Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Push for ranked-choice voting in the Big Apple seems to be bearing fruit

Michael Douglas Says Yes on 1 (Reform)

The campaign to make New York City the biggest jurisdiction in the country with ranked-choice voting is kicking in to a higher gear — and has been boosted by a bit of star power.

Early balloting begins Saturday in the nation's biggest city, which has long been beset by minimal political competition and correspondingly abysmal turnout. Advocates of so-called RCV predict a burst of democratic passion across the five boroughs if voters are permitted to list as many as five candidates for each office in order of preference, with a sort of instant runoff system producing the winner if no one secures an outright majority of first-place votes.

The system would be used for primaries and special elections starting in 2021 — the next contests for mayor, borough presidents, other citywide offices and City Council — if the referendum is approved in two weeks.

RCV advocates are hoping the publicity surrounding a victory in New York will boost momentum for their cause nationwide. While the system is used for local elections in nearly 20 cities, including San Francisco and Minneapolis, Maine is the only state that's adopted it for congressional races and the primary and general presidential elections. A ballot initiative that would make RCV the norm across Massachusetts is likely to get a vote a year from now.


In New York, a coalition of advocates for the switch includes progressive activists and pro-business groups, and they are cautiously optimistic of victory. To help their cause, they've financed advertisements airing this week on the local airwaves featuring the venerable Academy Award-winning actor Michael Douglas.

"No one wins without a majority of voters, so politicians will have to respect every community," is the heart of his pitch.

Business interests are stressing something different: That municipal politics would likely shift from reliably liberal to somewhat centrist, because candidates who can now win by locking down a plurality base of support on the left would need to appeal to a broad swath of the electorate in order to get second- or third-choice votes.

Advocates have sought to raise interest in the ballot measure, during what's otherwise a nothing-burger of a campaign season, with events demonstrating the RCV system by inviting voter to rank their favorite pizzas, cookies and beers.

Although Republicans have generally been opposed to RCV, claiming it holds a high potential to incubate voter fraud, no organized opposition has surfaced in the city. Opinion writers for the Daily News, however, have said the system will prove confusing and could thwart insurgent candidacies from the city's Latino and black precincts.

The New York Times endorsed the measure, known as Question 1, as a way to boost turnout and assure "the election of more female and minority candidates, who often suffer from the perception that they aren't 'electable' in a traditional first-past-the-post race."

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