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.

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

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