As it currently stands, California could have its first Republican governor since 2011, the end of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s term. However, the possible end to the 15-year drought of Republican governors isn’t due to a sudden ideological shift in the state but the result of a critical flaw in our election process: we don’t use ranked-choice voting.

California is one of the few states that uses a nonpartisan primary system to decide its governor. Commonly referred to as a “jungle primary,” the elections have all candidates, regardless of party, on the same ballot. The top two vote-getters will then move on to compete with each other in a one-on-one race.

Since its implementation in 2012, Democrats have had no trouble getting elected, as they usually dominate statewide contests. But in the race as it is now, popularity might not mean victory. This year, eight candidates will appear on the primary ballot, down from the original ten, after Eric Swalwell withdrew amid recent sexual misconduct allegations. Betty Yee, the former State Controller, has also withdrawn.

With six of those candidates being Democrats, victory for the party could become statistically difficult as they split the vote several ways. Current polling suggests that the two Republican candidates, Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco, hold the two spots and will likely move on.

In response, many are calling for some Democrats to drop out, making it easier for voters to gather around one candidate and guarantee another blue victory. However, these calls feel entirely at odds with what is important in a democracy: choice.

When our first instinct is to push candidates out, it’s indicative of a larger issue: our open primary system allows victories that don’t reflect our voters’ preferences. If we call for people to drop out every time the ballot list gets long, it’s taking the choice out of voters’ hands before they can really evaluate their options.

Ranked-choice voting would help close what is essentially a loophole in our elections by redistributing votes from losing candidates to the next-most-viable candidates based on voters’ rankings. This would largely eliminate the idea of “spoiler candidates,” erasing the pressure to drop out solely because of electability.

This would mean that voters could support whoever they felt best represented them, regardless of whether that candidate was leading in the polls, because they ranked other candidates alongside their top choice. In a race with so much policy overlap, this would be particularly helpful.

It’s likely we could see a handful of Democrats drop out before the election to avoid splitting the vote from the leading candidates. However, if we make this addition, it would allow these kinds of long-list elections to take place in the future.

Now you might be asking, “Why would we even want to encourage more races to have this many candidates?” To that, I answer: more candidates means more competition. In my opinion, if candidates are pitted against others from their own party without the comfort of knowing others may eventually drop out, there is a bigger incentive to stand out on policy.

Some critics might argue that the real solution lies in getting rid of our jungle primary system, but I don’t believe this is the case. If the state were to revert to the partisan system, I think it would still not address the underlying issue of vote splitting when candidates with similar platforms compete.

Electoral races with many candidates are likely to continue in the future. Across the nation, Democratic primaries have featured increased competition, with candidates representing many different wings of the party, as exemplified by New York’s mayoral and New Jersey’s 11th district primaries. In both instances, the elections saw victories by progressive Democrats over their less progressive party mates, with Zohran Mamdani of New York and Analia Mejia of New Jersey.

In California, where Democratic voters make up the majority of the electorate, this is significant. I believe California needs an electoral system that can adapt to this reality without limiting our options or forcing sacrifices at the ballot box and ranked-choice voting would enable the state to do so.