portland’s new election system: a big win for representative democracy
overview
Portland’s first election under its new system has delivered major improvements for representative democracy. In November 2024, Portland voters elected a 12-member City Council using three- member districts and the single transferable vote (STV) ranked-choice method. This was a big change from the previous at-large, single-winner format.
My analysis in three major categories shows that this reform has strengthened Portland’s election ecosystem across the board:
Reflective Representation – The council better mirrors the city’s population.
Meaningful Electoral Options – Voters had stronger choices and more competitive
races.
Voter Participation – More Portlanders cast meaningful votes in council contests.
It’s too soon to declare final success — one election with four contests doesn’t establish a trend. But the early results are encouraging. If these patterns continue through 2030, Portland may become a national model for revitalizing representative democracy.
reflective representation
For decades, Portland’s City Council tilted heavily white, male, and concentrated in a few wealthier neighborhoods. Between 2000 and 2022, councils averaged:
25% women
12% people of color (POC)
Residence patterns clustered in the West Side, Alameda, and Irvington; leaving
outer East Portland and St. Johns underrepresented.
The 2024 council changed that story:
50% women
42% people of color
Members now live across the city, with half from neighborhoods that previously had
little representation.
In fact, by our metric, the 2024 council achieved 98% of expected female representation and 141% of expected POC representation. For the first time, Portlanders citywide can point to a council member who looks like them or lives near them.
meaningful electoral options: voter support
The voter support metric measures how many registered voters backed at least one winning candidate.
2000–2022: Average of 29%, with nearly 60% of winners supported by less than 30% of registered voters.
2024: Average of 47%, with half the contests earning majority support.
This shift is partly because the old system relied on low-turnout spring elections, while the new system puts all contests on the high-turnout November ballot.
meaningful electoral options: election competitiveness
Competitive elections force candidates to engage with a broader range of voters. We measure this using “vote shortfall” — the smallest percentage of votes that could have flipped the outcome.
2000–2022: Average shortfall of -23%, with 70% of contests “uncompetitive” (>15% gap).
2024: Average shortfall of just -5%, with half the contests rated “highly competitive.”
In other words, Portlanders in 2024 had real choices, and races were close enough to keep candidates accountable.
voter participation
Finally, participation tells us whether people feel their vote matters. We measure participation in each council contest, not just overall ballot return.
2000–2022: Average 43% participation across 25 contests (ranging from 23% to 78%).
2024: Average 60% participation across four contests (ranging from 43% to 66%).
That’s a meaningful jump. More voters took the time to weigh in on council races — a sign of stronger engagement.
conclusion
The results of Portland’s first election under the new STV system are striking:
A council that finally reflects the city’s diversity;
Greater legitimacy for winners through higher voter support;
More competitive contests that gave voters real choices;
Increased participation in council races.
It’s early days, but the 2024 election suggests Portland’s reforms are already strengthening representative democracy. If these trends continue, the city’s system could serve as a guiding light for other U.S. cities seeking more inclusive and accountable elections.
One final note: we only have one year of data to analyze under the new election system. There are many reasons that this year could represent an anomaly. For example, 1) there were no incumbent candidates who had previously been elected in this system; 2) 2024 was a presidential election year; 3) the novelty of a new election system and voting method could have impacted voter behavior, etc. There are many facets of the 2024 election that one could point to as reasons to anticipate that the 2024 election results may not be indicative of future trends. Until we have gathered data from several more election cycles, there is no way to statistically understand the impacts of moving to an STV election system.
