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.

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

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less