Discussions on gerrymandering often call for the creation of independent redistricting commissions to draw electoral maps. But in this episode of the Democracy Works podcast from the McCourtney Institute for Democracy, Christopher Fowler explains that plan is just part of a bigger solution to gerrymandering.
A check mark and hands.
Originally published by Independent Voter News.
Today, I am proud to share an exciting milestone in my journey as an advocate for democracy and electoral reform.
The Chamberlain Project, an organization I co-founded with Peter Ackerman a decade ago, has been dissolved. The Chamberlain Boards have voted to combine all of Chamberlain’s associated entities, including Americans Elect, Level the Playing Field, the Committee for Ranked Choice Voting, and Citizens to End SuperPACs, with the Foundation for Independent Voter Education (FIVE), a nonprofit sister-organization of the Independent Voter Project that Chamberlain has been aligned with since 2014.
The merging of Chamberlain and FIVE is the product of a ten-year relationship, which began when Peter and I learned about and researched the unlikely and remarkable success of the Top-Two Primary initiative in California.
This step marks a new chapter in our shared mission to foster a more representative democracy through critical electoral reforms.
The late Peter Ackerman, an expert in nonviolent civil resistance and a driving force behind reform efforts like Maine’s “More Voice” initiatives that brought the United States its first statewide Ranked Choice Voting system, said that even the best ideas are accepted in stages:
The first stage is, “That is the worst idea I have ever heard.” The next stage is somewhat more neutral, “Oh, I’ve heard of that.” Finally, if it’s a really good idea, he would say, “It transforms into something that was always their idea to begin with and that they had the same idea all along.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
I had the honor of working with Peter Ackerman when the Chamberlain Project began leading a citizen’s initiative in 2014 to make ranked choice voting the law in Maine. Our goal was to educate the public about the problems with first-past-the-post voting and promote instant runoffs that produce results that genuinely reflect the people's will.
Together, we won campaigns and lawsuits that made Maine the first state to adopt ranked-choice voting (RCV) for all statewide federal elections, including presidential elections. RCV allows voters to rank candidates by preference, ensuring winners achieve majority support and reducing the impact of vote-splitting.
We had long been looking for ways to disrupt the dominance of the hyper-partisan political system, from Americans Elect, toLevel the Playing Field, to supporting Angus King’s first independent run for U.S. Senatein 2012.
I served as an advisory board member at Americans Elect and later became CEO of its successor, Level the Playing Field. Americans Elect sought to create a new pathway for nominating presidential candidates through an online primary system. Its innovative approach influenced subsequent reform efforts.
Level the Playing Field (LPF) focused on reforming the presidential debate process to ensure independent and third-party candidates had a fair chance to compete. By challenging the dominance of the two major parties in presidential debates, LPF aimed to increase voter choice and diversify the political landscape.
But neither trying to get independent ballot access for president, trying to get a third voice on the presidential debate stage, nor actually electing an independent to the US Senate got to the core of voter frustrations.
Voters were incredibly frustrated that if they supported any candidate that was not nominated by either major party, they would be “wasting their vote” by picking a spoiler.
Just ask Google, “ways to get around the spoiler issue,” and you will discover ranked choice voting. That is what led us to explore ways to give voters more meaningful choices.
However, when we first posed the question, “Are You Ready for Ranked Choice Voting?” to several thousand Mainers in November 2014, the universal response was, “What?” No one knew what we were even saying.
But when we simply said that we were collecting signatures to allow more choices and more voices in politics, to fight against extreme partisanship, to give marginalized candidates in Maine the fair chance to compete, more than 67,000 Mainers signed our petition to change the state's election system.
Senator Dick Woodbury, who as an independent candidate won two terms in the Maine state Senate, introduced a bill in the Maine Legislature to bring more choice to Maine – but it failed. So, we met at The Crooked Mile Cafe on Milk Street in Portland, and together decided to launch the nonpartisan Committee for Ranked Choice Voting.
In Maine, as in 24 other states, we are blessed with the right to initiate laws as citizens. Using the Maine Constitution as a guide, we began the process, with a huge lift and list from former Portland Rep. Diane Russell and many others.
We then got in touch with IVC Media’s Anthony Astolfi and Chad Peace, who had helped IVP succeed in California, teamed with veteran media strategists Will Robinson and Tierney Hunt, and recruited a team of lawyers from Drummond Woodsum and Bernstein Shur.
Kyle Bailey, a local strategist, stepped up to manage the campaign, determined to remain nonpartisan and relentlessly positive. Pollster Lisa Grove came up with the slogan, “More Voice.”
Our long-shot initiative was passed by Maine voters in 2016. Ranked Choice Voting became the law of the land on January 7, 2017. We were jubilant. Finally, a system that would allow people to vote for the person they liked the most without fear of electing the person they liked the least.
But just four days after ranked choice voting became law, we realized that laws passed by citizens can just as easily be repealed by politicians in the state legislature. It had never occurred to us that this would happen, but on October 17, 2017, in a special late-night session, the legislature killed our citizen law.
Luckily, in Maine we also have something called a People’s Veto, allowing citizens to reverse an action of the legislature. From the Senate gallery on the night of the repeal, we sent out a press release announcing our intentions to try again.
Over the next 88 days, and through a series of brutal winter storms, 1,800 volunteers collected 80,000 more signatures to save ranked choice voting in Maine. We got the second referendum on the ballot on June 12, 2018, and this time it passed by an even wider margin.
We won a series of lawsuits at both the state and federal level thanks to Attorneys Kate Knox, James Monteleone, and Mike Bosse at Bernstein Shur and Maine became the first state in the country to use ranked choice voting to elect candidates for the US Senate and House.
The first two elections in 2018 went off without a hitch, even though Maine’s secretary of state predicted that there would be “cars burning in the streets,” if he were forced to implement the law.
In 2019, we worked to expand ranked choice voting to include presidential elections in Maine. The powerful State Senate President Troy Jackson was now squarely on the side of the people, and Governor Janet Mills allowed Senator Jackson’s bill to become law without her signature.
In November 2020, Maine voters became the first in the nation to rank our choices for president.
That same day, Alaska voters passed a nonpartisan primary initiative that – you guessed it – allowed voters to rank 4 candidates in the general election. Their citizen initiative was even more innovative than the one we had worked so hard for in Maine.
Scott Kendall had been inspired not only by Maine’s success but also by Katherine Gehl, the author of The Politics Industry: How Political Innovation Can Break Partisan Gridlock and Save Our Democracy and co-Chair of the National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers, who posited that ranked choice voting was not enough on its own. It needed to be combined with open, nonpartisan primaries.
In 2020, Alaskans voted to open their primary elections to all voters, regardless of party, and then to send the top 4 candidates to the general election ballot where voters could rank all, or some, of the candidates.
In 2022, Nevada voters took it a step further, voting to open their primaries to all voters and to send the top 5 vote-getters to the general elections. We think Gehl’s “Final Five” Voting reform is an idea whose time has come.
Indeed, in 2024, the Voters of Alaska voted to protect Final Four Voting from repeal. “This is what people want, they want more choices, they want more options, and this is how you give it to them,” said Chad Peace, founder of the National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers.
Watching the reform, we fought so hard for in Maine spread to Alaska and Nevada and back to California again is incredibly gratifying. The improvements and interactions we see today hold the promise of finally getting America out of the nasty partisan-driven political rhetoric that has gridlocked our country.
"I am so excited for the future. Our laboratories of democracy will prove these ideas right - or prove what needs to change to make them right. And we will create the system changes needed to help our government achieve the results that we Americans deserve," said Gehl.
Since 2016, Gehl has been instrumental in promoting and expanding the work of the Chamberlain Project.
Throughout this journey, Chamberlain has also taken inspiration from Stanford Professor Larry Diamond, who highlighted the success of RCV in Maine in his book *Ill Winds*. Diamond fully understands RCV’s potential to reduce polarization, empower independent and third-party candidates, and foster governance that better reflects the electorate’s will.
I’ve also had the privilege of knowing Harvard Professor Larry Lessig, which is why, in 2024, the Chamberlain Project took on a new challenge as the fiscal sponsor and organizer of "Citizens to End Super PACs," a campaign that resulted in the passage of Maine’s Question 1 on November 5, 2024.
This citizen's initiative capped individual contributions to super PACs that make independent expenditures for candidates at $5,000 per donor annually.
On Election Day, Question 1 passed with an overwhelming 74.9% of the vote—the highest level of support for any citizen initiative in Maine’s history. We got more votes (600,191) than any initiative in the history of Maine. We assert through a free and fair vote here in Maine that we, the people, have the right to stand up to big money in politics, and we believe it is something worth fighting for.
Question 1 was the only statewide measure in the country in 2024 that focused on campaign finance reform. A lawsuit was just filed to stop Maine from implementing the law, but as I said during the campaign, “This is what we want and look forward to... We relish this fight. This is how the sausage gets made in a democracy."
The Supreme Court has never addressed whether SuperPACs are constitutionally mandated. The people of Maine, by supporting this initiative, want to give the Court the chance to address the question — and finally, correct this awful mistake.
Election reform has come a long way in the past decade. The Independent Voter Project (IVP) is most well-known for authoring California’s “top-two” nonpartisan primary passed by the voters in 2010.
The group also authored a successful San Diego initiative in 2016, Measure K, that prevented candidates from winning elections in low turnout primaries where special interests and political parties excel at manipulating outcomes before most people vote.
FIVE is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization that serves as the educational arm of the IVP, which advocates for nonpartisan election reforms. FIVE’s work includes independent research, voter education, public forums, and digital media initiatives.
Together with IVP, it publishes Independent Voter News (IVN), a platform offering unfiltered political news and policy analysis. FIVE’s transparency and effectiveness have been recognized with a 3-star rating from Charity Navigator.
Since 2010, FIVE has actively worked to reform the primary election system in California by supporting the implementation of the top-two primary system. Under this system, all candidates compete in a single primary regardless of party affiliation, and the top two vote-getters advance to the general election.
This reform encourages broader voter participation, reduces polarization, and ensures elected officials represent a wider spectrum of constituents.
The top-two primary has already demonstrated its potential to bring more moderate candidates into office and promote collaboration across party lines. FIVE has been instrumental in educating voters, policymakers, and stakeholders about the benefits of this system and continues to advocate for similar reforms in other states.
By fostering open and inclusive elections, FIVE strives to create a political environment that better serves the needs of all citizens.
Today, there are rumblings about reform in California that have their roots in a decade-long journey that started on the West Coast, found fellow travelers in Maine, and is now finding its way back to California after stops inAlaska,Nevada, andColorado. Nonpartisan reform activists are testing the waters in some San Diego County cities, including Carlsbad, Vista, Chula Vista and San Diego.
It has been my privilege to have worked with the leaders of FIVE on each and every one of the projects described above, and it is a tremendous honor to be moving forward into a future with our entities under a single banner.
The consolidation of the Chamberlain Project with FIVE marks an important step forward. Together, we are doubling down on our commitment to transformative electoral reforms—from instant runoff voting to campaign finance reform.
As we build on past successes, I remain dedicated to tackling systemic barriers and promoting fairer, more inclusive political processes across the nation.
FIVE Chair Steve Peace, who wrote the California Constitutional Amendment abolishing partisan primaries, is excited about the future.
“I couldn’t be happier to join forces with Cara McCormick and the Chamberlain Project team. Cara’s leadership and vision have been instrumental in shaping nonpartisan electoral reforms that empower voters. Together, we’re taking FIVE into the future with an even stronger commitment to creating a more inclusive and representative democracy,” he said.
“Election reforms that combine the best of open primaries and candidate ranking systems are generating broad support. The people who worked for these systems for many years have joined forces to improve the proposals and work together to get them passed. This is why we’re seeing more mainstream nonpartisan electoral reforms popping up across the country,” said Peace.
“We understand that no system is perfect and taking the next step in California by embracing ‘More Choice’ plans that combine the best elements of open primaries with the right of general election voters to rank multiple candidates is the next step in protecting and expanding voter rights,” he continued.
IVP Chairman Dan Howle acknowledged this evolution of thought.
“We’ve embraced the More Choice Initiative because we’ve been able to sit down with advocates from the ranked choice voting world, we’ve learned from them, and we’ve found ways to reduce the negative aspects and incorporate the positive aspects of open primaries and ranked choice voting into a single system that can make our elections a lot better,” he said.
“For more than a decade, FIVE has been working alongside the Chamberlain Project to drive transformative systemic changes that open up our political system to more voices. This merger solidifies a partnership built on a shared vision for a democracy that works for everyone. We’re proud to take this step together as we continue to empower voters and foster real, lasting reform,” Howle added.
A photo of multiple checked boxes.
This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.
Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.
The purpose of primary elections is to let citizens winnow down the number of candidates to a more manageable number for the general election, when more voters are paying attention (typically two or three times as many). To decide who appears on the general election ballot, Maine uses traditional closed party primaries, where one candidate from each party advances and voters must declare affiliation with that party to participate in that choice. In Alaska’s open nonpartisan primary, candidates from all parties, as well as independent candidates, appear together on the same ballot for each office, and only the top four advance to the general election.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
With 57% of Alaskan voters having no party affiliation, many independent voters could only have a meaningful say in who was elected by joining the dominant Republican Party so that they could vote in their primaries. It was no surprise, then, that they instead favored a nonpartisan primary, which also allowed them to “split their tickets” and vote for candidates from different parties for different offices. In contrast, these other state initiatives undoubtedly suffered from a less independent electorate, from 26% in Idaho and 35% in Nevada to 48% in Colorado. Combining that with opposition in these states from the Republican and Democratic parties, but also from smaller parties and other organizations, these initiatives were destined for failure.
How can this dual-election system be improved so that there is more support and less party opposition? As the first implementation, let’s consider Alaska’s experience. Oddly, while ranked choice voting is being used in the state’s general elections, it is not being used in its primaries! Each voter is only allowed to pick one candidate, even though the voting machinery exists to allow them to rank at least some of the candidates. As a result, the primaries have the same detrimental consequences as any such election:
These factors combine, in effect, to reduce choice in the general election, where it matters the most, and potentially prevent the election of a candidate with actual majority support. Let’s consider them in turn.
Vote Splitting
Alaska’s first use of its new system is a good example, a high-profile special election to replace their lone and long-serving representative in the U.S. Congress, Don Young, who passed away in the spring of 2022. A special primary election was scheduled for June to fill the last few months of his term, and 48 candidates threw their hats in the ring. Two of the Republicans advanced to the general election, Sarah Palin (27%) and Nick Begich (19%), along with one of the Democrats, Mary Peltola (10%), and a “Nonpartisan”, Al Gross (13%, a former Democrat). But were they actually the most popular choices? One-third of the votes went to other candidates! With so many in this primary, including multiple candidates from the four largest affiliations, there was undeniably a great deal of vote splitting occurring. The two Libertarians are a clear example, they might have picked up additional support if there had been only one of them and fewer of the other competitors.
Strategic Voting
Alaskan voters clearly engaged in strategic voting in the special primary. Polling is intended to estimate voter support for the various candidates, but when it’s published before the election it also influences them. Which candidates have the best chances to advance? Voting for your favorite may split the vote with a similar but more popular candidate and prevent either from moving on to the general election, so you may abandon the former and strategically vote for the latter. We can see this effect when we compare the early polling to the primary results, where the more popular candidates expanded their leads, enough to advance to the general election. The early polls clearly influenced voters from expressing their true preferences at the poll that really matters, the primary. In addition, this effect is subject to the tentativeness of early polling and manipulation via “fake” polls.
Under-Representation
In Alaska’s special primary election, the smaller parties were completely shut out. For example, the Libertarian Party didn’t gain any support from independent voters, and the Alaska Independence Party’s candidate saw little support even from its membership, who presumably felt that would be a wasted vote. The general pattern of advancement in the subsequent two regular primaries in 2022 and 2024 is four Republicans and Democrats in some combination. Previously, smaller parties would have been allowed to run a candidate in the general election and present their case to its larger audience. As a result, this multiplex primary system has become an even greater barrier to their participation than the strategic voting with which they previously coped. This is hardly the “diverse competition” claimed by its proponents!
Negative Campaigning
Another feature of ranked choice voting is that it encourages more positive campaigns because most candidates need to rely on second- and third-choice votes to win a majority of the vote. Pick-one primaries do not provide this incentive, because a candidate can vigorously attack others and, if victorious, have time before the general election to mollify those candidates’ supporters. This was amply demonstrated in the special primary, where the Republican candidates Palin and Begich continuously feuded. When both candidates made it into the general elections, a large number of Begich’s supporters snubbed Palin and ranked the Democrat second, providing the support Peltola needed to win in the final round of voting.
Solutions
There are a number of changes that could be made to Alaska’s primaries to fix these issues and make them more acceptable to those who oppose it:
These changes to Alaska’s nonpartisan primaries would provide voters with more choice and more voice in who they elect, and let the community respond to changing politics more easily than with the two-party system. Hopefully, now that a few years have passed, legislators will be more comfortable with ranked choice voting and be willing to fix the primaries themselves. If not, I encourage good government groups in Alaska to bring another ballot initiative, as it will result in a much more delicious experience for voters.
It’s also clear that for a state to adopt this paired election system of nonpartisan primary and ranked choice general elections, there should be, at the very least, a substantial number of independent voters. If not, then it should start by adopting ranked choice voting for both its general elections and partisan primaries, and first get comfortable with this more palatable half of the system.
Andy Anderson is the Senior Academic Technology Specialist for Data Science and Spatial Analysis at Amherst College, and a ranked choice voting activist.
The United States Supreme Court.
Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).
Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.
The plaintiffs argue that California’s top-two system is a violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as “the rights of voters who wish to vote for and associate with minor political parties, their candidates and the issues for which they stand.” It’s a party-centric argument, adopted by some reformers, that the only legitimate expression of “voter choice” is a November election in which all candidates who wish to run appear on the ballot. The longer the menu, the more choices you get. Take something off the menu, you're denying choice.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
So why do California voters find the top-two system so appealing if there are “only” two choices? In fact, the choices these plaintiffs are suing to offer voters already exist—in the primary. In that way, the primary is much more like a general election, and, like any general election, all voters get to participate. The general election, then, becomes a runoff of the top vote-getters. It could be any combination of candidates. What matters is that the people themselves—not the parties—get to make the choice of who they like best to compete head-to-head. That’s the appeal of the California system—it’s voter-centric.
Since the adoption of the top-two system, electoral competitiveness has gone way up in California. Uncontested elections have virtually disappeared. Five million independent voters have access to the ballot box. And, all voters have access to the only electoral system that pits the two most favored candidates against each other head-to-head and guarantees a majority winner.
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs collectively represent 2% of the CA electorate (less than half a million voters out of 24 million registered). Twenty years ago, long before the top-two system, they represented—you guessed it—2% of the electorate. As millions of voters have left the major parties in CA, and tens of millions nationwide, the number of independent voters has more than doubled, going from 14% of the electorate twenty years ago to almost a quarter of the CA electorate today. California voters are clearly not very interested in the “choice” these plaintiffs are offering.
The case is unlikely to be successful. There is no absolute right for any party or candidate to be on any ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court has limited its guidance to directing states to “provide a feasible opportunity for political organizations and their candidates to appear on the ballot.” The top-two system treats every party equally. Indeed, the parties in their brief acknowledge that, despite a very modest amount of public support, some third-party candidates have had success in CA under the top-two system. Not to mention that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the top-two primary is constitutional.
Perhaps the case will start some new conversations. How should the rights of third parties be balanced with the rights of voters—especially the explosion of independent voters? How do you articulate the value of a reform that has shown real merit but that is hard to capture in a state as large and as complicated as CA? Whose opinions on the value of a reform matter more—reformers or the public they profess to be serving?
If the case prompts thoughtful answers to any of these questions, these plaintiffs may still yet succeed in unwittingly advancing a very different goal—a more voter-centric reform movement.
Someone filling out a ballot.
In the 2024 U.S. election, several states did not pass ballot initiatives to implement Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) despite strong majority support from voters under 65. Still, RCV was defended in Alaska, passed by a landslide in Washington, D.C., and has earned majority support in 31 straight pro-RCV city ballot measures. Still, some critics of RCV argue that it does not enhance and promote democratic principles as much as forms of proportional representation (PR), as commonly used throughout Europe and Latin America.
However, in the U.S. many people have not heard of PR. The question under consideration is whether implementing RCV serves as a stepping stone to PR by building public understanding and support for reforms that move away from winner-take-all systems. Utilizing a nationally representative sample of respondents (N=1000) on the 2022 Cooperative Election Survey (CES), results show that individuals who favor RCV often also know about and back PR. When comparing other types of electoral reforms, RCV uniquely transfers into support for PR, in ways that support for nonpartisan redistricting and the national popular vote do not. These findings can inspire efforts that demonstrate how RCV may facilitate the adoption of PR in the U.S.
How RCV Can Pave the Way to Proportional Representation
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
RCV could potentially serve as a stepping stone to achieving proportional representation. Firstly, it increases voter familiarity with alternative voting methods. RCV introduces voters to ranked ballots, which are also used in many proportional systems like the proportional form of RCV (PRCV, also called the Single Transferable Vote). This familiarity might reduce resistance to adopting PR later. In addition, it encourages broader representation in single-winner elections. In single-member districts, RCV can sometimes result in winners who better reflect the majority preference and better connect with diverse groups—such results can increase voter satisfaction and lay the groundwork for expanding representation further. Lastly, both systems reduce the two-party dominance. By mitigating vote-splitting, RCV can help smaller parties gain visibility and credibility, potentially fostering a more pluralistic political culture conducive to PR. As RCV expands and demonstrates success, it can build momentum among reform advocates to push for broader structural changes, including PR.
Recent Survey Analysis
RCV is a meaningful and incremental step toward broader electoral reform in the U.S. These claims are examined further using data from the 2022 Cooperative Election Survey (CES, N=1000) conducted by YouGov. Respondents were asked similarly worded questions if they supported the use of RCV or PR with response options of strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, strongly oppose, and don’t know. For the analysis below, strongly favor and somewhat favor were combined into support, and the other two categories were coded as opposed.
Overall in the 2022 sample, 44% of Americans said they have not heard of RCV, 50% have, and 6% said they don’t know. When looking at support of RCV for people who have an opinion, excluding those who don’t know, 48% support and 52% don’t support. In contrast, 45% of Americans don’t have an opinion about PR (compared to 33% with RCV). When looking at the support of PR, among those who have an opinion, 33% favor PR and 67% oppose PR. The correlation coefficient (r) is .56 between the two, indicating a high correlation. For our purposes, it is important to look at the overlapping support between the reforms. According to Figure 1, of the people who support RCV, a vast majority (71%) also support PR, while about a third (29%) do not support PR. Finally, of the people who don’t support RCV, about 85% don't support PR and only 15% said they support PR.
Figure 1. 2022 CES Percent Support of RCV and PR
Is it possible that support for other election reforms has the same spillover effect? Looking at general support for the National Popular Vote (NPV), 16% don’t have an opinion or know about the reform—10% more than those who don’t know about RCV. Of those who have an opinion, 66% support NPV and 34% do not. According to Figure 2, of the people who support NPV, 58% support PR and 42% do not support PR. Of the people who don’t support NPV, 94% don’t support PR and 6% support PR.
Figure 2. 2022 CES Percent Support of NPV and PR
When analyzing the overlap between non-partisan redistricting (NPR) and RCV, a similar narrative to NPV unfolds. Looking at general support for NPR, 32% don’t have an opinion or know about the reform. Of those who have an opinion, 70% support NPR and 30% don’t—this is the highest percentage of support out of any electoral reform analyzed in this study. Nonetheless, the support for NPR does not translate as well into support for PR as does RCV. According to Figure 3, about 61% of people who support NPR also support PR and around 93% of those who don’t support NPR also don’t back PR.
Figure 3. 2022 CES Percent Support of NPR and PR
Discussion and Future Directions
According to the data, RCV has the highest transfer of support for PR compared to other election reforms. In this sense, RCV can provide a transitional reform. RCV is often seen as less radical than full PR and can be implemented without restructuring legislative bodies. It’s an easier reform to advocate for in the short term. Once RCV is implemented and its benefits are clear, the conversation can shift to proportional representation, building on the success of incremental change.
There are pathways in which this mechanism can manifest. Using RCV, voters become accustomed to ranking candidates, easing the transition to proportional systems that require similar approaches. Via local and state implementation, cities and states that have adopted RCV (e.g., Maine and Alaska) can demonstrate its feasibility and benefits, setting examples for broader electoral reform. Additionally, combining RCV with multi-member districts in jurisdictions where RCV is already implemented effectively creates a proportional representation system (PRCV), providing a direct link between the two reforms.
By providing that winners have majority support (either directly or through preferences), RCV highlights the benefits of fairer and more inclusive voting systems. As voters and policymakers see the advantages of fairer representation under RCV, they may become more open to the idea of fully proportional systems that extend fairness to legislative elections. Thus, by showing voters and lawmakers the value of fairer representation and easing them into new voting methods, RCV creates an opportunity for the eventual adoption of proportional representation.
Dr. Eveline Dowling is the Senior Fellow at Expand Democracy (www.ExpandDemocracy.org)
