Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Biden made the case for ranked-choice voting

President Joe Biden

President Biden's late exit from the election demonstrates why ranked-choice voting is needed.

Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Ernst is a volunteer and state leader at Veterans for All Voters.

By dropping out of the 2024 election, President Joe Biden accidentally made a whole new case for ranked-choice voting, an election reform generally opposed by the Democratic Party. Oops.

If Biden had chosen to not seek reelection a year ago, Vice President Kamala Harris would've had to compete against a half-dozen or so other contenders. It would have been a tough fight, much like her first attempt four years ago (when she was quickly eliminated). Who knows how she would have fared in a 2024 primary, but whoever became the eventual nominee would’ve been better postured going into the general election because the process of becoming nominee is helpful to generating authentic momentum.


Despite all the new energy, polling shows Harris actually isn't all that popular, and only marginally improves the Democrats' outlook for November. She fares better than Biden, sure, but she’s still neck-and-neck with Donald Trump in swing states, so no one should pop the champagne just yet. Regardless of how you feel about Harris and her ascent, we can only fault Biden so much. Instead, let's look at the process that got us here.

If you have a good process, you get good results

We could play "coulda, woulda, shoulda" all day long and think through the alternatives. But it doesn't have to be that way. If the Democratic Party, or both major parties, utilized ranked-choice voting, a clear process would show which candidate would be Plan B (or Plan C). This is helpful in a whole host of circumstances. What if the nominee has a heart attack? What if they are mired in a corruption scandal after primaries? What if …whatever? In a ranked-choice voting system the second place winner would be known, having been determined by the peoples' voices — unlike today.

Embracing this construct isn’t just good for the parties, but also good for the candidates, the platforms and ultimately the nation. Ranked-choice voting would also ensure there is always a competitive primary process, even when there is an incumbent (especially a questionable one).

Over the past six months, the Democratic primary was simply not competitive — it was all Biden, because the incumbent will always have an insurmountable advantage. Those who did choose to run against Biden weren't even on the ballot in several states, so there was never a question of who would win the nomination.

There were no debates, no discussion about platform and the thorny issues on Americans’ minds. There was nothing. That's a recipe for stasis at best, and for crisis at worst. After Biden’s terrible debate performance, the Democratic Party got a taste of crisis.

If you have good results, you will get good momentum

Regardless of how you may feel about Harris being the Democrats' nominee, it should sit oddly with everyone how easily she ascended to the top of the ticket. All that needed to happen was to be endorsed by Biden and the party establishment, which became a self-fulfilling prophecy. And here we are — she is the nominee because that's just how it is. Accept it.

Even esteemed pro-democracy publications like The Atlantic somewhat celebrate the return of party elites in smoke-filled rooms installing a nominee irrespective of, or even intentionally contrary to, the peoples’ intent. But can Harris’ ascendency translate into bonafide momentum that will carry her through November and into a successful term? Who knows, but the lack of process is now a massive liability for her and the party.

If she loses in November, or if she wins and becomes anything less than a stellar president, then the Democratic Party will have immense buyer's remorse and voters rightfully will demand serious reforms to ensure the party cannot repeat such an egregious series of mistakes, one after another.

So how do we get here?

With the electoral process mostly managed at the state level, it'll be up to states to pass laws to enable primaries via ranked-choice voting. Wherever you are reading this, know that you can help make change real. There are hundreds of reform organizations around the country, trying to bring about changes like ranked-choice voting in every state, and they are ready for new volunteers like you.

Also, consider writing to your state representatives to let them know the time for electoral reform has arrived. And most importantly, talk to your friends and relatives about these ideas.

Just about everyone agrees that this system is malfunctioning, so let’s do something about it, one conversation at a time.



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