Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Make safe states matter

People voting
Paul J. Richards/Getty Images

Richie is co-founder and senior advisor of FairVote.

It’s time for “safe state” voters to be more than nervous spectators and symbolic participants in presidential elections.

The latest poll averages confirm that the 2024 presidential election will again hinge on seven swing states. Just as in 2020, expect more than 95 percent of major party candidate campaign spending and events to focus on these states. Volunteers will travel there, rather than engage with their neighbors in states that will easily go to Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. The decisions of a few thousand swing state voters will dwarf the importance of those of tens of millions of safe-state Americans.

But our swing-state myopia creates an opportunity. Deprived of the responsibility to influence which candidate will win, safe state voters can embrace the freedom to vote exactly the way they want, including for third-party and independent candidates.


Many voters worry about “wasting their vote” on candidates who can’t win. But safe-state voters are free to vote their conscience. In 2020, 36 states were won by at least 10 percentage points. Those states are a lock for Donald Trump or Kamala Harris even if millions of voters abandon them for minor parties.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently embraced America’s swing-state division. He suspended his independent candidacy only in the swing states to avoid being a spoiler. yet will offer voters a choice elsewhere. If you like Libertarian Chase Oliver, the Greens’ Jill Stein, or independent Cornel West and live in a safe state, give them your vote. Indeed, if they joined RFK in pulling out of swing states, they might earn even more votes because voters will know they’re not “spoilers.”

I certainly don’t suggest safe-state voters skip voting nor ignore down-ballot races — our votes are our voice wherever they’re cast. I’m not suggesting that either Harris or Trump aren’t the first choice of most Americans, nor that swing state voters can ignore the pragmatic reality that their states will decide the White House. But for voters who seek dramatic change, you have freedom in the safe states — and should use it.

Long-term, states can extend this voter freedom by adopting the ranked-choice voting system used by voters in Alaska and Maine and on the ballot in four states this November. With ranked-choice voting, you can support your favorite as your first choice. If that candidate doesn't have a chance to win and there's no majority winner, your ballot counts for your next choice among the strongest candidates in what amounts to an instant runoff. It ends “spoilers” and upholds majority rule.

Making us all swing-state voters demands an even bolder approach. It starts by recognizing its root cause. In 1960, 1976 and 1992, nearly two-thirds of states were battlegrounds — and they regularly shifted between elections. Now our system is far more rigid.

Our Constitution’s framers would be appalled at how our calcified partisan division marginalizes most Americans. Brought to life today, they would zero in on how state laws governing allocation of electoral votes make it politically useless to campaign where it isn’t close.

Those laws aren’t in the Constitution, and more states should join those that have passed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. With a few more adoptions — Maine being the latest to act this year — we can leverage the Electoral College to ensure that the White House always goes to the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Every vote would be equally meaningful in every election, and the candidates with the most votes would always win.

Looking to 2028, let’s help enough states enact the national popular vote plan to make all of us swing-state voters. Let’s help more states enact ranked-choice voting so we’re free to vote as we wish. But voters in safe states can matter this year: Just vote your heart.


Read More

Voters lining up to vote.

Voters line up at the Oak Lawn Branch Library voting center on Primary Election Day in Dallas on March 3, 2026. Republicans' decision to hold a split primary from the Democrats and to eliminate countywide voting forced Dallas County voters to cast ballots at assigned neighborhood precincts, leading to confusion. Republicans have now decided to use countywide polling locations for the May 26 runoff election.

Shelby Tauber for The Texas Tribune

Dallas County GOP Will Agree To Use Countywide Voting Sites for May 26 Runoff Election

Dallas County Republicans will agree to allow voters to cast ballots at countywide voting sites for the May 26 runoff election after a switch to precinct-based voting sites caused chaos, the county party chair said Tuesday.

Dallas County Republican Chairman Allen West supported the use of precinct-based sites earlier this month, but said using precincts again for the runoff would expose the county party to “increased risk and voter confusion” because the county is planning to use countywide sites for upcoming municipal elections and early voting.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

An analysis of Trump’s SAVE Act strategy, the voter ID debate, and how Pew data is being misused—exploring election integrity, voter suppression, and the political fight shaping U.S. democracy.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

President Trump doesn't need the SAVE America Act to pass. He only needs the debate to continue. Every minute spent arguing about voter suppression repeats the underlying premise — that noncitizen voting is a real and widespread problem — until it feels like an established fact. The question is whether Democrats will contest Republicans’ definition before the frame hardens.

Trump's claim that 88% of Americans support the bill traces to a Pew Research Center survey — a survey that found 83% support a “government-issued photo ID to vote,” not extreme vetting for proof of citizenship. That support included 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats, indicating genuine, broad, bipartisan support for a basic civic principle. That's worth taking seriously.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less