Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Will election reforms make a difference (again)?

Sen. Robert La Follette

Sen. Robert La Follette led the way on election reforms 100 years ago. There's another way upon us now.

Klug served in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 1999. He hosts the political podcast “ Lost in the Middle: America’s Political Orphans.”

As Mark Twain famously wrote: “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.”

At the turn of the 20th century, a wave of political reform swept the country, led by Wisconsin Sen. Robert La Follette and his sometimes ally — and often sparring partner — President Theodore Roosevelt.

Today it seems hard to believe that one of their cornerstone initiatives was even necessary: They reached halfway across the world to steal from the Australians the secret ballot. Before then, pre-printed, filled-out ballots were handed out by political machines in major U.S. cities.


Soon a second idea swept the country: the direct election of senators. Since the enactment of the Constitution, state legislatures had made those decisions, but now citizens would.

Today a new era of reform fervor is sweeping the country.

“It certainly parallels the progressive reform era of about a hundred years ago,” says Katherine Gehl of the National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers. “People are frustrated with the political system. And there's a subset of those people who are proposing multiple different solutions.”

The most far-reaching, comprehensive plan focuses on variations of ranked-choice voting. Some versions of RCV pair with an open primary in which candidates run without party identifications. Voters rank them and a subset, usually four or five, moves onto the general election.

In that second round the candidate with the lowest total is dropped, and that person’s ballots are redistributed to voters’ second-choice candidates. And so it goes, until there is a winner. The underlying assumption is that fringe candidates will fall by the wayside and more moderate consensus candidates will win.

Maine and Alaska already use a variation, as do New York City and San Francisco. Battleground Nevada has a referendum this fall on phasing in the voting system in 2026.

But as support builds around the country, so does skepticism. San Francisco political scientist Josh McDaniels has studied his hometown mayoral election. “My headline on this party reform shows it has very minimal effects,” he said. “What reformers promise is incredibly unrealistic in terms of what tinkering with the rules of primary elections can actually accomplish.”

Will ranked-choice voting and open primaries change the incentives and results of American elections, or just reshuffle the deck chairs? I explore those issues in “The Ghost of Bob LaFollette,” episode 12 of “Lost in the Middle: America’s Political Orphans.”

https://scottklug.substack.com/p/episode-12-the-ghost-of-bob-la-follette


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