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

Typing on a computer
person using laptop

America Needs a Digital Equity Policy, Not Just Tech Innovation

The United States invests billions in artificial intelligence research and development‚ semiconductor fabrication‚ and next-generation connectivity. Yet millions of Americans cannot consistently access the internet or afford the devices needed to submit an online application for social services or a job application․ This is not an oversight․ It is a policy choice that is costing the country dearly․

Connectivity is a floor, not a ceiling:

Keep ReadingShow less
The election voting process, bidding, hands raised up with papers

Confidence in U.S. elections has fallen to 55% ahead of the 2026 midterms. The real risk isn't who wins — it's whether the loser accepts it.

Svetlana Shamshurina/Getty Images

The Real Test of the 2026 Midterms Comes After the Vote

Less than three months before Americans vote in the 2026 midterms, a federal judge on August 11 blocked the U.S. Postal Service from implementing part of President Donald Trump’s executive order tightening mail-in voting rules. The ruling came amid an intensifying fight over how November’s elections will be administered. That fight underscores a deeper problem: the real question in American politics is no longer simply who wins the next election, but whether large numbers of people will still accept the result when their side loses.

Elections in the United States were supposed to settle arguments. One side wins, the other accepts defeat, and the country moves on. That quiet agreement is under growing pressure as the midterms approach. Control of Congress still matters, but beneath that contest lies a more consequential question: if the outcome goes against one of the two major political camps, will that camp still trust the process that declared it the loser?

Keep ReadingShow less
 Unrecognizable doctor prescribing pharmacy to patient.

After a 30-year decline, U.S. abortions are rising again. Texas data suggests bans may shift where abortions happen — not whether they do.

Natalia Gdovskaia/Getty Images

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: Bridging the Gap

Introduction

We have spent decades arguing about abortion policy on ideological grounds. I think we now have an opportunity to step back, look at what actually happened, and ask a more fundamental question: What policies actually reduce the number of abortions?

I believe that is a question on which pro-life and pro-choice people should be able to agree. Whatever our differences about abortion itself, surely, we can agree that fewer abortions would be a good outcome.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol.

A rundown of the House bills most likely to become law this week — from seafood fraud enforcement to a sanctions bill critics call a tariff bill.

Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

Both Chambers in Session this Week

Last Minute Rush

We’re not going to describe every bill the House aims to take action on this week because there’s lots. Instead, we’re going to focus on the ones that will become law if passed by the House and pull a few notable bills at the beginning of the legislative process. We’ll use the same level of discretion at the end of this week when we review what actually happened between today, Monday Sept. 14 and Friday, Sept. 18.

Probable New Laws

In addition to the bills listed below are also a couple of park renamings. All of these will, if passed, then go to the President for signing and once that’s done, become law.

Keep ReadingShow less