By Thomas Wells
Mr. Wells is a Coral Gables resident, a current member of the Senior Citizens Advisory Board and was a Commission candidate last year.

Last month the Commission added an additional referendum to the vote-by-mail ballot set for April 21, to eliminate runoff elections and have a winner determined at the general election. This plurality voting (a/k/a first-past-the-post) means that the winner in a multi-candidate race is the one who receives the most votes in the general election even if it is not a majority of the votes cast. Plurality voting allows a minority of voters to determine who is elected. Our current majority voting system with a runoff election means that an elected official must receive a majority of votes (50% + 1) cast either in the general or runoff election.

Coral Gables has had majority voting with runoff elections for 72 years and plurality voting with no runoff elections for 28 years. It has historically used majority voting with runoff elections.

In the November 8, 2016 referendum, Coral Gables residents mandated their desire for runoff elections over plurality voting by an overwhelming 69.25% with 15,885 votes for runoff elections and only 7,052 for plurality voting. That election was held with in-person precinct voting, early voting, ballot drop off at the Coral Gables Library and mail voting because it only cost $20,000 and the vote-by-mail option cost $120,000. Because stamps now cost 66% more than in 2016, the upcoming referendum will cost more than $120,000. In 2016, the Commission with then Commissioner Vince Lago unanimously approved in person voting because it saved the City $100,000 and gave residents more ways to vote.

The Coral Gables elections since 2017 indicate why residents want runoff elections because a candidate winning a plurality voting election will not necessarily win a majority voting runoff election. For example, in 2021, Javier Bànos received the most votes in the general election (31.9% which was 120 more votes than the second place candidate), but there was 68.1% not voting for Mr. Bànos. Mr. Bànos lost the runoff election by 550 votes when voters consolidated their votes in the runoff in favor of the general election runner-up. In 2023, Ivette Arango O’Doski received 47.2% of the votes in the general election but lost the runoff election when voters consolidated almost all of the votes against Ms. O’Doski in the general election for her opposition in the runoff election.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both majority voting and plurality voting. Pros and Cons of Plurality Voting System: Increased Transparency or Distorted Democracy?, by Bariki Mshomi (November, 2021). The two advantages of plurality voting are reduced costs and speed to determine a winner because the winning candidate is based on who receives the most votes in the general election even if such winning candidate did not receive a majority of votes. A runoff election costs $125,000 every 2 years. This annual cost savings is $62,500 – less than what Coral Gables pays for a 10-minute drone show during its Biltmore July 4th party. The time savings is 2 weeks if elections remain in April and 4 weeks if elections are moved to November and December. Neither the cost nor the time is a significant advantage.

The disadvantage of plurality voting is that the winning candidate need not receive majority voting approval and only needs support of a loyal minority voting base. Plurality voting can disenfranchise voters when the will of the voting majority is ignored resulting in unrepresentative outcomes. Conversely, majority voting, despite the necessity for a runoff election, strives to ensure broader support and enhanced representation among voters.

Another disadvantage of plurality voting is that it encourages tribal politics with a candidate appealing only to his minority base and not to the voting majority. Tribal politics can divide a community and creates a lack of trust and disgruntled residents.

A final disadvantage of plurality voting is that a candidate with a loyal minority voting base (the “Minority Candidate”) in a three or more candidate election can recruit other candidates to split the vote of candidates who oppose the Minority Candidate causing none of the other candidates to get more votes than the Minority Candidate in the general election. Plurality Voting Leaves Elections Open to Manipulation, by Matthew Oberstaedt (July 31, 2020) – FairVote.org. It is unlikely that someone with similar ideology will run against an incumbent. Typically, candidates who run against an incumbent have a different ideology than the incumbent. For example, assume that the incumbent is supported by real estate developer money and grants zoning code exceptions to incompatible real estate developments in residential areas. If a newcomer opposing such development runs against the incumbent, the incumbent can recruit additional candidates to campaign on a similar anti-development platform (and pay for campaign costs for such additional candidates) to split the vote of the newcomer in the general election. With plurality voting, voters never get to consolidate their votes in a runoff election against the pro-development incumbent. Because of coordination failures of opposing candidates (i.e., using dropout agreements to get only one person to run against the pro-development incumbent), the incumbent can use plurality voting to manipulate the election. Incumbents have the upper hand in elections – coordination failures give them a further advantage, by Kevin Dano, Francesco Ferlenga, Vincenzo Galasso, Caroline Le Pennec-Caldichoury, Vincent Pons and Vestal McIntyre (February 21, 2023) – CEPR.org. With plurality voting, voters generally vote for a candidate perceived to be most likely to win rather than the candidate to whom they support due to this split vote issue. For these reasons, many states use runoffs to determine a winner with majority support, a true hallmark of popular democracy. Whig-ing Out Over the History of Single-Member Plurality Voting, by Rachel Hutchinson, April 26, 2022 – FairVote.org.

A criticism of runoff elections is that voter turnout is less than the general election. In 2025, 9,998 voted in the general election and 7,874 voted in the runoff election for Group III Commissioner.  Although there were less votes cast in the runoff election, Coral Gables did little to educate, engage and encourage voters to vote. Such activity would increase runoff election turnout and diminish the incumbency advantage.

When this issue was considered at the April 12, 2016 Commission meeting, former Mayor Valdes-Fauli then serving as chair of the Charter Review Committee said that “it was unanimous that we should change the present system, first past the post, to have a run-off two weeks later. The reason was that, you know, in order to be a Commissioner, in order to be Mayor, you really should have . . . the majority of people . . . vote for you. We talked about cost and the tradeoff between cost and having a majority election . . . And we thought that it would be better for Coral Gables and for everybody concerned to have a run-off.” Then Commissioner Lago said that “I’m with you on all the issues, and I was a little bit hesitant . . . to the date of the election. But after listening to the Chairman, he swayed me . . . to . . . leaving it the way we have it in regards (sic)to having . . . Coral Gables stand alone [vote in April]. I think it makes a lot of sense.” Chair Valdes-Fauli explained how the Charter Review Committee considered the date of the election and stated that “at the end, I think, that we would do better . . . to have the Coral Gables election separate from the presidential or senatorial or gubernatorial elections because people would focus on Coral Gables issues. And those that are interested in Coral Gables issues would vote, versus just going to the ballot box . . . and at the end of a huge ballot, marking something in . . . Coral Gables. This way people could focus on this.”

As noted by the prior Charter Review Committee and Mayor Lago, the major advantage of runoff elections is that it represents a statement by a voting majority as to who should be elected and govern Coral Gables. This allows our community to build a consensus of informed voters supporting such elected official. It also reflects the will of a voting majority who may not want to re-elect an incumbent that is not governing as desired. Eliminating runoff elections prevents an informed voting majority to determine how Coral Gables is governed and increases an incumbency advantage facilitating special interest control of our city.

The Coral Gables Gazette welcomes opinion essays from members of the community. Views expressed are those of the author.