Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’
Independent Voter News

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’

The special election for California Prop 50 wraps up November 4 and recent polling shows the odds strongly favor its passage. The measure suspends the state’s independent congressional map for a legislative gerrymander that Princeton grades as one of the worst in the nation.

The Princeton Gerrymandering Project developed a “Redistricting Report Card” that takes metrics of partisan and racial performance data in all 50 states and converts it into a grade for partisan fairness, competitiveness, and geographic features.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Vote Here" sign

America’s political system is broken — but ranked choice voting and proportional representation could fix it.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Election Reform Turns Down the Temperature of Our Politics

Politics isn’t working for most Americans. Our government can’t keep the lights on. The cost of living continues to rise. Our nation is reeling from recent acts of political violence.

79% of voters say the U.S. is in a political crisis, and 64% say our political system is too divided to solve the nation’s problems.

Keep ReadingShow less
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