Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Texas could avoid another high-cost, low-turnout runoff, say RCV advocates

Texas primary, Jessica Cisneros yard sign

The Democratic primary between Jessica Cisneros and Rep. Henry Cuellar is among a handful of races headed for an expensive runoff.

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Texas kicked off the 2022 primary season on Tuesday and, as expected, multiple high-profile races are headed to runoff elections. But the state could have saved millions of dollars by switching to an alternative system known as ranked-choice voting, according to a new analysis.

The Lone Star State requires candidates to receive a majority of the primary vote in order to advance to a general election. And when more than two candidates seek a nomination, it becomes possible no one will reach that threshold in one round of voting. That’s what happened this week in races for attorney general, lieutenant governor and a handful of U.S. House races.

But if Texas used ranked-choice voting, also known as instant runoff, there would be no need to spend millions on an extra round of voting, when turnout historically drops dramatically, say the RCV backers.


Primary voting is often a low-turnout affair, particularly in non-presidential elections. In Texas, just 13 percent of the voting-age population cast a ballot in the 2018 primaries. And just 2 percent voted in the democracy primary for governor that year. An early look at numbers from this year’s primary indicates turnout to be up slightly.

But even in 2020, a presidential election year, less than a quarter of the eligible population participated in the primary. That year, the state had to conduct a runoff in the primary contest for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate. That statewide round of voting resulted in 4 percent turnout.

A 2021 analysis of election spending in Texas, conducted by FairVote and Third Way, estimated that each county had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to conduct the runoff, at least $6 million in total.

An updated study by Fair Vote and Ranked Choice Voting for Texas argues that eliminating the runoff round would save the state $6.4 million and ensure more people have a say in the final primary results.

“Texas taxpayers are paying more money to make fewer people’s voices count. Ranked-choice voting would solve the problem of expensive, low-turnout primary runoffs and a drawn-out campaign season,” said Harriet Wasserstrum, chair of Ranked Choice Voting for Texas. “With RCV, cities and counties will save money and Texans’ votes will count. Ranked choice voting has been proven to work across the country and it’s time to bring it to Texas.”

In an RCV election, voters rank their preferred candidates on one ballot. If a candidate receives a majority of first-place votes, they win the race (in this case the primary). But if no one gets more than 50 percent, the candidate with the fewest first-place votes is eliminated and that person’s support is instantly redistributed to voters’ second choices. The process continues until someone has a majority.

“The nation's first primary of 2022 dramatically demonstrates why ranked-choice voting has become our nation's fastest growing reform,” said FairVote President and CEO Rob Richie. “Voters deserve a faster and cheaper outcome than a separate low-turnout runoff 12 weeks later. They want better elections than being limited to a single choice in a crowded field."

Ten states, primarily in the South, conduct runoff primary elections, although North Carolina’s threshold for a first-round victory is 30 percent rather than 50 percent and Vermont only has a runoff in the event of a tie.

More than 40 jurisdictions have used RCV in recent elections, according to FairVote.

Read More

elementary school classroom
Urgent action is needed for our beloved public schools to renew civic life, writes Goodwin.
skynesher/Getty Images

Teach Leveraging in Middle and High School To Promote Democracy

It's all about leverage. You hear this from a lot of people. Thomas Friedman said it years ago in one of his Sunday New York Times columns on foreign policy. He was referring to international relations. In particular, he was talking about bargaining leverage, namely the kind of leverage that is needed to motivate an ally or an opponent to change their course of action, whether it concerns trade, military build-up, or political alignments.

People in business, especially sophisticated big business, talk about leverage all the time. Gary Hamel and C. K. Prahalad wrote a chapter in their famous book, Competing for the Future, that was all about leverage, although the concept of leverage they were talking about was resource leverage, not bargaining leverage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Seattle Votes on Democracy Vouchers Designed To Counteract Wealthy Donors

If approved, the Democracy Voucher program would bring in $4.5 million each year through a property tax.

Road Red Runner/Adobe Stock

Seattle Votes on Democracy Vouchers Designed To Counteract Wealthy Donors

A public funding mechanism for Seattle elections is up for renewal in next week's election.

The Democracy Voucher program was passed 10 years ago. It offers voters four $25 vouchers to use each election cycle for candidates who accept certain fundraising and spending limits. Supporters said it is a model for more inclusive democracy, touting higher turnout, increased participation from more small donors and a more diverse candidate field.

Spencer Olson, spokesperson for the group People Powered Elections Seattle, which supports Proposition 1, said the program helps level the playing field.

"It's really important that people's voices are heard and that candidates can run being supported by their constituents," Olson contended. "Versus just listening to those wealthiest donors, those special interests that have historically been the loudest voices at the table and really dominated what priorities rise to the top."

The voucher is supported by a property tax. Olson and other supporters hope to bring the model statewide. Critics said the program is not big enough to make a difference in elections and has not curbed outside spending. Ballots are due by 8 p.m. Tuesday.

Olson pointed out the vouchers have succeeded in encouraging more diverse participation in local elections.

"The intention of the program was to bring a public financing program to Seattle elections to help empower more candidates -- more diverse candidates, women, renters, people of color -- to have equal access to be able to run, and run competitive elections without having to rely on wealthy donors, special interests," Olson emphasized.

Olson noted because the money comes from a dedicated tax levy, unused vouchers roll over to the next election.

"The goal isn't to create an unlimited pot of money but to be able to provide resources for candidates to run with the community's support," Olson stressed. "But it's not a blank check at the same time."

Eric Tegethoff is a journalist covering the Northwest for Public News Service.

Keep ReadingShow less
Defining The Democracy Movement: Rahmin Sarabi
- YouTube

Defining The Democracy Movement: Rahmin Sarabi

The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's interview series engages diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This initiative is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.

The latest interview in this series features Rahmin Sarabi, founder and Director of the American Public Trust, an organization dedicated to promoting and implementing deliberative democracy practices, such as citizen assemblies.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why Recognizing the State of Palestine Does Not “Reward Hamas”
An Israeli airstrike hit Deir al-Balah in central Gaza on Jan. 1, 2024.
Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Why Recognizing the State of Palestine Does Not “Reward Hamas”

President Donald Trump finally acknowledged there is “real starvation” in Gaza—a reality that has generated momentum among holdout countries to recognize a State of Palestine, as 147 of 193 U.N. members have already done. Trump claims that this impermissibly “rewards Hamas.” Concerns about the optics of “rewarding” a militant group that is not the country’s government should not drive the decision to recognize Palestine as a state or the decision to maintain diplomatic relations with its government.

Countries that have already recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and the fact that the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) forms a defined geographic area with a government and a population—the traditional criteria for statehood. Countries that have not recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) lack of effective control over parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and to the idea that recognition can be used as future diplomatic leverage. But waiting to recognize a state of Palestine until after there is a negotiated agreement between Israel and the PA is an outdated position that amounts to “kicking the can” down an interminable road.

Keep ReadingShow less