Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Three lessons for bringing about change

Person standing in front of sampe RCV ballot

RCV, in which voters rank multiple candidates marries together impact and viability.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Richie is co-founder and senior advisor of FairVote.

When I gather with fellow electoral reformers it is clear I'm the "old guy"- not in age, but because I joined this fight in the 1980s. That gives me some credibility to share three lessons for winning change from efforts advancing ranked-choice voting, the “instant runoff” system designed to uphold majority rule in one election.


Lesson one is to have a clear vision of where to go, but with realism about how to get there and a refusal to lose.

My north star goal isn’t RCV alone. It’s the Fair Representation Act in Congress. Its combination of RCV with multimember districts results in a fairer distribution of power, which speaks to me deeply as a Quaker. All Quakers have the same power to speak. Every decision is made by consensus. It can be tedious, but also profound. We are expected to use our voice and listen to others.

Most Americans haven’t felt listened to for a long time. That's why in 1992 I helped found FairVote and became its first director, with a skimpy budget and decades of long days ahead of me.

I learned to keep my eye on both big goals and pragmatic ways to advance them. That balance led FairVote to identify approaches that catalyzed modern reform campaigns involving voter registration, the Electoral College and gerrymandering.

It also led me to RCV as combining impact and viability. The Quaker in me loves RCV because candidates have reasons to listen to more voters and voters to more candidates. Crucially, RCV also solves a problem we can immediately understand: It avoids “spoilers” when more than two candidates run. RCV made sense in 1992 when Ross Perot cut into George W. Bush’s base and in 2000 when Ralph Nader spoiled the election for Al Gore.

But making sense wasn’t enough. At first, voting machines couldn’t handle RCV, and incumbents were nervous about unintended consequences. To show a proof of concept we convinced a string of cities to replace their expensive runoff elections with instant runoffs.

A few repeals due to back luck slowed us down, but we didn’t give up. We kept showing how well RCV worked and blocked further repeals. We kept looking for state opportunities.

In 2010, Maine’s biggest city passed RCV, while a polarizing candidate was elected governor with only 37 percent. A new state campaign for RCV blossomed, and Mainers passed it in 2016.

With this new momentum, New York in 2019 started a streak of 27 straight city ballot measure wins for RCV. In 2020, four presidential primaries used RCV, and Alaskans backed their transformative RCV model. In 2021, Virginia Republicans nominated Gov. Glenn Youngkin with RCV, and the House passed pro-RCV legislation. RCV was an answer on “Jeopardy,” a New York Times crossword clue, and the means to pick the Oscar for Best Picture.

This progress depended on new allies. That’s the second lesson: Build your coalition with win-win solutions.

Take Alaska’s top-four RCV system that likely will be on the ballot this year in several states. It shows what's possible when seeking a bigger coalition.

When California adopted its top-two primary, third parties hated it. I’d always worked to open general elections, leading to spirited conversations with top-two advocates. We developed top-four RCV to work with them, not against them. Top-four opens both primary and general elections by doubling the number of advancing candidates, then using RCV to uphold majority rule. With the leadership and advocacy prowess of new allies, the rest is history.

That brings us to our third lesson: Seize the day.

This year we have a generational opportunity for change: A clear problem with a proven solution. A coalition guided by a common vision of elections giving us better choices, fairer representation and incentives to unite us. Working together, we can make this vision real for every American.


Read More

The Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Decision Could Reshape Local Government Across Texas

A landmark Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act could reshape Latino and Black political representation in Texas. Guillermo Ramos and other leaders warn the decision may weaken protections against discriminatory election systems in school boards and city councils.

The Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Decision Could Reshape Local Government Across Texas

Guillermo Ramos remembers seeing few elected leaders who looked like him while he was growing up in the 1980s in Farmers Branch, a fast-growing affluent suburb northwest of Dallas.

Over the years, Latino representation continued to lag, he said. In 2015, after he had become a lawyer, he decided to do something about it.

Keep ReadingShow less
Republican, Democratic and independent checkboxes, with the third one checked

Analysis of California’s open primary system, political reform, and voter empowerment amid gubernatorial tensions and calls to restore party control.

zimmytws/Getty Images

California Schemin’

Both before and after Eric Swalwell’s resignation, the California Gubernatorial race has partisan insiders screaming that California’s innovative, voter-friendly, open primary system should be scrapped. Why? Seven Democrats and two Republicans are running. If all the Democrats stay in the race, and none surges, there is a statistical possibility that the two Republicans advance to the general election.

The attacks are pure opportunism, from people who oppose open primaries, period. Never mind that seven million independent voters have been enfranchised and elections are much more competitive, according to these critics, the fact that the Gubernatorial race might feature two Republicans is absolute proof that the old system needs to be restored.

Keep ReadingShow less
Official ballots with a chain and lock over them, and the USA flag behind them.

The impact of election fraud claims and voting laws on democracy in the United States. Daniel O. Jamison examines voter suppression concerns, mail-in ballot policies, and the broader political struggle over election integrity.

Getty Images, JJ Gouin

If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It

For nearly ten years, claims that our elections are riddled with fraud have threatened the foundation of our democratic republic.

It is alleged that Democrats have flooded the country with illegal immigrants who then illegally vote for Democrats. Purportedly to protect the country from this, Republicans seek legislation that would, among other provisions, restrict vote-by-mail, require potentially expensive and onerous proof of citizenship to register to vote, and require potentially expensive photo identification to vote.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Fahey Q&A with Elizabeth Rasmussen

An in-depth interview with Elizabeth Rasmussen of Better Boundaries on Utah’s redistricting battle, Proposition 4, and the fight to protect ballot initiatives, fair maps, and democratic accountability.

The Fahey Q&A with Elizabeth Rasmussen

Since organizing the Voters Not Politicians 2018 ballot initiative that put citizens in charge of drawing Michigan's legislative maps, Fahey has been the founding executive director of The People, which is forming statewide networks to promote government accountability. She regularly interviews colleagues in the world of democracy reform for The Fulcrum.

Elizabeth Rasmussen is the Executive Director for Better Boundaries, a Utah-based organization fighting for fair maps, defending the citizen initiative process, preserving checks and balances, and building a better future. Currently making headlines in the state, Better Boundaries is working to protect Proposition 4, and with it, the rights of Utah voters.

Keep ReadingShow less