Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

What’s next for approval voting?

approval voting
cogal/Getty Images

As recently as June, backers of an alternative balloting method known as approval voting were confident of their biggest expansion yet. But after losing to a rival proposal, they are now regrouping and developing new strategies for the next election cycle.

“Seattle could have gotten a wonderful reform, just like St. Louis did,” said Aaron Hamlin, executive director of the Center for Election Science. The people of St. Louis voted to make the switch to approval voting in November 2020, and now CES and its allies are working to go statewide in Missouri.


A victory in Seattle would have been a big step forward for approval voting, and it was on track for success until ranked-choice voting was added to the ballot, according to Hamlin.

Over the summer, the Seattle City Council decided to put an approval voting initiative on the November ballot but then added a ranked-choice voting option. The two-part measure asked voters first to vote whether they want to make a change and then which of the two options they prefer.

The first question barely passed, at 51 percent, but RCV overwhelmingly topped approval voting on the second question.

“With approval voting on the ballot on its own it was polling at 70 percent,” Hamlin said. “It’s highly likely it would have passed.”

Advocates for RCV say they had a long-running effort going in Seattle and were not merely trying to jump ahead of CES and the long groups working for approval voting. But Hamlin claims members of the city council “immediately began talking among themselves and decided to add RCV to the ballot” and then the media didn’t treat both sides equally.

“A lot of the news outlets that were local did not critically look at RCV but they did look at approval voting,” he said. “It was pretty one-sided, it felt pretty unfair throughout the campaign.”

Prior to the change, Seattle followed the model used for statewide elections, using a “top two” primary system in which voters pick one candidate and the pair with the most votes advance to the general election.

In an approval election, voters can mark the names of as many candidates as they wish and the two with the most support advance. Advocates say such a system allows voters to support both third-party candidates as well those affiliated with the major parties, giving them more choice.

“We need to allow voters to select more than one candidate, for a more accurate reflection of their sentiments and approval of the choices,” Hamlin recently wrote in The Hill.

Ranked-choice voting also allows people to vote for more than one candidate, but with the added step of ranking the candidates. If someone receives a majority, they advance. But if no one receives a majority, the person with the fewest votes is eliminated and those ballots are reallocated to voters’ second choices.

Seattle is the 18th most populous city in the nation and would have been a big step for approval voting, which is currently used in St. Louis (70th) and Fargo, N.D. (219). RCV is used in New York and San Francisco, statewide in Alaska and Maine, and in dozens of other cities and counties.

Missouri would be the first statewide adoption of approval voting.

“Having Seattle would have made the next bid easier,” said Hamlin, but he believes CES is building relationships with strong groups.

“With statewide campaigns, we look at making sure we have sophisticated partners who have experience with ballot campaigns and strong connections in the community,” he said. “We expect that to put approval voting on the map.”

CES is working with Show Me Integrity on the Missouri proposal. The group has a number of other priorities, including campaign finance reform, expanding the use of absentee ballots and improving political transparency.

In April, St. Louis passed a Show Me Integrity proposal to improve accountability and transparency for the city’s board of aldermen.

Hamlin said was not able to discuss other statewide campaigns at this time.


Read More

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

This question is not an exercise in double-talk. It is critical to understand the power that our Constitution grants exclusively to Congress, and the power that resides in the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 recognizes that distribution of power by saying that a President can only introduce military force into an existing or imminent hostility if Congress has declared war or specifically authorized the President to use military force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less