How Working Families Party is gaming NYC’s ranked-choice voting system and public campaign finance law

New York Post - Apr 4th, 2025

The Working Families Party (WFP) recently endorsed four Democrats—Adrienne Adams, Brad Lander, Zohran Mamdani, and Zellnor Myrie—in the New York City mayoral ranked-choice primary. This move is part of a strategy to prevent voters from ranking less progressive candidates like Andrew Cuomo, Scott Stringer, or Jessica Ramos, thereby increasing the chances of a WFP-endorsed candidate emerging victorious in the final count. Ranked-choice voting, initially introduced to foster fairer elections and reduce negative campaigning, is being criticized for allowing such strategic manipulation by parties like the WFP. This situation highlights the vulnerability of the ranked-choice system to insider tactics, which could undermine its intended democratic benefits.

The implications of the WFP's maneuvers are significant, as they bring into question the effectiveness of ranked-choice voting and the city's campaign finance system, which includes an 8-to-1 matching fund that favors organized groups. The history of the WFP's strategic maneuvering, such as their previous escape from criminal prosecution involving their campaign arm, Data and Field Services, underscores ongoing concerns about transparency and fairness in city politics. The article suggests that future reforms may be necessary to address these issues, potentially through a Charter Reform Commission to reassess these political processes and ensure they serve the broader democratic interest rather than specific ideological factions.

Andrew Cuomo Election Strategy Campaign Finance New York City Mayoral Race Ranked Choice Voting Adrienne Adams Brad Lander Zohran Mamdani Working Families Party Jessica Ramos Zellnor Myrie Scott Stringer

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

4.8

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article presents a critical view of the Working Families Party and the ranked-choice voting system, raising concerns about potential manipulation and the influence of organized political groups. While the topic is timely and of public interest, the article lacks balance, transparency, and robust source attribution, which undermines its credibility. The use of sensational language may engage some readers but could also polarize opinions. To fully understand the implications of ranked-choice voting and the role of political parties, readers would benefit from a more balanced exploration of perspectives and evidence-based analysis. Overall, the article highlights important issues but falls short in providing a comprehensive and impartial examination.

Accuracy

The article makes several claims about the Working Families Party (WFP) and the ranked-choice voting system in New York City. The claim that the WFP endorsed four Democratic candidates is accurate and verifiable. However, the assertion that the WFP is 'subverting democracy' by 'gaming the system' is more subjective and lacks concrete evidence within the article itself. The historical reference to the WFP narrowly escaping criminal prosecution over a decade ago is not substantiated with specific details or sources, which reduces the factual precision of the article. The criticism of the city's campaign finance system favoring organized insiders is a valid point but requires more context and evidence to support the claim fully.

Balance

The article primarily presents a critical view of the Working Families Party and the ranked-choice voting system, suggesting that these elements are detrimental to democracy. There is a lack of balanced perspective, as the article does not provide viewpoints from supporters of the WFP or advocates of ranked-choice voting who might argue that these systems promote diversity and prevent vote-splitting. The absence of these perspectives creates an imbalance in the narrative and potentially skews the reader's understanding of the topic.

Clarity

The article is relatively clear in its language and structure, presenting its main argument that the WFP is manipulating the voting system. However, the tone is somewhat sensational, using phrases like 'subverting democracy' and 'gaming the system,' which may detract from a neutral presentation. While the argument is straightforward, the lack of supporting evidence and context can lead to confusion about the validity of the claims.

Source quality

The article does not cite any specific sources or provide direct quotations from individuals involved in the electoral process or from experts on ranked-choice voting. This lack of attribution undermines the credibility of the claims made. The reliance on general statements and historical allegations without source backing diminishes the reliability of the information presented.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency regarding the sources of its information and the basis for its claims. There is no disclosure of potential conflicts of interest or explanation of the methodology used to arrive at the conclusions presented. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for readers to assess the impartiality and credibility of the article.