Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Election Reform Turns Down the Temperature of Our Politics

Opinion

"Vote Here" sign

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

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

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.


There’s no silver bullet that will simply put us back on the path of a productive, representative democracy – but what if part of the solution lies in how we elect our leaders?

Reforming our elections can give voters more choice, lower the temperature of our politics, and give lawmakers incentives to work together for all of us. Specifically, ranked choice voting and proportional representation would make politicians reach across the aisle and deliver for their constituents in order to win and keep their seats.

With ranked choice voting, voters can rank candidates in order of preference: first, second, third, and so on. If your first choice doesn’t have a chance to win, your ballot counts for your next choice.

This simple change moves elections away from today’s “us vs. them” mud-slinging, and instead rewards candidates who run positive, issue-based campaigns that appeal to more voters.

That’s because candidates need to earn a majority of voter support to win an RCV election – giving them reason to talk to voters outside their base. Candidates also have incentives to find common ground with their opponents – since they may need to earn second- or third-choice support from voters ranking their opponent first.

How does this work in practice? In New York City’s RCV primary this summer, mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani “cross-endorsed” with rival Brad Lander – meaning Mamdani and Lander encouraged voters to rank them both. The pair released joint ads, held joint campaign events, and made TV appearances together. In Alaska, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski and Democratic Congresswoman Mary Peltola endorsed each other.

As conservative political theorist Yuval Levin recently shared, “The skill you need to win in a ranked choice election…. That’s the kind of personality you want in politics.”

The collaboration and coalition-building of RCV reverberate beyond Election Day. Following the latest RCV elections in Alaska, bipartisan majority coalitions formed in both houses of the state legislature – with Republicans, Democrats, and Independents working together to deliver practical solutions on education, public safety, business opportunities, and a balanced budget.

Proportional representation could have an even greater impact. Already used in most democracies around the world, proportional representation is just what it sounds like.

Instead of having just one representative, a district elects several members in line with their share of the vote. For example, if about 60% of votes go to conservatives and 40% go to liberals, then about 60% of seats go to conservatives and 40% to liberals. In a five-member district, conservatives would win three seats and liberals two.

Compare that to our current elections, where one group of voters elects its favorite candidate and everyone else gets nothing. Rural Democrats and urban Republicans might make up 40% of the population in their districts. They should have a voice, but their preferred candidates are nearly always defeated.

This lack of representation fuels polarization and everyday Americans’ frustration with our political system.

When most districts are “safe” for one party, elected officials win by appealing to smaller, more partisan primary electorates. They have little incentive to engage with anyone outside their party base. Meanwhile, voters who live in a safe district feel like their vote doesn’t really matter – especially if their district is safe for the party they oppose.

If Congress were elected with proportional representation, every district would become a swing district. All our votes would matter, and our voices would be heard. There would be Democrats, Republicans, and perhaps even independents representing each district. Leaders from different parties would have new incentives to work together to deliver for voters.

This moment is perilous for our democracy, but it is also time for change. Voters across the political spectrum have been growing more frustrated with our divisive politics for decades. Simply changing the party in power has not worked; now is the time for ambitious, structural reforms that empower voters and improve governance.

Ranked choice voting and proportional representation would put voters back in the driver’s seat and encourage lawmakers to reach across the aisle to get things done. They offer a path away from America’s poisoned politics and toward a productive democracy that is again working in the public’s interest.

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

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