want. Voters lost real choices — not because the candidates weren’t worth considering, but because the way we vote punishes anyone who doesn’t want to be blamed for “splitting the vote.”

Ranked-choice voting simply and uniquely solves these problems. The result is a representative winner that voters actually want. Nobody has to abandon their campaign to protect the field. Nobody has to wait their turn. Nobody’s vote is wasted because their first choice wasn’t the frontrunner.

Michigan voters in five cities already said “yes” to this. The Legislature’s task now is simple: fix the conflicting statutes, respect what home rule is supposed to mean, and let those cities run elections the way their own residents want.

Flint taught me what happens when people far away decide they know better than the voters in a community. Let’s not repeat that lesson here.