Making parties great again, early election results, and timely links

#1. Deep Dive: Is it Realistic to Make Parties Great Again?

There’s intriguing new energy for advancing party-based forms of proportional representation (PR) in the United States, along with substantial legal efforts to win fusion voting where candidates earn the right to be nominated by more than one party. The underlying theory of the case for this new energy is that American political parties should be both strengthened and allowed to multiply. But is that what either the voters or elected leaders want? Here’s a longer “Deep Think” than usual to explore that question.

First, here’s new evidence of this energy and the intellectual case around stronger parties behind it:

• This week, Our Votes Colorado filed three proposed ballot measures for forms of PR for the state legislature with the Title Board, the first step toward voters getting to choose.

Two propose variations of “open list” PR (OLPR), where: parties and independents would run slates of candidates in districts electing five seats; voters would vote for candidates; seats would be allocated in proportion to the votes for each party, minor party slate, or independent slate earning at least 16.7% of the vote; seats for a party, minor party slate, or independent candidate slate would go to candidates earning the most votes; and an independent could try to win on their own. The proposal starts with more general constitutional language that would allow the legislature in the future to adopt other forms of PR within the five-seat structure.

The other proposes a form of the “mixed member” PR system used in New Zealand and Germany, where voters elect a candidate from a single-member district while also voting for a party, with seats added to the district seat winners from statewide party lists to reflect the party vote. Party committees would select and order the list of candidates without primaries.

This is still early in the process so these are not final measures going to the ballot. You can read the measures’ full text here (numbers 262, 263, and 264).

• Last month, several Wyoming Republicans introduced legislation to establish PR as part returning to not dividing counties in legislative races. Similar to a proposal explained well by the Rainey Center’s Andy Craig in 2024, the state would adopt a “closed list” PR system where the order of candidates would be determined by the results of a primary, and a party’s share of seats would be filled by candidates in that order.

• Kansas is one of three states with legal efforts to extend the number of states using fusion voting from the two states with “disaggregated fusion”, where candidates appear on the ballot for each nomination they receive, and the three states with “aggregated fusion” where candidates can list more than one nomination after their name. The New Jersey case was not successful, the Wisconsin case is still in its early phases, and, after losing in lower court, the Kansas case last week was heard with some apparent skepticism by the Court of Appeals.
• Major think tanks are leading efforts to draw attention to fusion voting and party list PR, including Protect Democracy (see pages on PR) and New America, where Lee Drutman has written a series of articles and books making the case for party-centric electoral reforms, including this long essay on PR in the New York Times and this piece initiating a dialogue in the Boston Review. Academics like Jennifer McCoy are writing helpful overviews in the spirit of Douglas Amy’s 1990s classic Real Choices, New Voices.

These efforts are an important contribution to electoral reform debates. But it’s timely to ask if voters want more parties or more choices.

Way back in 1990, I wrote my first articles making the case for party-based forms of PR, including a letter in the New Republic, a Tacoma News-Tribune oped arguing for mixed member PR, and the cover article in a monthly newsletter where I was living in Thurston County, Washington. Core to my enthusiasm was a belief that we needed new parties to challenge the two-party duopoly. The general perception that our major parties were more hiplocked than deadlocked led in 1992 to independent Ross Perot securing 18% of the vote in the presidential race and to term limits sweeping the nation in a string of ballet measures and, in 1994, to the overthrow of Democrats’ 40-year stranglehold in the U.S. House.

That hunger for taking on a hiplocked duopoly also led me in 1992 to join with others to co-found FairVote, which we first called Citizens for Proportional Representation, with the spirited slogan “CPR - Resuscitating American Democracy.” I became its first executive director, and led it through thick and thin until late 2023, including names changes to The Center for Voting and Democracy in 1993 and FairVote in 2005. I continue to be a senior advisor today.

A vision of a multi-party democracy can be attractive, but I’ve learned a lot in my years of advocacy for PR and adjacent reforms like ranked choice voting (RCV) and cumulative voting. In 2023, my wife and reform partners Cynthia Richie Terrell of RepresentWomen coauthored two detailed Fulcrum pieces here (Part 1) and here (Part 2) on our learning in commemorating the 30th anniversary of New Zealand adopting PR. Those analyses are generally consistent with this 2024 analysis by Sightline’s Alan Durning, writings by Steven Hill at Democracy SoS, along with the lead piece Steven and I wrote for the Boston Review in 1998 that became the book Reflecting All of Us.

It’s a theory of change that combines making the national case - with the north star being the Fair Representation Act in Congress - and bottoms-up advances like the great news last week that Newburgh NY, adopted the proportional form of RCV (PRCV) to settle a state voting rights case. It encompasses the work of groups like: More Equitable Democracy in the spirit of the process that led to Portland (OR) adopting PRCV; the conversations among elected leaders and organizations being catalyzed by RepresentWomen; the voting rights litigation by groups like the Campaign Legal Center and Harvard Legal Clinic; and the advocacy at all levels of government by FairVote and Rank the Vote, often with state and local partners. It factors in my experience that reform-minded leaders in legislatures are more likely to support measures to diversify its “big tent” of representatives than embrace a multi-party system that may end the ability of one party to run a legislature on its own.

I passionately hope that the more party-centric and more candidate-centric efforts to change winner-take-all elections can co-exist. Sadly I’ve learned how easy it is for supporters of different reforms to put down other approaches in service of their own. I’ve done a fair share of that myself, although generally in response to attacks on RCV. Why I’m hopeful of mutual respect is the efforts largely have different areas of focus (localities and Congress for the candidate-based, RCV-friendly approach, along with RCV for executive elections, while party-centric advocates are focused primarily on states) and different philosophies of what voters want and what elected leaders will tolerate.

Regardless, we have some learning to do, starting with why there is basically no energy for minor parties even in systems today that are more friendly to them. For example, fusion voting in Connecticut and New York has not created any enduring new parties in years, with two minor parties cross-nominating candidates in New York and one in Connecticut - and those parties mostly get public attention when having an influence in major party parties rather than with their own candidates. Fusion’s political prospects are uncertain: 45 states have banned it, including bipartisan votes in Delaware and South Carolina in the 15 years after minor parties tried to use it. (I’ve suggested its best hope is to be advanced in aggregated form, which also works well with an RCV ballot.)

We can also learn from Alaska’s all-candidate, “Top Four” primary system, which: allows voters to choose among all candidates on a single primary ballot; advances four candidates to the general election; and decides the winner with ranked choice voting. While Republicans nominally have the most seats in the state legislature, transpartisan coalitions run both chambers – to good affect, as the Council of State Government shares in Civility and Cooperation in the Last Frontier. Yet one of the state’s two minor parties disbanded this year, and independent candidates are far more potent than minor parties, including a viable independent running for the U.S. House and others seeking re-election to the state legislature.

Maine has ranked choice voting for primary and federal general elections, and this year the legislature has passed legislation to seek to extend it to state general elections. While Ballot Access News accurately reports that RCV has led to a notable increase in votes outside the major parties, it’s a modest increase. California and Washington both have a “Top Two primary” system where, in the first round, voters can “vote their heart” for any candidate before “voting their head” in the decisive November runoff, but the minor party vote is minuscule, just as it has been in Louisiana’s system where all candidates run on the general election ballot, with a separate runoff when no candidate earns 50%.

Parties large and small have challenges that go beyond election method rules and are widespread across the world. Here, the Libertarian and Green parties as institutions are weaker than they were a decade ago, and the crowded field in California’s governor race indicates the Democratic Party’s declining influence. Serious attention to party platforms is generally a thing of the past; national Republicans barely even go through motions. Candidates from historically marginalized communities would have reasons to be suspicious of parties that historically have favored older, already-established candidates – or been taken over at the state level by idealogues who would only favor their faction.

While it’s important that we’re seeing historic increases in voter registration outside the major parties, they are largely registering as independents. That to me is the huge question that may determine the ultimate direction of reform: do those independent voters want more parties where legislators to the party line or more independence and more flexible choices largely within the major parties, as we see with Alaska’s Top 4 system today and saw back in Illinois when its legislature was elected by cumulative voting? Knowing the overwhelming levels of support for ranked choice voting and open primaries among younger voters, it may well be the latter.

Advocates will need space and resources for different approaches to reforming winner-take-all elections and keep an open line of communication - not only with one another, but with those more focused on open primaries , voting rights, and campaign finance reform. Ultimately, these efforts may come together, at least in part. With more than 80% of our half million local elections being nonpartisan, candidate-based methods (like proportional RCV) are the best PR option for most of our nation’s legislative offices. With executive elections and U.S. Senate elections crying out for RCV, especially if any real new party energy develops, RCV is likely to be part of all approaches to change once it’s as easy to administer as non-RCV elections.

Stay tuned. In a time of disruption in our politics, new ways of voting are needed more than ever.

#2. Spotlight: Should Parties Pilot Releasing Election Results Early?

Source: City of Philadelphia

In 2008, FairVote initiated a project called Fix the Primaries. We featured a number of different proposals to improve the presidential primary process, most of which involved ways to sequence the contests to involve more voters and states. One bold plan was The National Plan. Here’s the writeup:

Jonathan Soros proposed this plan in an op-ed in The New York Times in 2007. We’ve taken to calling it “the national plan” because it involves a national primary in every state at once --except the polls are open for five months.

The National Plan sets a primary date of June 30, and polls open on January 1st. Voters can cast their ballots any time before the primary day, and each month the results are released. In this way, voters can watch as the election unfolds, with ample time for deliberation and reconsideration. Rather than rely on the traditional early states as the first barometers of success for presidential candidates, the first voters under the National Plan would be self-selecting. Highly motivated and passionate voters would vote the earliest, while others could wait till the end. States like New Hampshire and Iowa would remain relevant throughout the primary.

A plan that treated all states equally would drive voter participation, but also diminish the advantage the strongest fundraisers would have under a single-day national primary.

I find this idea intriguing, but it was questioned with vigor when I recently ran it by the experienced election officials in Expand Democracy’s election administration group. They worried about undue pressure on election officials, voters losing confidence in the integrity of vote-counting if it seemed like partisans could influence it when they don’t like the early results, dark money boosting candidates with early votes, and voters deciding not to turn out if their favorite candidates were too far behind.

Starring this idea in government-run elections seems like a stretch. But a number of states allow parties to nominate candidates with their own procedures, and a number of 2028 presidential primaries will be run by parties instead of the government. Piloting this idea carefully could be a way for a party to involve more of its voters – and, in a presidential primary, draw more national candidates to their state if the contest were close. NGOs and students in their campus elections could pilot it as well – just as more than 100 American colleges and universities have tried and embraced ranked choice voting, as detailed by our 2025 democracy fellow Juniper Shelley on SSRN and as adoptions just this past month at the University of Tulsa (OK) and University of Utah.

#3. Timely Links and Shorts

• War against the Will of the American People - and International Law: There are reasons to prefer democracy. The United States’ undeclared war on Iran is the latest example of an unpopular war started without congressional authorization that was unlikely to be earned, as explained in Ezra Klein’s interview with Ben Rhodes. The NY Times also helpfully breaks down this week’s multiple violations of international law:

• Explainer: The SAVE, SAVE America and MEGA Acts: Issue One does a terrific job walking through congressional Republicans’ federal bills and ways they would nationalize elections against American traditions, weaken voting rights and ban innovations that are working. Read also valuable Election Law blog links analyzing Donald Trump’s potential executive order on voting.
• “Trust in Elections Starts at the County Office”: As tied to Braver Angels Trustworthy Elections Campaign, Joan Blades of Living Room Conversations writes in the Fulcrum: “Imagine a dozen diverse communities deciding to host public events where election officials walk residents through how voting actually works in the coming months. Pair these with facilitated conversations where people can hear each other’s concerns and work to resolve them. Then connect these communities by video. Let a rural county in Georgia hear from an urban precinct in Michigan. Let them share what surprised them and why they are confident in their local election processes. Give them a chance to experience the goodwill of fellow voters in other parts of the country. If a handful of communities demonstrate this model, thousands might follow.”
  
• CTZN is a New Civic Engagement Platform: CTZN a civic engagement platform designed to reduce friction between voters and candidates by creating accessible tools for dialogue, feedback, and real-time civic insight. Focused primarily on local and state elections, the platform aims to help first-time and lesser-known candidates better understand and connect with constituents while giving voters clearer, more direct ways to engage with the political process. Through early pilots in states like Virginia and New Jersey, CTZN is exploring how technology can strengthen transparency, trust, and participation in democratic systems.
• Vote Your Voice Initiative Funding Pro-Democracy Work in the South: The Southern Poverty Law Center is requesting proposals. “Since launch, Vote Your Voice has supported a network of 124 nonprofit organizations working directly in communities across the Deep South. Together, these organizations engage a program population of nearly 15.5 million overlooked, under-recognized individuals with barriers to voter participation, civic engagement, advocacy, and protection efforts. Vote Your Voice grantees: (1) Increase access to accurate voter information; (2) Support participation in local, state, and national civic processes; (3) Strengthen community leadership and long-term civic infrastructure; (4) Address barriers to participation through education, advocacy, and systems change.”
• Protecting the Initiative in Missouri: From Katey Fahey’s Fulcrum interview with Benjamin Singer of Respect Missouri Voters. “We are currently gathering signatures on an initiative petition that would, essentially, save the initiative petition process in Missouri. Our proposed ballot measure would: (1) require language on ballots to be clear and accurate, (2) stop politicians from overturning initiatives passed by voters, and (3) protect our 117-year-old freedom of the citizen initiative.”

• “Stark Partisan Divide in Who Thinks Their Side is Winning and Losing in Politics”: Pew Research Center reports, “Today, 60% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say their side is winning more often than losing. Majorities of Republicans also said this in 2020 (69%) and 2019 (54%), during the second half of Trump’s first term… By contrast, during Biden’s term, no more than 36% of Democrats and Democratic leaners said they felt like their side was winning more often than losing.”

• “Want to Make Change Happen in Your Neighborhood? Start by Taking a Walk”.: From the description of Citizens University’s Power Walk Guide: “Citizen University’s Power Walk Field Guide is an activity designed to help you look closer, notice more, and ask some new questions about the place you live. Most importantly, it will help you think about how you can play a role in what comes next. It’s for you to do by yourself — or even better, with some friends, family or neighbors of all ages. We launched the Power Walk Field Guide in collaboration with The New York Times’ Headway Team.”
• One Week to the Democracy Solutions Summit: RepresentWomen is holding a virtual summit of six hours of programming across March 10-12, featuring all women speakers addressing the past, present and future of women as they run, win, serve and lead in elections. It was featured in the latest episode of our Expand Democracy podcast, The Democracy Lab.

Making parties great again, early election results, and timely links was first published on The Expand Democracy 3 and was republished with permission.

Rob Richie leads Expand Democracy. As head of FairVote, he created the partisan voting index, designed Alaska’s Top Four system, and advanced the Fair Representation Act, the National Popular Vote, automatic voter registration, and ranked-choice voting.