Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Ranked-choice voting was a winner on Election Day

Opinion

Alaska ranked-choice voting

Republican Mike Dunleavy won the gubernatorial race in Alaska, where the people used ranked-choice voting to elect officeholders across the political spectrum.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Rob Richie is president and CEO of FairVote.

Amidst the postmortems about which party “won” the 2022 midterms, there’s an important story that may have a more enduring impact: the record number of Americans turning to ranked-choice voting for better choices, better campaigns and better representation.

On Election Day, a record eight states, counties and cities voted in favor of RCV, a better method of election that enables voters to rank candidates in order of their choice: first, second, third and so on. RCV measures won in Nevada (where it must earn a second vote of approval in 2024) and cities like Seattle and Portland, Ore.

A reform used in only 10 cities in 2016 has grown to more than 60 cities, counties and states – including Alaska for all its federal and state general elections, Maine for all its federal elections, and the mayors and city councils of the largest cities in seven states.

Functionally, RCV makes common sense. In races with more than two candidates – as in elections this year in Maine’s 2nd congressional district and in Alaska’s statewide elections for governor, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House – an “instant runoff” upholds majority rule no matter how divided the vote. It’s far more efficient than a contentious, expensive, lower-turnout runoff, as we saw in Georgia’s Senate race.


The value of RCV for our politics goes deeper. In our era of fierce partisan division, RCV rewards campaigns for building bridges to more voters rather than burning them. It rewards candidates for campaigning and governing in a more positive, inclusive way.

The best approach is often not a formal cross-endorsement, but clear efforts to engage with voters backing other candidates. In Alaska this year, a Democratic candidate for Congress and a Republican candidate for the state legislature are among those who openly sought second-choice support from voters ranking their opponents first – running positive campaigns focused on local issues and their ability to “work with everyone.” Both of these candidates won their elections.

These incentives exist because RCV gives voters the power to show their more independent views. In Alaska, where most voters lean Republican in presidential elections but are registered as independents, the three big statewide winners were a conservative Republican for governor (Mike Dunleavy), the more moderate Republican incumbent senator (Lisa Murkowski), and Democratic Rep.-elect Mary Peltola, who defeated Sarah Palin by 10 percentage points and has become the state’s most popular politician. The state Senate will be governed by a group of Democratic and Republican legislators teaming up to run committees together.

These outcomes underscore how the “Campaigning 2.0” that RCV rewards can improve both representation and accountability between elections. Incoming officials will have built stronger relationships with all parts of their constituency, including with people they wouldn’t otherwise have reached out to. Knowing that a voter prefers another candidate is no longer a barrier to approaching them; you might still need their second or third choice down the line.

Winners as a result earn more votes and outcomes are more certain to be fair. In Alaska’s legislative races, two Republicans and a Democrat won their “instant runoffs” against their top opponent head-to-head – after trailing in first choices.

RCV is clearly ready to scale, just as it has become the norm in such nations as Australia and Ireland. Election officials can run RCV elections smoothly, transparently and with ever-growing ease. Voters are handling well-designed ballots well, and most cities with RCV produce preliminary counts quickly and complete their final tallies on the same timeline as with traditional voting.

Voters in Alaska, Maine and cities that range from our nation’s largest to small Utah towns are showing a positive way forward at a time of great challenges for American democracy. Their voters are reaping the benefits of redefining voting as ranking. In our ongoing quest for a more perfect union, RCV is a proven upgrade to provide better elections for all.


Read More

Post office trucks parked in a lot.

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why

While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.

The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Must Stop Media Consolidation Before Local Journalism Collapses
black video camera
Photo by Matt C on Unsplash

Congress Must Stop Media Consolidation Before Local Journalism Collapses

This week, I joined a coalition of journalists in Washington, D.C., to speak directly with lawmakers about a crisis unfolding in plain sight: the rapid disappearance of local, community‑rooted journalism. The advocacy day, organized by the Hispanic Technology & Telecommunications Partnership (HTTP), brought together reporters and media leaders who understand that the future of local news is inseparable from the future of American democracy.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Keep ReadingShow less
People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.

The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

A Shutdown Averted, and a Narrow Window Into Congress’s ICE Dilemma

Congress’s latest shutdown scare ended the way these episodes usually do: with a stopgap deal, a sigh of relief, and little sense that the underlying conflict had been resolved. But buried inside the agreement was a revealing maneuver. While most of the federal government received longer-term funding, the Department of Homeland Security, and especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was given only a short-term extension. That asymmetry was deliberate. It preserved leverage over one of the most controversial federal agencies without triggering a prolonged shutdown, while also exposing the narrow terrain on which Congress is still willing to confront executive power. As with so many recent budget deals, the decision emerged less from open debate than from late-stage negotiations compressed into the final hours before the deadline.

How the Deal Was Framed

Democrats used the funding deadline to force a conversation about ICE’s enforcement practices, but they were careful about how that conversation was structured. Rather than reopening the far more combustible debate over immigration levels, deportation priorities, or statutory authority, they framed the dispute as one about law-enforcement standards, specifically transparency, accountability, and oversight.

Keep ReadingShow less
ICE Monitors Should Become Election Monitors: And so Must You
A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

ICE Monitors Should Become Election Monitors: And so Must You

The brutality of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the related cohort of federal officers in Minneapolis spurred more than 30,000 stalwart Minnesotans to step forward in January and be trained as monitors. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s demands to Minnesota’s Governor demonstrate that the ICE surge is linked to elections, and other ICE-related threats, including Steve Bannon calling for ICE agents deployment to polling stations, make clear that elections should be on the monitoring agenda in Minnesota and across the nation.

A recent exhortation by the New York Times Editorial Board underscores the need for citizen action to defend elections and outlines some steps. Additional avenues are also available. My three decades of experience with international and citizen election observation in numerous countries demonstrates that monitoring safeguards trustworthy elections and promotes public confidence in them - both of which are needed here and now in the US.

Keep ReadingShow less