Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

We Can Fix This: Our Politics Really Can Work – These Stories Show How

Opinion

As American politics polarizes ever further, voters across the political spectrum agree that our current system is not delivering for the American people. Eighty-five percent of Americans feel most elected officials don’t care what people like them think. Eighty-eight percent of them say our political system is broken.

Whether it’s the quality and safety of their kids’ schools, housing affordability and rising homelessness, scarce and pricey healthcare, or any number of other issues that touch Americans’ everyday lives, the lived experience of polarization comes from such problems—and elected officials’ failure to address them.


But what if there were tools to change that? And what if they worked in places as different as deep-blue, urban Portland, Oregon and the rugged, reddish state of Alaska?

Good news: there are.

In Alaska, voters have opted to elect their state leaders using open, all-candidate primaries and ranked choice voting. This system was implemented in 2022 and, from its start, has delivered a mixed slate of winners who better match Alaskans’ own political makeup. The system has returned more power to voters rather than parties, with more than half of midterm voters opting to split their tickets between candidates from across the political spectrum; a majority felt their vote “mattered more” than in previous elections.

But what about more tangible outcomes for Alaskans’ everyday lives? The 2024 election delivered a similarly mixed slate of winners—who instantly formed bipartisan coalitions in both state legislative chambers to get to work on the challenges their constituents care about. The House just passed a long-term education spending increase; a Senate panel has proposed a new formula to help balance the state budget while preserving the popular Permanent Fund Dividend; and lawmakers joined together to preserve federal funding for subsidized rural internet and phone service—all on a bipartisan basis and all promising real benefits for Alaskans.

A world away, in Portland, Oregon, residents voted to change their system, too. They expanded their council from just five citywide members to 12 councilors, divided equally among four districts, with their mayor and council elected by ranked choice voting.

So, what did that deliver? In short: the city’s most representative council ever. Eighty-four percent of voters saw at least one candidate they ranked on their ballot win a seat. The resulting council looks strikingly more like the city itself, with homeowners serving alongside renters, pro-business moderates alongside progressives, more women and people of color, and members from age 28 to 70. For mayor, voters chose Keith Wilson, a trucking company CEO who built a wide-ranging majority coalition, including residents from business, labor union, and environmentalism sectors.

New polling found that most Portlanders prefer the new system. Overwhelming majorities felt it would better represent their part of the city and that ranked choice voting let them better express their preferences. As in Alaska, more than half said they felt their vote mattered more than in prior elections.

But what matters most is change on the ground. While it’s early days for the mayor and council who just took office in January, they’re already making moves on homelessness, high housing costs, and infrastructure. Even the “real Ted Lasso vibes ” of the new mayor are contagious, with residents of one long-underserved neighborhood voicing optimism after a recent local repair: “It shows neighbors that this new form of government is going to work. That’s my optimism. It’s going to work.”

There’s no mystery here. Voters in Alaska and Portland got more and better candidates in their ranked choice elections. And the winners of those elections, their newly elected leaders, are working together across party lines to get things done for their constituents. Because ranked choice systems reward candidates who can win—and serve—a majority of us, these leaders can focus on governing rather than grandstanding.

The real winners, of course, are Alaskans and Portlanders whose daily lives can benefit from the outcomes of a more collaborative and less performative politics. These promising reforms are also a win for the democracy we so treasure as a society. At a time when many are feeling disconnected from their government, places like Alaska and Portland offer inspiration.

So, will your state or city be next?

Meredith Sumpter is the president and CEO of FairVote, a nonpartisan organization seeking better elections.

Alan Durning is the founder and executive director of Sightline Institute, a nonpartisan think tank on democracy, housing, and energy issues in the Pacific Northwest.

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