Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Leading the way on ranked choice voting

Leading the way on ranked choice voting

People hold signs in support of Yes On 2, the ranked choice voting ballot question, outside Boston City Hall in Boston on Oct. 30, 2020.

Photo by Jonathan Wiggs/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

Minta is a Professor in the University of Minnesota Political Science Department and a Board Member at FairVote Minnesota.

As part of an effort to end divisive and negative election campaigns and polarized governance, U.S. election officials and policymakers are turning to ranked choice voting (RCV), otherwise known as instant runoff voting, to make our elections more civil, fair, and representative.


More than 60 jurisdictions use ranked-choice elections, including two states, Maine and Alaska. RCV allows voters to rank candidates and ensures that the winning candidate has earned a majority of voter support. Under our current plurality system, candidates in crowded races can win with only small bases of support, but RCV ensures that the winner is the most widely supported candidate.

While most national media and political commentary have focused on the reform in Alaska and Maine, it's actually a state in the middle of the country that has been leading the way for over a decade and now has a chance to grow RCV even further – Minnesota.

As a Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota, I became interested in the potential of RCV to change the dynamics of electoral contests in our increasingly polarized political system. I am excited about the potential of this reform, and I am pleased to see lawmakers in the Minnesota Legislature take action on this important reform this year. While changes continue to be made, the current version of RCV legislation would provide a local option, giving more local officials the opportunity to implement RCV in a fashion that benefits their communities, and would also set up a task force to study and make recommendations for RCV adoption and implementation statewide. If the legislation passes, it would represent a broad expansion of RCV in a state where currently only charter cities, just a small percentage of cities, have the ability to adopt RCV, and would continue the state’s leadership on this simple but powerful reform.

Minneapolis adopted RCV by ballot measure in 2006 and first used ranked-choice elections in 2009, becoming the first city in the Midwest to use RCV. Four other cities in Minnesota have since followed: St. Paul, St. Louis Park, Minnetonka and Bloomington. The data on use of RCV over the past decade in Minnesota and around the country are promising. First, RCV positively impacts voter participation. In local nonpartisan elections, RCV eliminates the need for a local primary or runoff and allows all voters to consider the full slate of candidates in a single election when turnout is higher and more representative of the community. Having a single, more representative local election is especially important for communities of color who are underrepresented in primaries and runoffs.

RCV fosters more competitive races that contribute to higher voter turnout. For example, in Minneapolis, voter turnout for municipal elections has increased by nearly 24 percentage-points since 2005, the last election under the old system, with RCV directly responsible for an estimated 9.6-percentage-point increase in mayoral election turnout. Voter turnout has increased in other cities using RCV as well.

Second and not surprisingly, voters like RCV. Since RCV provides voters with more choice and voice in affecting the outcome of the election, voters are more satisfied with the electoral experience than under a plurality system, where votes can be wasted or spoiled. Polling of voters in ranked-choice elections backs this up. In 2021, 76 percent of Minneapolis voters and 61 percent of Bloomington voters reported that they like RCV and want to continue using it for municipal elections. Similarly, in 2019, 79 percent of Saint Louis Park voters said they want to continue using RCV in future municipal elections.

Despite claims that RCV might be challenging for voters, data shows that voters in ranked-choice elections – across all ethnic groups – overwhelmingly find it simple to use, including 85 percent of voters in Alaska, 95 percent of voters in New York City, and 86 percent of voters in Utah. This is consistent with data from Minnesota’s ranked-choice elections with voters overwhelmingly reporting that RCV is easy to use, across all demographic groups. In fact, a 2019 study of ranked-choice elections found little differences in how White, Black, and Latino voters reported understanding RCV.

Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that RCV benefits both candidates and voters of color. Candidates of color are much more likely to run and win in higher numbers. Unlike our current system, candidates of color in ranked-choice elections are not penalized by vote splitting when competing against other candidates of the same racial or ethnic group. RCV has increased opportunities for candidates of color to run and win in Minnesota cities that have adopted this voting system. In 2021, more than half of the candidates were women or people of color in Bloomington, and voters elected a woman and the first openly gay member to the open seat on the Bloomington City Council, and in Minneapolis, for the first time in history, a majority of Minneapolis city council members were people of color. We have seen similar benefits in cities across the country, from New York City to Salt Lake City where RCV helped to elect the most diverse city councils in history.

Finally, since candidates increase their chances of winning by earning the second-choice votes of their opponent’s supporters, candidates are incentivized to appeal beyond their base, to a broader range of voters and to avoid negative attacks. Minnesota voters report that campaigns are more civil under RCV and that candidates spent no or very little time criticizing each other. Given the increasing polarization of our political system, we really need to look at reforms that can change those dangerous dynamics.

While RCV is not a panacea for all our democracy woes, it is a promising and simple change we can make to counter our divisive politics, make our elections more inclusive, and strengthen our democracy, and with this year's legislation, Minnesota can expand RCV and continue to lead the way.


Read More

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less