portland’s district 4 election shows how the new voting system rewards open-mindnedness
Having spent significant time reviewing and analyzing the results of Portland’s most recent city election, I was drawn to the results of the District 4 city council contest. An interesting question arose: Why was Eric Zimmerman, not Eli Arnold, elected to the third and final seat?
In the early rounds of voting, District 4 featured eight competitive candidates:
Oliva Clark was a clear frontrunner, earning nearly 25% of the vote.
Mitch Green followed with a solid 14%.
Eric Zimmerman and Eli Arnold were tied for the third seat, each with about 10%.
Four additional candidates — Chad Lykins, Sarah Silkie, Bob Weinstein, and Lisa Freeman — were close behind, each with around 5%.
Given Green’s strong second-place standing, it wasn’t surprising that he secured a seat. But the race for third place between Zimmerman and Arnold was razor-thin — separated by fewer than 150 votes after the early rounds.
The Sankey diagram below captures the back-and-forth battle for the third seat (with EA = Arnold, EZ = Zimmerman).
Three of the four “5% candidates” had supporters who, according to an analysis by the Data and Democracy Lab at Cornell University, joined with supporters of Mitch Green to form an informal voting bloc. When these candidates (Lykins, Freeman, & Silkie) were eliminated, most of their transfer votes went to Green, pushing him past the election threshold. But some of their transfer votes also flowed to Zimmerman and Arnold:
When these voters looked beyond their first-choice bloc of candidates, Zimmerman and Arnold both seemed to have been viewed as viable options. Given a choice between those two, these voters had a slight preference for Zimmerman, and that helped give him a win.
The “Green affinity” group of voters had elected one candidate (Mitch Green) and the rest of the like-minded candidates had been eliminated. So, voters that supported this group of four candidates had come to the end of the line, they could either leave their remaining choices blank and let their ballot become exhausted; or they could choose a candidate(s) outside their ideological comfort zone.
And here’s where the real lesson of this election comes into play.
Rather than letting their ballots become exhausted, about 75% of these voters made additional ranked choices — for candidates from a different affinity group. It’s impossible to know for sure what motivated them, but I suspect many cast votes for candidates they viewed as the “least-worst” option. These final-rank choices reflect a willingness to think beyond tribal lines.
That, in turn, is where Portland’s new voting system rewards open-mindedness.
Voters who are open to going beyond their ideological favorites can change the outcome of close races. Zimmerman won because enough voters were open to supporting someone outside their primary group. Had they passed on those last ranking opportunities, Arnold may have taken the third seat.
For candidates, this highlights an important strategy under the new system: election can hinge on being perceived as open to other perspectives. That doesn’t mean abandoning your principles — but it does mean demonstrating a willingness to listen, engage, and collaborate across ideological divides. Voters outside your base will notice, and they may reward you with those critical lower-ranked votes.
In the end, Portland’s District 4 results show that the Multi-Winner Single Transferable Vote (STV) system encourages not just coalition-building, but also a kind of civic humility — from both voters and candidates... something we desperately need at all levels of our government. As more people understand how the system works, we may see candidates and campaigns evolve and more voters use all six of their ranked choices. And that’s a win for democracy.
