Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Democrats take another crack at federal election reform

People speaking in front of the Capitol

Rep. Don Beyer, speaking in front of the Capitol, announces the reintroduction of the Fair Representation Act on March 20.

Courtesy FairVote

Meyers is executive editor of The Fulcrum.

Election reform advocates have many suggestions for improving the system. Among the most popular ideas are ranked-choice voting and redistricting reform – two major components of a bill introduced by a group of House members last week.

On March 20, Rep. Don Beyer (Va.) and a half-dozen of his fellow Democratic lawmakers presented the latest version of the Fair Representation Act, which would require the use of RCV for all congressional elections, establish multimember House districts, and institute rules to prevent partisan and racial gerrymandering.


"The Fair Representation Act offers vital solutions to the hyper-partisan gerrymandering and lack of electoral competition that has allowed extremist ideologies to hijack our political discourse and sewn public distrust of our political system,” Beyer said. “Our bill would implement critical reforms to strengthen our electoral system, ensure every voter has their voice represented, and restore public trust.”

This is the third iteration of the bill, which has yet to make it through the House of Representatives. And with Republicans controlling the chamber, the Democratic-backed bill is not going to pass this year either. But the immediate goal is awareness, not enactment, according to outside supporters of the bill.

“It’s a long-term strategy. Every time, [the bill] has been getting more cosponsors and more attention,” said Ryan Suto, senior policy advisor at the nonpartisan election reform group FairVote. “We see this Congress as an opportunity to have more converastions and socialize it more.”

Now that the latest version has been formally introduced, the co-sponsors and advocates will begin the campaign to add more supporters. In addition to Beyer, the bill has the backing of Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin (who serves as co-lead) and five additional original co-sponsors: Reps. Earl Bluemnauer (Ore.), Ro Khanna (Calif.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), Jim McGovern (Mass.) and Scott Peters (Calif.).

Prior to reintroducing the bill, that group made two “tweaks,” according to Deb Otis, FairVote’s director of research and policy, that are designed to grant states more flexibility in implementing the measure’s requirements.

Earlier versions of the bill would have required states to assign congressional redistricting to independent commissions. But the new bill does not set a requirement for who draws the lines; instead, it requires the chosen body to follow a series of guidelines, including: equal population counts across districts, compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, representation for minority communities, and preventing single-party dominance in multimember districts.

Only a handful of states have truly independent redistricting commissions. In most states, lawmakers have some say, either by producing the maps within the state legislatures, retaining the authority to approve (or not) the independent commissions’ work, or by appointing political operatives to redistricting bodies. The states would continue to assign redistricting duties as they see fit, but must meet the bill’s anti-gerrymandering criteria.

This shift, according to Otis, brings that portion of the bill in line with the Freedom to Vote Act, a sweeping election reform measure introduced by Democratic lawmakers in 2022.

The other significant change involves the threshold for creating multimember districts.

Currently, each House district is represented by one lawmaker. But in a proportional, multimember system, more than one person would be elected in order to grant minority voices a share of the representation – needing as little as 17 percent of the vote to gain a seat. Take, for example, Massachusetts. About one-third of the state’s voters are Republicans, but all of its House members are Democrats because that party has a majority in each district. In a multimember system, Republicans would be able to win a proportional share of the seats and have a voice in the House.

In the first two iterations of the Fair Representation Act, any state that currently has five or fewer House members would instead have one at-large representative, with larger states moving to the multimember design. The language in this year’s bill would deploy the multimember structure to states that have a minimum of seven House members under the current system. That change was made, according to Otis, because certain states – such as Oregon – would not be able to meet the requirement for minority representation at the lower level.

The third component of the bill, ranked-choice voting, is being adopted more and more by states and cities. (FairVote regularly calls RCV the fastest-growing election reform in the country.)

In a standard election, the person with the most votes wins, even if they are not picked on a majority of the ballots. In an RCV election, voters rank the candidates in order of preference. If someone gets a majority of first-choice votes, they win. If not, the person with the fewest first-place votes is eliminated and those ballots are redistributed to voters’ second choices. The process continues until someone has a majority.

RCV advocates say, in addition to ensuring elected officials are supported by a majority of voters, such a system will lead to more civil elections and bipartisanship because candidates will need to appeal to more than their base voters in order to secure second- or third-choice position on ballots.

Now that the bill has been introduced, the co-sponsors and outside advocates will be trying to drum up support on both sides of the aisle.

“In this Congress it’s been difficult to do anything in a bipartisan manner,” Suto said about finding Republican support. “But those are doors that we’ll knock on.”

Other organizations, such as RepresentWomen and the Interfaith Alliance, will join the multiprong effort, which will point to past successes as part of the pitch.

“A big part of FairVote’s strategy is promoting where these reforms are a success in other parts of the country,” said Otis.

Two states – Alaska and Maine – use ranked-choice voting in their elections. Maine uses it for state-level primaries and federal general elections. Alaska uses it for its “top four” system:

All candidates for office run on one primary ballot. The four with the most votes, regardless of party, advance to the general election, which uses an RCV ballot. Reform advocates and election watchers say that system led to the election of centrist lawmakers, rather than more extreme candidates, in 2022.

Ranked-choice voting is also used in dozens of cities and states around the country, including New York, San Francisco and Salt Lake City. Voters in Portland, Ore., will use RCV for the first time this fall.

Supporters hope to win further advancements in November, as RCV proposals will be on the ballot in Nevada and Oregon. “We’re also keeping an eye on Colorado, Idaho and Washington, D.C.,” said Otis. “It could be up to a dozen cities.”

Read More

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
"Vote Here" sign
Voters head to the polls in Minneapolis, one of five Minnesota cities that used ranked-choice voting on Tuesday.
Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Trump Targets Voting Rights and Suppresses Voting

This essay is part of a series by Lawyers Defending American Democracy where we demonstrate the link between the administration’s sweeping executive actions and their roots in the authoritarian blueprint Project 2025, and show how these actions harm individuals and families throughout the country.

Two months into his second term, President Trump began attacking the most important pillar of our democracy: free and fair elections.

Keep ReadingShow less