CHICAGO — History was made in Chicago’s wide-open mayoral race last night. Bill Daley, the son and brother of the city’s second-longest and longest-serving mayors, finished a close third behind Lori Lightfoot, a Democratic former federal prosecutor, and Toni Preckwinkle, chairwoman of the Cook County Democratic Party. After a runoff in April, one of the two women will be the city’s first black female leader. Long dominated by a white patriarchal machine, Chicago should celebrate its milestone.
But after a convoluted and at times chaotic race, the winning women will move forward having each won less than 20 percent of the vote amid a record-breaking field of 14 competitors.
With 1,999 of 2,069 precincts reporting, Mr. Daley had collected 14.8 percent of the vote, Ms. Preckwinkle 16 percent, and Ms. Lightfoot 17.5 percent. However, the candidates Jerry Joyce, Amara Enyia, Susana Mendoza and Willie Wilson all got between 7.4 percent and 10.5 percent of the vote, and their constituencies’ support placed in any other candidate’s bucket would have swung the vote in any number of directions.
Various people reported struggling to make the complex strategic calculus that runoff systems force electorates to make: Should you vote your heart, for the candidate with whom you most agree? Or do you go with one of the candidates you don’t like but that you at least like more than the person who you fear has the best chance to win? If so, who’s that candidate?
This abstract logic became exhaustingly concrete as Election Day approached. Helen Chang, a Chicago Teachers Union member said, “From what I could gather, just speaking to others,” deciding whom to vote for “was confusing. It was such a huge arena of candidates.”
A vast array of options — which presumably should have excited voters used to mayoral elections with foregone conclusions — instead inspired confusion and uncertainty.
Chicago’s growing progressive bloc, for instance, liked candidates such as the community organizer Amara Enyia, who had many of the lefty bona fides they craved and none of the old-school political entanglements they didn’t. But with her small campaign operation and relatively low name recognition, there were fears she’d be trounced by a familiar face like Mr. Daley. Ms. Enyia was just one among eight or so popular contenders whose own grass-roots supporters wondered whether a vote for them was a waste.
In this field rife with indecision, the largest bloc of voters in the waning days of the campaign were the one in five voters who were still undecided, according to a NBC/Telemudo poll. Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who is retiring, declined to endorse anyone. Of the endorsements that did land, most were lukewarm: The Chicago Tribune, the largest metro daily, and The Chicago Crusader, the city’s historic black newspaper, gave somewhat reserved endorsements of Mr. Daley. (“If reawakening the Daley dynasty gives you pause, fair enough. It gives us pause, too,” The Tribune’s editorial board wrote.)
Now several campaigns are accusing others of being their spoiler — splitting a constituency one of them would have wholly dominated otherwise, robbing their candidate of a runoff chance. It didn’t have to be this way.
Ranked-choice voting, in which voters simply rank the candidates in order of preference, would have significantly smoothed the decision-making. As Chicago’s races become more competitive, it may be time to change the way we vote, too.
Instead of having to bet everything on one candidate, whom you may have serious problems with but strategically vote for to hedge against another candidate, in ranked-choice you pick who you like, then whoever else you like — or can tolerate — in descending order. If no one reaches a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is knocked out, and votes for them are redistributed to whomever that voter ranked as second and so on. The process continues until there’s a winner — why some call it an “instant runoff.”
In the end, you ask the voting machines to do a little bit more math, and in return, elections occur in one fell swoop and more accurately reflect the desires of voters. It’s a system that especially a city like Chicago — with its competitive, overlapping and diffuse constituencies — could use to both prove that everyone is receiving representation and provide clarity on who has true versus grudging support.
Other major cities like Oakland, Calif.; Minneapolis; Cambridge, Mass.; and San Francisco have recently implemented a ranked-choice voting system to great success, ridding their populations of the headache that so many Chicagoans just experienced.
Chicago’s runoff system — and its facile mano-a-mano narratives — endures mostly because it’s the devil we know. But familiarity isn’t a good reason for continuing a flawed and fixable system. And simplicity isn’t always a friend of good democracy.
The campaign coffers of business- and development-friendly candidates like Bill Daley — and Rahm Emanuel in 2015 — are brimming with cash; Mr. Daley, notably, received million in donations from Illinois’ richest man, Ken Griffin, head of the Citadel hedge fund. Labor groups like the Chicago Teachers Union, meanwhile, have well-organized volunteers (and often more money than community activists); most reportedly put their official support behind Ms. Preckwinkle.
Each side complains that the others tip the scales. Ranked-choice voting can at least even the odds by forcing every candidate to reach out to all residents in the hopes of at least being their second favorite — rather than trying to run up the score in one’s strongholds. And it would alleviate, if not eliminate, garbled strategic voting.
Robert Middlekauff, an influential organizer at the nonpartisan FairVote Illinois, recently endorsed ranked choice for the city on Chicago’s NPR affiliate. A Florida native, Mr. Middlekauff said: “I’ve become more frustrated with politics. Moving to Illinois, I realized, I’ve lost a lot of political power.” He went on, “You don’t have a lot of choices. Things are decided by money.”
While the half-dozen or so major cities that now use ranked-choice voting are generally content with it, there has been some controversy around the only state-level experiment, in Maine: The person who collects the most first-choice votes doesn’t necessarily win, a useful sticking point for critics.
Still, Kelly Pollock, a Chicago political activist who volunteers with a local chapter of a progressive grass-roots advocacy group, Indivisible, said that there was no consensus candidate in this campaign and that she would have welcomed ranked choice.
“For something like a mayoral race, it would have been great to have it,” she said. “Among the people I talked to, there were maybe three people who everyone liked. A lot of people I knew through groups like Indivisible and Moms Demand Action were trying to figure out the strategic: ‘Who has the best chance of making it into a runoff?’ ‘How do we make sure the runoff isn’t going to be a Bill Daley versus Garry McCarthy?,’” the former police superintendent.
Luckily for Ms. Pollock and company, they were spared both men. But Mr. Daley was roughly within a point of Ms. Lightfoot. And there’s no way to know which way the voters who wanted more moderate choices — like State Comptroller Susana Mendoza (who could also have made history as a Latina mayor) and the entrepreneur Willie Wilson, who together earned more than 19 percent of the vote — would have swung the race.
Giving voters the power to rank votes would have cleared all of that up — for campaigns, citizens and the journalists tasked with accurately covering their views. The victories for Ms. Lightfoot and Ms. Preckwinkle are both a relief and a thrill to many of the city’s left-leaning voters. And while those voters may be pleased with the outcome, getting there was a well-documented struggle. One that never needed to be.
Kim Bellware (@bellwak) is a freelance journalist whose work has appeared in Rolling Stone, The Atlantic, Vice News and Chicago Magazine.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: email@example.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.B:
神算网红妈妈网【不】【拿】【她】【当】【回】【事】【儿】【是】【吧】？【行】！ 【于】【曼】【曼】【拿】【着】【包】【直】【接】【愤】【而】【离】【去】，【李】【贺】【紧】【跟】【其】【后】。 【等】【人】【出】【了】【大】【门】，【余】【窈】【直】【接】【给】【了】【傅】【瑜】【一】【脚】，【手】【也】【抽】【了】【出】【来】，【瞪】【了】【他】【一】【眼】【就】【上】【楼】【了】。 【傅】【瑜】【一】【直】【笑】，【颇】【有】【点】【吊】【儿】【郎】【当】【的】【意】【思】，【赵】【蔓】【枝】【后】【脚】【进】【门】，【就】【看】【见】【自】【家】【儿】【子】【笑】【得】【一】【脸】【荡】【漾】。 “【怎】【么】【回】【事】？”【她】【指】【指】【门】【外】，【她】【跟】【于】【曼】【曼】【李】【贺】【打】【了】【个】
“【嘿】【嘿】，【你】【小】【子】【不】【厚】【道】，【你】【的】【情】【况】【你】【自】【己】【更】【清】【楚】，【你】【就】【别】【来】【试】【探】【老】【头】【子】【我】【了】，【我】【再】【多】【只】【能】【给】【你】【指】【一】【条】【明】【路】，【如】【果】【你】【想】【彻】【底】【了】【解】【自】【身】【的】【特】【殊】【性】，【等】【你】【升】【维】【后】，【去】【找】【一】【个】【厚】【海】【老】【人】【的】【家】【伙】【吧】，【他】【知】【道】【的】【绝】【对】【比】【我】【这】【老】【家】【伙】【多】【太】【多】【了】。” “【好】【吧】，【厚】【海】【老】【人】……” “【我】【记】【住】【了】。”【江】【辰】【想】【想】，【便】【再】【没】【有】【多】【作】【试】【探】，【话】【锋】
【随】【后】【把】【自】【己】【外】【套】【脱】【下】，【披】【在】【苏】【墨】【身】【上】，【从】【背】【后】【拥】【着】【她】，“【我】【说】【墨】【儿】，【咱】【就】【放】【手】【让】【儿】【子】【去】【吧】，【他】【是】【我】【顾】【南】【天】【的】【儿】【子】，【差】【不】【到】【哪】【去】。【我】【对】【你】【不】【就】【是】【百】【年】【难】【得】【一】【遇】【的】【专】【一】？” 【苏】【墨】【皱】【着】【一】【双】【黛】【眉】，【听】【闻】【丈】【夫】【如】【此】【安】【慰】，【发】【自】【内】【心】【地】【微】【微】【一】【笑】，“【就】【你】【心】【儿】【大】。” 【就】【在】【这】【对】【夫】【妻】【共】【赴】【往】【日】【旧】【情】【的】【美】【好】【时】【间】【时】，【洛】【雪】【拉】【着】【韩】
【正】【因】【如】【此】，【耶】【和】【联】【先】【前】【兵】【分】【两】【路】。 【主】【要】【兵】【力】【则】【是】【由】【耶】【和】【联】【亲】【率】，【剩】【下】【的】【将】【士】【们】【则】【是】【牵】【制】【注】【意】。 【也】【就】【是】【因】【为】【这】【样】，【当】【东】【罗】【马】【国】【君】【得】【知】【消】【息】【之】【后】。 【微】【微】【皱】【了】【皱】【眉】【头】，【显】【然】【是】【在】【东】【罗】【马】【国】【君】【看】【来】。 【现】【在】【当】【真】【不】【知】【道】，【耶】【和】【联】【到】【底】【打】【算】【做】【些】【什】【么】。 【不】【过】【就】【算】【如】【此】，【东】【罗】【马】【国】【君】【还】【是】【派】【遣】【一】【小】【部】【分】【将】【士】【们】【前】【往】
【不】【死】【山】【内】【帝】【皇】【涌】。【域】【外】【神】【灵】【难】【争】【峰】。【乱】【世】【大】【帝】【展】【神】【力】。【独】【战】【苍】【穹】【动】【虚】【空】…… 【一】【首】【葬】【歌】【在】【虚】【空】【之】【中】【响】【起】，【来】【源】【不】【可】【追】【溯】，【玄】【妙】【难】【测】，【充】【满】【了】【一】【股】【浩】【瀚】【无】【垠】【的】【感】【觉】。 【这】【首】【葬】【歌】【不】【是】【由】【人】【而】【唱】，【来】【源】【于】【天】【地】【之】【中】。 【这】【是】【属】【于】【天】【地】【乾】【坤】【的】【反】【馈】。 【这】【首】【葬】【歌】【只】【为】【歌】【颂】【那】【个】【人】，【歌】【颂】【他】【在】【最】【黑】【暗】【的】【时】【代】【顶】【起】【一】【片】【天】【地】神算网红妈妈网【北】【秦】【函】【谷】【关】，【西】【据】【高】【原】，【东】【临】【绝】【涧】，【南】【接】【天】【渊】【岭】，【北】【塞】【寒】【铁】【河】，【是】【北】【秦】【建】【置】【最】【早】【的】【雄】【关】【要】【塞】【之】【一】。 【其】【素】【有】“【天】【开】【函】【谷】【壮】【关】【中】，【万】【谷】【惊】【尘】【向】【北】【空】”，“【双】【峰】【高】【耸】【大】【河】【旁】，【自】【古】【函】【谷】【一】【战】【场】”【之】【说】。 【函】【谷】【关】【在】【北】【极】【之】【地】，【古】【往】【今】【来】，【都】【是】【兵】【家】【必】【争】【之】【地】。【当】【年】【北】【秦】【帝】【朝】【一】【统】【北】【秦】【征】【战】【六】【国】，【这】【函】【谷】【关】【也】【功】【不】【可】【没】!
【最】【近】【跑】【保】【障】【房】【的】【事】【情】。 【郊】【区】【到】【市】【中】【心】【路】【上】【四】【个】【小】【时】。 【这】【个】【月】【本】【来】【打】【算】【写】【好】【结】【尾】，【可】【是】【没】【有】【时】【间】【了】……。 【对】【于】【坚】【持】【看】【这】【本】【书】【的】【同】【学】【们】【抱】【歉】【了】。 【新】【书】【在】【脑】【子】【里】，【一】【个】【未】【来】【科】【技】【世】【界】，【一】【个】【现】【代】【都】【市】【魔】【幻】。 【好】【吧】，【有】【时】【间】【才】【能】【写】。 【再】【次】【感】【谢】【看】【这】【本】【书】【的】【朋】【友】。 【我】【坚】【持】【写】【是】【为】【了】【在】【起】【点】【有】【本】【百】【万】【字】
【槿】【初】【虽】【然】【也】【不】【知】【自】【己】【想】【法】【可】【行】【不】【可】【行】，【但】【却】【真】【没】【往】【那】【箭】【雨】【上】【想】。 【听】【了】【宜】【倩】【的】【话】，【她】【当】【下】【便】【有】【些】【不】【好】【意】【思】【了】，【她】【仍】【是】【站】【在】【原】【地】【道】“【我】【就】【站】【在】【这】【里】，【哪】【也】【不】【会】【去】【的】。” 【宜】【倩】【听】【槿】【初】【这】【话】，【小】【脸】【一】【皱】【道】“【姑】【娘】，【我】【是】【说】【真】【的】，【能】【走】【到】【这】【里】【我】【很】【知】【足】【了】，【况】【且】【姑】【娘】【还】【答】【应】【过】【我】【要】【救】【我】【爹】，【我】【可】【不】【想】【咱】【们】【都】【赔】【在】【这】【里】。”
【各】【位】【书】【友】，《【都】【市】【之】【至】【尊】【帝】【主】》，【到】【这】【里】【就】【暂】【时】【告】【一】【段】【落】【了】。 【结】【尾】【算】【是】【比】【较】【开】【放】，【新】【的】【征】【战】，【还】【在】【等】【着】【夏】【禹】，【新】【的】【挑】【战】，【新】【的】【世】【界】，【也】【在】【等】【着】【他】。【诸】【天】【盛】【宴】【之】【后】，【将】【会】【开】【启】【更】【加】【波】【澜】【壮】【阔】【的】【大】【时】【代】，【还】【有】【很】【多】【英】【雄】【故】【事】。 【这】【些】，【都】【可】【以】【发】【挥】【你】【们】【的】【想】【象】。【仙】【凰】【就】【不】【用】【继】【续】【写】【那】【么】【多】【了】，【精】【力】【和】【现】【实】【各】【种】【原】【因】，【这】
“【那】【我】【等】【着】。”【戚】【束】【仁】【丝】【毫】【不】【意】【外】【应】【初】【的】【答】【案】，【笑】【着】【道】。 【独】【孤】【长】【柳】【听】【此】，【想】【了】【想】，【如】【果】【现】【在】【从】【他】【口】【中】【得】【知】【他】【应】【对】【他】【这】【个】【能】【力】【的】【方】【法】，【以】【后】【就】【是】【真】【赢】【了】【他】，【也】【没】【什】【么】【意】【思】，【于】【是】，【也】【歇】【了】【追】【问】【的】【心】【思】。 【几】【人】【没】【继】【续】【歇】【多】【久】，【便】【继】【续】【下】【一】【轮】【的】【棋】【馆】【挑】【战】【赛】。 【一】【天】【之】【内】【要】【把】【晏】【都】【所】【有】【的】【棋】【馆】【都】【下】【个】【遍】【显】【然】【是】【不】【太】【可】