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

People holiding "Yes on 1" signs

People urge support for Question 1 in Maine.

Kyle Bailey

The Fahey Q&A: Kyle Bailey discusses Maine’s Question 1

Since organizing the Voters Not Politicians2018 ballot initiative that put citizens in charge ofdrawing Michigan's legislative maps, Fahey has been the founding executive director of The PeoplePeople, which is forming statewide networks to promote government accountability. Sheregularly interviews colleagues in the world of democracy reform for The Fulcrum.

Kyle Bailey is a former Maine state representative who managed the landmark ballot measure campaigns to win and protect ranked choice voting. He serves as campaign manager for Citizens to End SuperPACs and the Yes On 1 campaign to pass Question 1, a statewide ballot initiative that would place a limit of $5,000 on contributions to political action committees.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ballot envelopes moving through a sorting machine

Mailed ballots are sorted by a machine at the Denver Elections Division.

Hyoung Chang/The Denver Post

GOP targets fine print of voting by mail in battleground state suits

Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

In 2020’s presidential election, 17 million more Americans voted than in 2016’s election. That record-setting turnout was historic and even more remarkable because it came in the midst of a deadly pandemic. A key reason for the increase was most states simplified and expanded voting with mailed-out ballots — which 43 percent of voters used.

Some battleground states saw dramatic expansions. Michigan went from 26 percent of its electorate voting with mailed-out ballots in 2016 to 59 percent in 2020. Pennsylvania went from 4 percent to 40 percent. The following spring, academics found that mailing ballots to voters had lifted 2020’s voter turnout across the political spectrum and had benefited Republican candidates — especially in states that previously had limited the option.

Keep ReadingShow less
Members of Congress in the House of Representatives

Every four years, Congress gathers to count electoral votes.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

No country still uses an electoral college − except the U.S.

Holzer is an associate professor of political science at Westminster College.

The United States is the only democracy in the world where a presidential candidate can get the most popular votes and still lose the election. Thanks to the Electoral College, that has happened five times in the country’s history. The most recent examples are from 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote but George W. Bush won the Electoral College after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and 2016, when Hillary Clinton got more votes nationwide than Donald Trump but lost in the Electoral College.

The Founding Fathers did not invent the idea of an electoral college. Rather, they borrowed the concept from Europe, where it had been used to pick emperors for hundreds of years.

Keep ReadingShow less
Nebraska Capitol

Nebraska's Capitol houses a unicameral legislature, unique in American politics.

Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

100 years ago, a Nebraska Republican fought for democracy reform

Gruber is senior vice president of Open Primaries.

With Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen’s announcement on Sept. 24 that he doesn't have enough votes to call a special session of the Legislature to change the way the state allocates electoral votes, an effort led by former President Donald Trump to pressure the Legislature officially failed.

Nebraska is one of only two states that award a single Electoral College vote to the winner in each congressional district, plus two votes to the statewide winner of the presidential popular vote. Much has been made — justifiably — of Republican state Sen. Mike McDonnell’s heroic decision to buck enormous political pressure from his party to fall in line, and choosing instead to single-handedly defeat the measure. The origins of the senator's independence, though, began in a 100-old experiment in democracy reform.

Keep ReadingShow less