Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

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