Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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 andgeneral 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

Voter registration

In April 2025, the SAVE Act has been reintroduced in the 119th Congress and passed the House, with a much stronger chance of becoming law given the current political landscape.

SDI Productions

The SAVE Act: Addressing a Non-Existent Problem at the Cost of Voter Access?

In July 2024, I wrote about the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act when it was first introduced in Congress. And Sarah and I discussed it in an episode of Beyond the Bill Number which you can still listen to. Now, in April 2025, the SAVE Act has been reintroduced in the 119th Congress and passed the House, with a much stronger chance of becoming law given the current political landscape. It's time to revisit this legislation and examine its implications for American voters.

Read the IssueVoter analysis of the bill here for further insight and commentary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Independent Voters Gain Ground As New Mexico Opens Primaries
person in blue denim jeans and white sneakers standing on gray concrete floor
Photo by Phil Scroggs on Unsplash

Independent Voters Gain Ground As New Mexico Opens Primaries

With the stroke of a pen, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham enfranchised almost 350,000 independent voters recently by signing a bill for open primaries. Just a few years ago, bills to open the primaries were languishing in the state legislature, as they have historically across the country. But as more and more voters leave both parties and declare their independence, the political system is buckling. And as independents begin to organize and speak out, it’s going to continue to buckle in their direction.

In 2004, there were 120,000 independent voters in New Mexico. A little over 10 years later, when the first open primary bill was introduced, that number had more than doubled. That bill never even got a hearing. But today the number of independents in New Mexico and across the country is too big to ignore. Independents are the largest group of voters in ten states and the second-largest in most others. That’s putting tremendous pressure on a system that wasn’t designed with them in mind.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Voter Here" sign outside of a polling location.

"Voter Here" sign outside of a polling location.

Getty Images, Grace Cary

Stopping the Descent Toward Banana Republic Elections

President Trump’s election-related executive order begins by pointing out practices in Canada, Sweden, Brazil, and elsewhere that outperform the U.S. But it is Trump’s order itself that really demonstrates how far we’ve fallen behind. In none of the countries mentioned, or any other major democracy in the world, would the head of government change election rules by decree, as Trump has tried to do.

Trump is the leader of a political party that will fight for control of Congress in 2026, an election sure to be close, and important to his presidency. The leader of one side in such a competition has no business unilaterally changing its rules—that’s why executive decrees changing elections only happen in tinpot dictatorships, not democracies.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Vote" pin.
Getty Images, William Whitehurst

Most Americans’ Votes Don’t Matter in Deciding Elections

New research from the Unite America Institute confirms a stark reality: Most ballots cast in American elections don’t matter in deciding the outcome. In 2024, just 14% of eligible voters cast a meaningful vote that actually influenced the outcome of a U.S. House race. For state house races, on average across all 50 states, just 13% cast meaningful votes.

“Too many Americans have no real say in their democracy,” said Unite America Executive Director Nick Troiano. “Every voter deserves a ballot that not only counts, but that truly matters. We should demand better than ‘elections in name only.’”

Keep ReadingShow less