Ranked-choice voting and socialism and big money — oh my!

This article originally appeared in the Winter 2026 issue of Thinking Minnesota magazine.

Assessing the 2025 elections

On Nov. 4, 2025, voters in Minneapolis made international news as they held off the socialist challenge in local elections, unlike their counterparts in New York City and Seattle, Wash.  

Two-term incumbent Mayor Jacob Frey, a Democrat, won a third term over challenger Sen. Omar Fateh, running as a Democratic Socialist. Fateh is in his second term in the state senate, representing a south Minneapolis district (62) that includes Lake Street.  

The city reported a record turnout of 55 percent of registered voters in this odd-year contest, surpassing the previous record set just four years ago in the 2021 race. Frey’s eventual margin of victory was a little over 8,300 votes out of 147,000 cast. That figure was just a little over half of Frey’s winning margin recorded in 2021.  

In St. Paul, the two-term incumbent Mayor Melvin Carter, a Democrat, surprisingly lost his bid for a third term to challenger Rep. Kaohly Her, also running as a Democrat. Rep. Her serves a St. Paul district in the state House of Representatives. The upset was due, in part, to the often-unpredictable machinations of Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV), the unorthodox method employed by both core cities. 

The rest of America (and the rest of Minnesota) may be bitterly divided between Democrats and Republicans. But Minneapolis and St. Paul are one-party cities. As politics abhors a partisan vacuum, true-blue locales like Minneapolis, St. Paul, New York City, and Seattle have split down the middle between “socialists” and “moderates.”  

Adding another wrinkle is the use of RCV. The method involves a voter choosing not one candidate for a specific office on his or her ballot, but up to three, ranked in order one, two, and three. Of course, a voter does not have to make three choices; they could rank just one, two, or none. In fact, 346 ballots submitted in Minneapolis ranked no candidates for the office of mayor. 

The week after the November election, the Minnesota Star Tribune reported on that very phenomenon. They reported that the most popular vote combination was just a single vote for Mayor Frey, with no alternative choices. In the Minneapolis mayoral contest, more than one in five voters, 22 percent, ranked either Frey or Fateh first and listed no other choices on their ballots.  

That was completely rational on the voters’ part.  

RCV is sometimes referred to as Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV). The latter term is, in fact, a better description of how the method works and what it is trying to accomplish. 

Think of RCV/IRV as offering two elections for the price (cost) of one. The first is an open primary, with all candidates and parties participating, to decide which two candidates (regardless of party) will advance to a runoff or general election round. The second race running simultaneously under RCV is a runoff to decide between the two finalists.  

California uses a different system: an open primary in early June, with only the top two candidates (regardless of party) advancing to the runoff (general) election in November.  

Georgia and Louisiana use a system where a regular multi-party general election is held in November. If no candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote, a runoff election featuring the top two finishers is held a few weeks later.  

Such primary or runoff systems suffer from the perceived defect that turnout is inevitably lower in one of the two rounds, depending on the dates they are held.  

RCV/IRV attempts to mimic this two-date process in a single round of voting. The two RCV “finalists” are determined by which two candidates (regardless of party) received the most “first choice” votes in round one.  

Then the 2nd and 3rd choices of voters supporting the also-ran (non-finalist) candidates are considered. The alternative choices of voters backing the top two candidates are never considered. So, it makes sense that many Frey and Fateh voters didn’t bother to list any other choices: Given the dynamics of the race, there was no scenario where either Frey or Fateh would finish below second place.  

How RCV/IRV voting works can also be seen in the first graphic, prepared by the City of Minneapolis elections office, to illustrate the final outcome.  

Frey, age 44, appears in dark blue at the top, with Fateh, age 35, in light blue just below. Other candidates appear in shades of orange, red, yellow, green, etc., farther down. 

After “round one,” Frey led Fateh by 41.7 percent to 31.6 percent. Since neither candidate cracked 50 percent, vote counting continued into round two.  

Next, the alternative choices (if any) of voters backing the 14 also-ran candidates were considered. You can see in the graph how these were distributed from the bottom 14 to the two leaders, in the dark blue and light blue curves.  

After these alternative choices were distributed, Frey just cracked the 50 percent threshold and took the win, whereas Fateh ended at 44.4 percent.  

Fateh gained more votes than Frey in round two (by almost 2:1), but not enough to overcome Frey’s first-round lead. But the fact that Fateh, the socialist candidate, gained more votes from the ranked-choice process lends support to my hypothesis that the voting system rewards more radical candidates, the opposite of what is usually claimed by RCV advocates.  

The Star Tribune, commenting on election strategy in the race, noted, “In the past two elections, Frey’s challengers have attempted to use a system [RCV] designed to reward consensus into a strategy of collective opposition.”  

That collective opposition strategy, which did not prevail in Minneapolis, appears to have won the day in St. Paul.  

Like Mayor Frey, incumbent St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter (also a former city councilman) was running for a third consecutive term.  

Carter lost to sitting state Rep. Her (DFL-St. Paul) who is serving her fourth term representing the city in the state legislature. Her, along with her family, came to the United States as refugees from Laos. In June 2025, in a speech on the House floor, Her made some statements that seemed (incorrectly) to imply that she was an illegal alien. She appears to have gotten caught up in the moment and misspoke.  

In the St. Paul mayor’s race, RCV was less kind to the two-term incumbent. In a five-way contest, Carter narrowly led Her by a 40.8 to 38.2 margin after round one. With neither candidate reaching 50 percent, the race went to round two. 

After distributing the alternative choices of the three also-ran candidates, Her inched ahead 47.8 percent to 45 percent. Neither candidate gained a majority, but Her was declared the winner.  

As in Minneapolis, the challenger benefited more from RCV, receiving more second-round votes, by more than a 2:1 margin, and enough to overcome the incumbent’s round one lead.  

Another factor in the Minneapolis mayoral outcome that got some attention, but without any quantification, was the tribal element.  

Sen. Fateh is a second-generation Somali-American, having been born in Washington, D.C., to immigrant parents. 

A number of commentators on social media and in alternative publications floated a theory that members of rival Somali clans to Fateh’s instead supported Frey in the contest. 

Both Fateh and Frey made explicit, direct appeals to Somali supporters in Somali during the contest. Fateh’s Somali-language efforts were augmented by his biggest supporter, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minneapolis. Both Fateh and Omar are believed to belong to the same Somali clan.  

Estimates of the Somali population within the city of Minneapolis range around 25,000. It is not known how many of them are of voting age, eligible to vote, and participate in voting. It’s possible, though, given the final margin, that intra-tribal rivalries may have played a role in the outcome.  

This year’s contest wasn’t just about the race for mayor. The entire Minneapolis city council was also on the ballot in November, and it appears they have turned back the radical tide, ever so slightly. 

The accompanying scorecard can be used to keep the players straight from the two mayors down through all 13 Minneapolis city council members listed by ward (district).  

Incumbents are noted in bold, and winners are circled in a box. [Note: In 2025, only one city council contest (Ward 5) went beyond round one, and RCV did not change the outcome.]  

The progressive/socialist/far-left cadre is listed on the left, identified by the endorsements from like-minded groups. These lefter-leaning entities include the Twin Cities Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Minneapolis for the Many (MANY), and TakeAction MN (TAKE).  

“Moderates” are listed in the rightmost column, with their endorsements by the business-backed centrist group All of Minneapolis (ALL).  

Going into election night, “progressives” held an eight to five advantage over “moderates” on the 13-member council.  

One incumbent lost in 2025, the lefter-learning Katie Cashman (Ward 7). Ward 8 had been with the moderates, but the socialist candidate Soren Stevenson took the open seat.  

Moderates won both remaining open seats, including the one held by the retiring Jeremiah Ellison (Ward 5), son of the state Attorney General. 

On net, moderates gained a seat, giving them an apparent 7 to 6 edge, with the balance of power now in the hands of returning council member Jamal Osman (Ward 6).  

The Minnesota Star Tribune summed up the ideological breakdown:  

The math leaves the progressives with a one-seat majority and the difficult task of rounding up two more votes to get the nine needed to override a Frey veto.  

But it could be a stage set for a swing voter, and Osman told supporters after winning re-election Tuesday night that he would be that person.  

The Star Tribune adds:  

Osman has often distanced himself from the DSA’s skepticism toward policing, and before the progressive bloc took control two years ago, he frequently voted with the comparatively moderate majority.  

It’s interesting to note that the two CAIR-endorsed candidates for mayor of Minneapolis (Fateh) and St. Paul (Carter) both lost in 2025.  

CAIR also endorsed eight candidates for the Minneapolis City Council. Two lost, including the incumbent Katie Cashman (Ward 7). 

The significance of this result lies in how the Minneapolis race was portrayed in national and international media during the run-up to Nov. 4. Fateh was cast as the “Minneapolis Mamdani,” drawing parallels to Zohran Mamdani, another Democratic Socialist, who won his race for mayor of New York City. Mamdani was also backed by CAIR in his race, which donated $100,000 to the Mamdani cause.  

Local political commentator Blois Olson noted the following in his political newsletter, “Morning Take,” the day prior to the election:  

In ads CAIR Action Midwest calls out its endorsements for Minneapolis races to “Invest in Muslim Political Power.” While the post doesn’t only highlight Muslim candidates, it’s a message that if pushed by a Christian or Jewish organization would undoubtedly draw outrage from the far left and CAIR. In fact, progressive social media commentators from Minnesota have called out candidates in the Anoka-Hennepin race as “White Christian Nationals” as a criticism.  

CAIR has its own colorful history, as the New York Post reminded its readers before the New York City contest. 

CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the notorious 2007 Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial; five Holy Land Foundation leaders were convicted of giving Hamas more than $12 million and were sentenced to decades in prison. 

For his part, Sen. Fateh embraced his CAIR endorsement, writing on Facebook, “I am honored to announce my endorsement by CAIR Action. I am dedicated to supporting the thriving immigrant communities our city is based on.”  

Indeed, on Fateh’s official campaign website, CAIR was listed among his many endorsers.  

CAIR also put money on the line in Minnesota, making a $10,000 last-minute donation to a Fateh-supporting political action committee (PAC), the Working Peoples Project. The Project registered just one month before election day and raised almost $300,000, nearly all from out-of-state sources.  

As always, the money game was part of the election 2025 story. In Minneapolis, the main players were the groups All of Minneapolis, backing moderates, and Minneapolis for the Many, backing progressives. Together, those two groups alone raised around $2 million, according to preliminary campaign filings.  

The moderates, backed by business interests, notably landlord groups and the local chamber of commerce, held the money edge in the contest. Out-of-state leftist donors and more radical government-employee labor unions backed the progressives.  

As for the candidates themselves, Frey raised more than $1 million and Fateh over $565,000, according to preliminary filings. Add money raised by allied groups, also-ran mayoral candidates, and in the 13 city council races, and at least $6 million was spent to persuade an electorate of fewer than 150,000 voters.  

St. Paul saw its own last minute PAC registration. A group called Saint Paul Future Forward registered on Oct. 21 and raised $65,000 — a preliminary number — to back the more moderate mayoral challenger Her.  

We get to do it all over again in 2027, when the city councils of both Minneapolis and St. Paul are up for re-election.