In this amNY op-ed, Fordham Law Adjunct Professor Jerry Goldfeder, director of Fordham Law School’s Voting Rights and Democracy Project, compares the voting procedures for various elections including the papacy, Oscars, and open primaries.
In elections, sometimes it’s all about the rules.
Take, for instance, the recent papal election. During the last dozen years, Pope Francis appointed 163 cardinals, 108 of whom voted in the 133-vote conclave that chose Pope Leo XIV last week. Some might say that the pontiff was putting his thumb on the scale, but, after all, what incumbent does not wish to shape an electorate empowered to succeed them? Moreover, although the Apostolic Constitution provided in 1975 that a conclave could not exceed 120 voters, that number has been raised several times, as recently as during Pope Francis’ tenure. Since 1970, a cardinal who was 80 years old on the day a pope died could not vote in a conclave for a successor. These elders, of course, were permitted to share their views during the voting – a kind of ex officio kibbitzer if you will.
One last point on this: papal elections require a two-thirds vote: Only then do we see white smoke. So whatever drama may unfold in the secretive conclave, a new pope must have the not-so-easy-to-get support of a supermajority.
As a contrast, as in most elections in the United States, a winning candidate needs only one more vote than their competitor – known as “first-past-the-post.” A candidate can therefore win with a plurality of 33% or even 25%, depending upon how many candidates are running. This makes little or no sense, but the process seems to have been embedded in our culture.
— Jerry Goldfeder (@JerryGoldfeder) May 14, 2025