Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey
Glendale, Arizona, Proposition 404, Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (September 2008)
| Glendale Proposition 404 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Election date |
|
| Topic Local elections and campaigns and Local electoral systems |
|
| Status |
|
| Type Initiative |
|
Glendale Proposition 404 was on the ballot as an initiative in Glendale on September 2, 2008. It was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported enacting ranked-choice voting for municipal elections in Glendale. |
A "no" vote opposed enacting ranked-choice voting for municipal elections in Glendale. |
Election results
|
Glendale Proposition 404 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 7,046 | 45.20% | ||
|
|
8,541 | 54.80% | ||
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 404 was as follows:
| “ | AN INITIATIVE MEASURE BETTER BALLOT GLENDALE PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GLENDALE CITY CHARTER; AMENDING ARTICLE IX SECTIONS 1, 5, 6, 7 AND 8, REPEALING SECTIONS 9 AND 10. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
The proposed Charter amendment changes the voting method for electing officials. Currently, an official is elected by majority vote in a primary or general election. Under the proposal, voters rank their choice of candidates in one election. An official is elected upon receiving a majority of the highest ranking votes. A “yes” vote shall have the effect of amending the City Charter, upon a majority of votes cast, to require the use of ranked choice voting for election of city officials. A “no” vote shall have the effect of continuing the process of primary, and if necessary, general elections for the election of city officials. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Background
Ranked-choice voting (RCV)
| Ranked-choice voting (RCV) ballot measures | |
|---|---|
| Pages: • Ranked-choice voting (RCV) • History of RCV ballot measures • Electoral systems on the ballot • Local electoral systems on the ballot • Electoral systems by state | |
- See also: Ranked-choice voting (RCV)
The ballot measure has played a role in shaping electoral systems in the U.S., including ranked-choice voting (RCV) for state and local elections.
Since 1915, there have been more than 150 ballot measures to adopt or repeal ranked-choice voting systems. Ashtabula, Ohio, was the first jurisdiction to approve a ranked-choice voting measure in 1915.
RCV is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates on their ballots. RCV can be used for single-winner elections or multi-winner elections; when used for multi-winner elections, the system has also been called single-transferable vote or proportional representation. These terms were often used to describe multi-winner RCV before the 1970s. You can learn more about ranked-choice voting systems and policies here.
Local RCV ballot measures
Between 1965 and 2024, 79 ranked-choice voting (RCV) local ballot measures were on the ballot in 58 jurisdictions in 19 states.
- Ballotpedia has located 71 local ballot measures to adopt RCV. Voters approved 52 (78.9%) and rejected 15 (21.1%).
- There were eight local ballot measures to repeal RCV. Voters approved four (50.0%) and rejected four (50.0%).
- The year with the most local RCV ballot measures was 2022, when nine were on the ballot in nine jurisdictions. Voters approved seven of them.
- The state with the most local ballot measures related to RCV is California, where there have been 13.
The following table shows the number of ranked-choice voting measures by topic.
| Local ranked-choice vote measures by topic and outcome, 1965 - April 2025 | |||||
| Topic | Total | Approved | Approved (%) | Defeated | Defeated (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adopt RCV | 72 | 57 | 79.2% | 15 | 20.08% |
| Repeal RCV | 8 | 4 | 50.0% | 4 | 50.0% |
| Total | 80 | 61 | 76.3% | 19 | 23.7% |
Path to the ballot
This ballot initiative was put on the ballot through a successful citizen petition. The campaign Better Ballot Glendale submitted more than 2,000 signatures, of which around 1,500 needed to be verified.[1]
See also
|
Footnotes
| |||||||||||||
