The newspaper asserts that Ranked Choice Voting "cratered" voter engagement. That's bullshit. by Wm. Steven Humphrey Starting in January 2025, Portland will have the most diverse, and politically balanced City Council in the history of our city. Full stop. The reason why we’re able to celebrate this indisputable fact is thanks to charter reform and ranked choice voting, which allowed citizens from every demographic and Portland neighborhood the opportunity to serve their city (and the rest of us to vote for them).  But despite those two objectively correct statements, local media continues to platform the dishonest cynics who have been fighting charter reform and ranked choice voting from the beginning. The Oregonian, who loves writing intellectually dishonest headlines like this, really outdid themselves with this recent post-election article: Portland’s ranked-choice debut causes voter engagement to crater; 1 in 5 who cast ballots chose no one for City Council.  Let’s break it down, shall we? Using the word “crater” to describe Portland’s voter engagement, and attempting to lay the blame on the doorstep of ranked choice voting, is not only an unethical choice, it’s factually incorrect. While overall voter turnout wasn’t what it was in 2020 (79%), Portland engagement still reached 74.5%—that’s still three-quarters of our total population. Does that sound like overall engagement “cratered” to you?  And perhaps it’s true that one-out-of-five voters chose not to rank any candidates for City Council and mayor—though, as a reasonable person, I might wait until that number got a little bit higher before labeling it as “cratering.” And yes, it is absolutely correct that a historically large group of candidates ran for City Council this year, which probably stunned some voters who aren’t used to doing a lot of research. BUT! And let me say this loud and proud so everyone in the back can hear it: Having a lot of candidates who love their community and want to serve it is A VERY GOOD THING. (And it’s even better for democracy.) And while we can definitely do more as a city to make sure minority and low-income communities have the information they need in future races, according to the Oregonian’s own numbers, four out of five Portlanders successfully filled out their ballots without their brains exploding. So actually, I’d call that a big win.  And that’s my problem with this poorly headlined article: The main thesis seems to be that just because one-in-five Portland voters chose not to cast votes in two races, this is somehow the fault of ranked choice voting. That’s bullshit. And here’s why: Let’s imagine ranked choice voting never existed, and Portlanders were still choosing just a single candidate for every office. Thanks to the general ineptitude of the current City Council—which inspired so many people to run against them—a huge number of candidates would’ve still been on that ballot. And if that had occurred, voters would have been confronted with the exact same conundrum. Oh, and if you do happen to dip into the O’s article, here’s a little media studies trick: While most news outlets claim objectivity as their guiding star, if you want to spot potential bias, head to the final paragraph of just about any article, and see who gets the last word. In the case of this Oregonian story, the last word was given to a failed conservative Council candidate, Bob Weinstein, who freely admits he was never in favor of charter reform in the first place, and issued this damning indictment of ranked choice voting: “It’s very anti-democratic, to me, to have a result like this.” I’m curious: Which of the following results is the most “anti-democratic”? Was it three-quarters of the population voting? Was it the large number of candidates who, after 100 years of being shut out of elections, were finally given a chance to fairly compete? Was it the actual result, which was getting (as mentioned before) the most diverse and politically balanced City Council we’ve had in the history of our city? Or was it “anti-democratic” simply because he lost? Unfortunately, we’ll probably be reading a lot more thoughtless headlines and hearing a lot more anti-Charter Reform language from Portland’s conservative business class. Frankly, the old system worked GREAT for them, giving the wealthy an outsized voice and control over policy in City Hall. And even though the new council will have conservative voices who will fight valiantly to ensure the rich continue getting richer, that’s not good enough for those who want absolute power. In short, if you like what conservatives did to Measure 110, keep an eye out on what they’re planning to do to Charter Reform. For the rest of us, there’s an old saying: “Progress, not perfection.” We’re sorry to break the hearts of the Oregonian headline writers and the bad actors who have dominated Portland politics for over a century, but new, vital forms of government—like any new plan or system that regular folks like you put into action every single day—will NEVER be perfect from the start, and need time and grace in order to operate at top proficiency. That said, if one-in-five voters refusing to choose a candidate in two races is the worst thing to happen in an election where we make sweeping changes for the very first time? I’d say democracy continues to be in pretty good shape.  But that’s just my opinion—from deep in the “crater.”