Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

How the 2024 election is already 'spoiled'

No Labels sign

Many Amerians fear a third-party campaign, perhaps one organized by No Labels, would be nothing more than a spoiler in 2024.

Ernst is a volunteer and state leader at Veterans for All Voters.

Fear. I smell fear.

Over the past few months, the wider media enterprise has written innumerable pieces casting doubt on third parties competing in the 2024 election – not just third party viability, but their intentions and appropriateness in America's de facto duopoly. Indeed, there is much to be uncertain about, mostly because these are uncertain times. But to dismiss third parties and electoral reforms that may enable them out of fear of "spoiling" a true race is missing the larger point – America's system as a democratic republic is already spoiling itself.


More importantly, skeptics are not recognizing that in this crisis there is also an opportunity – a chance to transform from a “spoiling” system to one of better choices. But it won’t be easy. Simple change requires a fleeting impulse. Evolution requires an enduring stressor. But true transformation requires a choice. Those who dare to transform must choose to act with courage – and be ready for a little discomfort.

Yes, the current system is already "spoiled"

America faces a crisis because the duopoly simply cannot sustain our democracy. Trust in institutions is at an all-time low, and only 10 percent of Americans are satisfied with the state of national governance while over 60 percent of Americans strongly dislike the inevitable rematch between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. This isn't about one or two administrations. These are trends and neither Trump nor Biden is the problem – they are the symptom, the result of a flawed process.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Rest assured, the United States has navigated many crises before, including at least three of the constitutional variety. The first occurred when the Founders had to wrestle with the question, "What does it mean to be a nation?" They chose to discard the Articles of Confederation and start afresh, resulting in the Constitution. The second crisis involved addressing the question, "What does it mean to be a citizen?" That resulted in the Civil War and then the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. The third crisis spanned the middle of the 20th century, in response to unresolved questions asking, "For who, where and when should elections be?" The answers were codified in the 20th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 26th amendments. But glaringly missing is any answer to the question of “how?”

That brings us to today. The amended Constitution does not delve much into how our democratic processes should function – parties, primaries, ballot access, security and more. Answer these questions will be challenging as both sides implement measures completely unacceptable to the other. Change, we must.

So, why be afraid of change?

The answer is two-fold. First, opponents of change tend to align with either of the two major parties, and change will only lessen their ability to impose a false choice upon the electorate.

But more importantly, critics of third-party candidates and electoral reforms seem to favor the status quo because of the uncertainty they will introduce in November. Uncertainty is always scary, and many people choose the devil they know over the one they don't. But there is no realistic way to alter the status quo without discomfort and uncertainty, just as Abraham Lincoln discovered in 1860 with the early days of the Republican Party. Like then, the conditions of 2024's election cycle are prime for transformation.

How transformation could unfold

There are many ways transformation could ensue in the years ahead, some easier than others. Certainly pressures can continue to mount until the nation reaches a constitutional crisis from which it may not recover. This scenario might not be likely and the crisis might simply be manifest in states not conforming to norms, rulings and laws. A better alternative would be systemic reform that resolves the “how” questions.

Electoral reforms are being considered in nearly every state and territory this year, using the dysfunction and dismay of the 2024 race so far as the backdrop for driving necessary change. These reforms include open primaries, ranked-choice voting, independent redistricting commissions, term limits and dozens more innovations within the bucket of "how."

Democracy reform is complicated and it is easier for politicians and the media to blame third parties rather than address the dysfunction of the current two-party system.

Those who blame the third parties for being nothing more than spoilers are rejecting the democratic principles they supposedly champion.

If you are fearful of reform, ask yourself this: If transformation should not be driven from beyond the duopoly, then by who? If not in 2024, then when? If not by promising new choices, then how?

If you are unsure how to answer these questions, then consider joining any of the major national or state-level organizations dedicated to electoral reform. Ultimately, no change or transformation will be possible without citizens like you who choose to act with courage, despite the discomfort.

Read More

Half-Baked Alaska

A photo of multiple checked boxes.

Getty Images / Thanakorn Lappattaranan

Half-Baked Alaska

This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.

Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.

Keep ReadingShow less
Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

The United States Supreme Court.

Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ranked Choice Voting May Be a Stepping Stone to Proportional Representation

Someone filling out a ballot.

Getty Images / Hill Street Studios

Ranked Choice Voting May Be a Stepping Stone to Proportional Representation

In the 2024 U.S. election, several states did not pass ballot initiatives to implement Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) despite strong majority support from voters under 65. Still, RCV was defended in Alaska, passed by a landslide in Washington, D.C., and has earned majority support in 31 straight pro-RCV city ballot measures. Still, some critics of RCV argue that it does not enhance and promote democratic principles as much as forms of proportional representation (PR), as commonly used throughout Europe and Latin America.

However, in the U.S. many people have not heard of PR. The question under consideration is whether implementing RCV serves as a stepping stone to PR by building public understanding and support for reforms that move away from winner-take-all systems. Utilizing a nationally representative sample of respondents (N=1000) on the 2022 Cooperative Election Survey (CES), results show that individuals who favor RCV often also know about and back PR. When comparing other types of electoral reforms, RCV uniquely transfers into support for PR, in ways that support for nonpartisan redistricting and the national popular vote do not. These findings can inspire efforts that demonstrate how RCV may facilitate the adoption of PR in the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court
Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Gerrymandering and voting rights under review by Supreme Court again

On Dec. 13, The Fulcrum identified the worst examples of congressional gerrymandering currently in use.

In that news report, David Meyers wrote:

Keep ReadingShow less