🚀 Deep dive: Elon’s push for a third party reflects issues in the US two-party system
🏆 RCV and voter turnout in NYC
⚡ Preserving voting rights for incarcerated citizens
❌ Cancelled Miami election sparks outrage
🕓 This week’s (many!) timely links
In keeping with The Fulcrum’s mission to share ideas that help to repair our democracy and make it live and work in our everyday lives, we intend to publish The Expand Democracy 5 in The Fulcrum each Friday.
If you want to suggest a pro-democracy idea for coverage in The Expand Democracy 5, please use the contact form at Expand Democracy.
Deep Dive: Elon Musk’s “America Party” - Ambitious Disruption or Doomed Spoiler?[Source: Wired Staff]
Tech billionaire Elon Musk’s recent announcement on X about founding an “America Party” marks a bold challenge to the entrenched two-party system. He frames it as a response to bipartisan gridlock, runaway spending, and unresponsive governance, asking whether a new political force could better represent the “80 percent in the middle.”
Musk’s announcement and his financial ability to back a new party have triggered a wave of reactions. FairVote’s Rachel Hutchinson argues that “until ranked choice voting (RCV) becomes the norm in US elections, third parties will continue to be perceived as ‘spoilers’ and struggle to break through as viable, lasting options for voters.” In “What Elon Musk Gets Wrong About Our Broken Political System,” Lee Drutman critiques Musk’s premise as overly simplistic. Drutman argues that the “moderate middle” is a myth. While many voters identify as “independent” or “moderate,” their beliefs are often ideologically mixed and have cross-cutting identities (i.e., holding both conservative and liberal values), which doesn’t translate into a single centrist vote bloc.
The idea of a broad, cohesive “middle” that could support a centrist party is undermined by research showing that so-called independents often hold conflicting or ambivalent views (Ellis and Stimson, 2012), or have a partisan preference and wish to stay out of two party political bickering (Klar and Krupnikov, 2016) rather than consistent ideological moderation. Klar and Krupnikov, in particular, find that many Americans identify as independents not because they reject party ideology, but because they want to appear above partisan conflict, suggesting that appealing to independents through new parties may miss the deeper psychological and social dynamics of political identity.
In addition, structural barriers present challenges for third parties that are all but unsurpassable. Our single-member, plurality electoral system and complex ballot-access laws almost guarantee the failure of third parties. Political scientists have long studied the structural barriers that limit third-party success in the US, most notably through Duverger’s Law, which posits that single-member, plurality-winner electoral systems tend to entrench two-party dominance. According to a seminal piece by Riker in 1982, Duverger’s Law remains one of the most empirically grounded and theoretically sound generalizations in political science, and Riker claims that we abandon it, or dismiss it as too “law-like,” at the cost of explanatory clarity.
Drutman (2020) argues that public frustration with the two-party system exists, but without reforms like proportional representation, alternative parties struggle to gain traction without acting as “spoilers.” Bawn and colleagues (2012) argue that American political parties are dominated by coalitions of policy-seeking interest groups that use nominations to control access to power, offering a compelling explanation for why outsider or third-party candidates struggle to gain traction within the current system. While political entrepreneurs like Musk can bring attention to democratic dysfunction, the literature suggests that without systemic reforms, such as RCV or multi-member districts, third-party efforts are more likely to fragment opposition or reinforce existing power structures than to transform them.
The practical and political risks of developing a new political party must also be considered. Ballot access and preexisting infrastructure are immensely difficult in the United States. Politico explains that getting on ballots in 50 states demands enormous logistical, legal, and administrative investment. Musk would face thousands of petition-signature thresholds, lawsuits, and deadlines, a decades-long slog. Musk’s party also lacks a coherent identity. The America Party’s agenda, fiscal conservatism, crypto advocacy, and tech priorities mirror those of existing platforms, such as Libertarian or moderate Republican ones. Without a distinctive message, it risks becoming indistinguishable.
Contradictions between celebrity status and political credibility can be overcome by candidates seeking election victory, but they present different challenges when building a nationwide political party. Musk's takeover strategy, to launch via X, funnel funds, and hire a few candidates, leans more casual than organized. Experts caution that sustainable parties require a deep grassroots foundation, legal expertise, and institutional capacity. While Musk’s fame and wealth offer a fast track to short-term success, many warn that money alone won’t overcome the complexities of politics. Ballot rules, state laws, and local infrastructure matter far more.
History suggests that Musk’s movement could simply siphon votes, primarily from disenchanted Republicans, without winning races, potentially helping Democrats. Drawing historical parallels, Ross Perot’s 1992 campaign shifted deficit discourse, even without capturing electoral votes. Musk could influence policy debates without securing election victories, potentially encouraging more Republicans to back electoral reforms such as RCV that aim to solve the “spoiler” problem he might pose for them.
Before discounting his electoral chances entirely, some see a chance that Musk can succeed where others have failed if his mission is deployed tactfully. Nate Silver discusses this in his Substack newsletter, The Silver Bulletin. He notes that while Musk faces an "uphill climb" in launching a viable political party, it's not impossible. He outlines a serious path forward: invest in a diverse team of innovative young thinkers, focus on under-addressed issues like AI and fertility, and play a behind-the-scenes role, funding and mentoring rather than fronting the movement. Silver suggests Musk should repair his public image, avoid reactive tweeting, and prioritize ballot access and strategic candidate recruitment over early hype.
Musk’s America Party may bring energy and attention to the shortcomings of bipartisan politics. Yet, as political pundits and decades of political science research warn, without structural reforms and multi-party pluralism, it risks being yet another single-party vanity project rather than meaningful systemic progress.
RCV and Voter Turnout Impact in NYC 🏆[Source: Politico]
Opponents of ranked choice voting often claim that it's “too complicated” for voters, allegedly leading to voter confusion and lower turnout, especially in communities of color or among less frequent voters. My research has found that the opposite is true; in fact, RCV boosts turnout and does not disenfranchise voters of color. The recent Democratic mayoral primary in New York City provides perhaps the most compelling real-world evidence to the contrary.
Turnout has dramatically surged since New York City began using RCV, with the two RCV elections placing second and third in the most mayoral primary votes cast in the city's history. According to the NYC Board of Elections, voter turnout surpassed both 2013 and 2017 levels, with particularly strong participation among young voters and multilingual communities. This follows a similar pattern in 2021, when turnout in the Democratic primary was the highest in two decades for a non-incumbent race. Additionally, exit polls revealed that 96% of voters understood their ballots.
Claims that RCV hurts turnout have been incorporated into the political science literature, often through limited case studies or confounded comparisons. A recent paper “Shaky political science misses mark on ranked choice voting” published on SSRN by Steven Hill and Paul Haugley, argues that the academic discourse around RCV has at times been shaped by selective methods and a tendency to assume negative effects without sufficient contextual grounding. Their paper highlights an important point: that RCV research, like any policy research, should be approached carefully, especially when new data challenges long-held assumptions.
In NYC’s case, the data point for RCV looks positive. Voter education efforts by community groups, along with a diverse and competitive field of candidates, likely contributed to broader engagement. However, it is quite plausible that the incentives of the system drove higher turnout. Candidates have every reason to communicate with more voters, not just those likely to give the first-place rank, and voters have reasons to learn about more candidates. Candidates with similar views could support each other instead of engaging in discouraging attacks.
In short, while critiques of RCV deserve serious scrutiny, recent real-world data from the country’s largest city suggests that RCV, far from depressing participation, may help broaden and deepen it, especially when paired with meaningful voter outreach.
Preserving Voting Rights for Incarcerated Citizens Eligible to Vote ⚡In a political moment seemingly defined by the steady erosion of democratic freedoms, we wanted to highlight legislation passed in Connecticut last week. On June 30th, the state’s legislature passed a bill designed to improve voting access for incarcerated people who are eligible to vote (see page 418 of the bill). This legislation will require the Secretary of State to supply correctional facilities with absentee ballot applications, saving inmates from the logistical challenge of requesting a ballot without internet access.
Connecticut’s change is long overdue. According to a report from Yale University, Connecticut’s previous system effectively barred all eligible incarcerated voters from the ballot box. In order to exercise their legal right to vote, incarcerated people had to research the name of their town clerk, write them a letter requesting an absentee ballot application, mail back the completed application, wait to receive their ballot, fill out their ballot, and get it in the mail in time for election day. Absentee ballots are only released 31 days before an election, so the speed of the postal service made this correspondence nearly impossible.
Connecticut is not the only state that has failed to make voting a reality for incarcerated people. Among other states, Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, and Indiana all rely on an arduous absentee ballot system for voting prisoners. Connecticut’s new legislation may serve as a model for other states looking to expand access. However, critics of the bill argue that it doesn’t go far enough.
One of these critics is Avery Gilbert, a faculty member at Yale Law School. While Gilbert supports the legislation’s sentiment, she argues that the bill lacks the provisions necessary to ensure that voters actually receive their ballots. “There’s no guarantee that those [the ballots] are going to be handed out. There’s no guarantee that someone is going to be informed enough to know to put it in the envelope, have the resources to get the postage, mail it, and do all those things in a timely fashion,” says Gilbert. While supplying correctional facilities with absentee ballot applications is a strong first step to ensuring voting access, states looking to adopt similar legislation should address enforcement mechanisms and financial concerns in the bill language.
Miami Cancels 2025 Election and Outrage Grows Over "Power Grab"[Miami Mayor Francis Suarez, left, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Source: Miami Herald]
In a sharply divided 3-2 vote, the Miami City Commission voted to cancel this November’s municipal elections, pushing them to 2026 and extending their own terms, along with Mayor Francis Suarez’s, by a full year. Supporters argue the move will boost turnout and save costs by aligning city elections with higher-profile federal contests.
But critics call it an unprecedented overreach. No public vote was held on the decision, and mayoral candidates, including Emilio González, who is now suing, are calling it an illegal and undemocratic power grab. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier issued a legal warning, stating that the move violates both the state constitution and the county charter. Governor Ron DeSantis echoed these criticisms, saying, “It is wrong for incumbent politicians to cancel elections and unilaterally extend their terms.”
Municipal elections during odd-numbered years typically experience low turnout. Research indicates that aligning elections with presidential and midterm cycles can significantly increase voter engagement. Analyses in 2024 show that the 50 largest US cities typically see turnout of 20% or less in local municipal elections under off-cycle timing, while syncing them with even-year federal elections dramatically increases participation.
The move to even-year elections forces a choice on how to handle terms: does a city reduce terms by a year, extend terms by a year, or delay the change until voters have another election under the current calendar, with clarity that the winners will have an extra year in office? While it’s been typical for city leaders approving these changes to add a year to their term, critics argue that any change must involve voters themselves, not just elected officials, to maintain democratic legitimacy.
The backlash in Miami suggests that cities should be wary about independently postponing elections and prolonging their tenure without voter approval. The debate about this controversy may set a precedent for how municipal democracies strike a balance between efficiency and voter input when changing election dates to boost voter turnout. The legal showdown now begins, and Miami residents are watching closely.
Timely LinksWe close The Expand Democracy 5 with notable links:
[Source: Pew Research Center]
