Your guide to NYC's public proceedings.
TESTIMONY
Testimony by Vanessa Rudin, Member of the Public, supporting open primaries and ranked-choice voting
1:21:30
·
3 min
Vanessa Rudin, an unaffiliated voter, testifies in support of open primaries and ranked-choice voting. She explains she was inspired to attend her first city-level meeting because she sees open primaries as a nonpartisan issue that allows everyone to vote.
Rudin argues that ranked-choice voting would not promote billionaires but would instead require candidates to consider a broader population to gain support, likely increasing voter turnout because elections wouldn't feel predetermined. She also counters Council Member Restler's concern about mayoral power, stating that putting open primaries to a public vote actually gives power to the people, as the mayor would then need to be responsive to a larger segment of the population.
Vanessa Rudin
1:21:30
My name is Vanessa Rudin.
1:21:31
My phone has died, so hopefully, I can remember what I was going to say.
1:21:36
I've always been an unaffiliated voter.
1:21:40
And, actually, I thought that I was one of, like, 1% in the country until the pandemic.
1:21:47
For some reason, it came out that there were at least 30%.
1:21:51
It was growing.
1:21:51
It might be 40% or 50% nationwide.
1:21:54
I'm like, oh my gosh.
1:21:56
There's all these people like me.
1:21:57
I had no idea.
1:21:58
I really thought I was alone.
1:22:01
And I will say that I've never come to a city level meeting and very rarely a state level meeting until today because this so inspired me.
1:22:12
To me, it's like a nonpartisan issue, if you will, so that all of us can vote.
1:22:18
So sorry.
1:22:21
I have to remember what I was gonna say.
1:22:22
Probably out of order, but I think that in response I I'm a a mom, a renter.
1:22:31
I'm absolutely not a billionaire, and I'm sure I never will be.
1:22:34
I'm not worried that having ranked choice voting will promote billionaires.
1:22:40
In fact, I think it would work the opposite because if you have ranked choice voting, you need to, you know, consider more of the population to get them to choose you and rank you, and you will have more than 50% of the vote, and you will probably have more people voting because what is the point if it's really already decided?
1:22:59
Whereas in this case, it wouldn't already be decided, and so people would be like, oh, I better go down and put in my voice.
1:23:05
So to me, that's not a consideration with all due respect to the other speaker.
1:23:10
And then in response to the council member, I mean, I guess it's a little bit ironic because, I understand the concern over giving a mayor, any mayor, too much power.
1:23:20
But in essence, the commission putting this on, as a choice for the people, that actually absolutely gives the the power to the people, not to the mayor.
1:23:31
And in fact, once again, it gives more power to the people because the mayor has to be responsive to more of the population because more than 50% would have chosen them first or second choice.
1:23:43
And then the final thing I'll say, which is interesting just hearing everyone speak, although I definitely think it would be great to have ranked choice voting at the primary level, and then either the two choice or ranked choice.
1:23:56
If there's more than two choices, I think either one of those could work well.
1:24:00
I think almost ironically, I'm not suggesting this, but if you didn't have ranked choice in the primaries, if for some reason the parties wouldn't agree to that, if you even had ranked choice after that, it would probably make an improvement because some of the smaller parties would have a a bigger chance.
1:24:16
It's not my favorite choice, but I'm just saying that would be another option.
1:24:20
I I think the ranked choice and then either two two choices or ranked choice in three or four
Leila Bozorg
1:24:26
is the best option.
1:24:27
So
Vanessa Rudin
1:24:28
thank you so much for letting me speak.