Nearly three weeks after Los Angeles’ June 2 mayoral primary, election officials reported that 99% of ballots have been counted, but a definitive outcome remains elusive, fueling controversy and raising questions about the city’s voting system. Spencer Pratt, a former reality television personality turned insurgent candidate, initially led the race but was overtaken as mail-in ballots were tallied, ultimately falling short of advancing to the November runoff.

Pratt mounted a surprising campaign against incumbent Mayor Karen Bass and councilmember Nithya Raman, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), capturing significant support from voters concerned about rising crime and dissatisfaction with current leadership. Despite his narrow loss, Pratt vowed to remain engaged in local politics.

In an exclusive interview, Pratt criticized California’s universal mail-in voting system, which he described as vulnerable to fraud due to the numerous handling points between voters and ballot tabulators. While he acknowledged the lack of definitive proof of election wrongdoing, he expressed longstanding distrust in the system’s integrity and encouraged reforms to improve transparency and security.

Pratt advocated for replacing mail-in ballots with electronic voting via smartphones equipped with biometric identification, comparing the technology to systems already used for banking and medical records. He proposed that ballots be posted on a public digital ledger, allowing voters to verify their vote was accurately counted while maintaining ballot secrecy. Such an approach, he suggested, would produce immediate election results without the delays currently experienced.

Reflecting on his campaign, Pratt emphasized that his 217,000 votes represented a notable achievement, especially for a candidate without traditional political or administrative background competing in a predominantly Democratic city. He criticized the local media for focusing scrutiny on his candidacy while, in his view, granting incumbents leniency despite widespread dissatisfaction with city governance.

Pratt framed the election as a referendum on the city’s direction, blaming socialist leadership for Los Angeles’ woes, including urban decay and public safety issues. He described Los Angeles as deteriorating to “beneath Third World status” and vowed to continue challenging what he called the “corrupt power structure” that he says has allowed the city to decline.

Addressing concerns that political pressures silence dissenters in Los Angeles, particularly in the entertainment industry, Pratt said many supporters remained “behind the scenes” out of fear but criticized this reluctance as “cowardice.” He urged residents to speak out against what he characterizes as socialist policies undermining the city’s economic and cultural vitality.

Looking ahead, Pratt affirmed his commitment to remain active in politics, stating he is “at war with socialism” and will continue to push for change in Los Angeles. His messaging called on voters and officials alike to halt what he perceives as an ongoing socialist agenda before it further harms the city.

As the final ballots are processed and the official mayoral race draws nearer to resolution, Los Angeles faces questions about the efficiency and security of its electoral system, the future of its leadership, and the political forces shaping its trajectory.