Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Alternative voting methods give different look to Democratic field

Approval voting
franckreporter/Getty Images

Given the chance, two-thirds of voters in the Democratic presidential primaries would support more than one candidate, according to a new poll.

The nationwide survey was conducted last week for the Center for Election Science, which supports approval voting, a system that allows people to choose as many candidates in each contest that they find acceptable.

Proponents say the system provides the most accurate picture of the support for each candidate and is superior to ranked-choice voting, the alternative system that has received the most attention recently.


The polling was done before the contest was remade and substantially narrowed this week as three major candidates dropped out, Amy Klobuchar on Monday following Pete Buttegeig on Sunday and Tom Steyer on Saturday.

Nonetheless, approval voting advocates say their method's best virtue is its simplicity in identifying the candidate with the broadest base of support — and the poll they commissioned sets out to underscore that.

The biggest takeaway is a contradiction of the narrative that the Democratic electorate is fractured.

Using the one-voter, one-candidate method, the poll of 821 likely primary voters found Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont had 40 percent of the vote, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts 20 percent and former Vice President Joe Biden 14 percent.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., appeared next at 9 percent, followed by billionaire Michael Bloomberg at 8 percent, Minnesota's Sen. Klobuchar at 3 percent, businessman Steyer at 2 percent and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii at 1 percent.

But a different picture of the race emerges when those polled were invited to list all the candidates of whom they approved. In that case the results were:

  • Sanders: 60 percent
  • Warren: 55 percent
  • Buttigieg: 39 percent
  • Biden: 36 percent
  • Klobucher: 28 percent
  • Steyer: 13 percent
  • Gabbard: 7 percent.

The biggest growth in support was seen by Buttigieg, followed by Warren and Klobuchar.

Under RCV, also known as the instant runoff method, voters list candidates in order of preference. If one wins a majority of the vote outright, that person is the winner. Otherwise, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and the second choice of their supporters are distributed among the remaining candidates. This process continues until a candidate earns a majority.

In this case, those polled could choose and rank as many candidates as they wanted to.

The results using this version of RCV (but including the highest support for some of the earlier rounds) were:

  • Sanders: 54 percent
  • Warren: 46 percent
  • Biden: 25 percent
  • Buttigieg: 13 percent
  • Bloomberg: 9 percent
  • Klobuchar: 5 percent
  • Steyer: 2 percent
  • Gabbard: 2 percent

The poll also took the same approach in asking people about what issues they consider to be most important. When asked to choose just one, health care was on top with 41 percent.

It still finished the highest when people were given the chance to choose (i.e., "approve" of) multiple issues, but the largest area of growth occurred around the issues of education (which surged from 4 percent as the top issue to 79 percent as one of many important issues) and income equality (boosted from 10 percent to 74 percent).

Two years ago Fargo, N.D., became the first city to adopt approval voting and proponents are hoping to add St. Louis to their fold this year. Maine was the first state to adopt ranked-choice voting in 2016 and it has spread to about two dozen cities.

The margin of error for the poll is plus or minus 4.7 percentage points.

Read More

A better direction for democracy reform

Denver election judge Eric Cobb carefully looks over ballots as counting continued on Nov. 6. Voters in Colorado rejected a ranked choice voting and open primaries measure.

Helen H. Richardson/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

A better direction for democracy reform

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

This is the conclusion of a two-part, post-election series addressing the questions of what happened, why, what does it mean and what did we learn? Read part one.

I think there is a better direction for reform than the ranked choice voting and open primary proposals that were defeated on Election Day: combining fusion voting for single-winner elections with party-list proportional representation for multi-winner elections. This straightforward solution addresses the core problems voters care about: lack of choices, gerrymandering, lack of competition, etc., with a single transformative sweep.

Keep ReadingShow less
To-party doom loop
Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America

Let’s make sense of the election results

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author of "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

Well, here are some of my takeaways from Election Day, and some other thoughts.

1. The two-party doom loop keeps getting doomier and loopier.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person voting in Denver

A proposal to institute ranked choice voting in Colorado was rejected by voters.

RJ Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

Despite setbacks, ranked choice voting will continue to grow

Mantell is director of communications for FairVote.

More than 3 million people across the nation voted for better elections through ranked choice voting on Election Day, as of current returns. Ranked choice voting is poised to win majority support in all five cities where it was on the ballot, most notably with an overwhelming win in Washington, D.C. – 73 percent to 27 percent.

Keep ReadingShow less
Electoral College map

It's possible Donald Trump and Kamala Harris could each get 269 electoral votes this year.

Electoral College rules are a problem. A worst-case tie may be ahead.

Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization. Keyssar is a Matthew W. Stirling Jr. professor of history and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. His work focuses on voting rights, electoral and political institutions, and the evolution of democracies.

It’s the worst-case presidential election scenario — a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. In our hyper-competitive political era, such a scenario, though still unlikely, is becoming increasingly plausible, and we need to grapple with its implications.

Recent swing-state polling suggests a slight advantage for Kamala Harris in the Rust Belt, while Donald Trump leads in the Sun Belt. If the final results mirror these trends, Harris wins with 270 electoral votes. But should Trump take the single elector from Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district — won by Joe Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2016 — then both candidates would be deadlocked at 269.

Keep ReadingShow less