Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Most Americans agree on these two principles of democracy

Most Americans agree on these two principles of democracy
Getty Images

Troiano is the executive director of Unite America, a philanthropic venture fund that invests in nonpartisan election reform to foster a more representative and functional government. His new book, “ The Primary Solution,” is now available for pre-order.

It’s no secret that most Americans are frustrated with politics. We’re sick of our political leaders not working together to solve important issues — even when the majority of us agree on how to fix them. We’re tired of the vitriol and the negativity. We don’t want to see a rematch of the 2020 presidential election, yet that’s exactly what we’re likely to get.


But while poll after poll shows that Americans are feeling down about our democracy now, there’s a silver lining: We actually agree on a basic vision for what our it should look like.

According to a 2023 Citizen Data poll commissioned by Unite America, Americans overwhelmingly agree that two things should be true about every taxpayer-funded election: 1. All voters should be able to vote for any candidate, regardless of party; and 2. Candidates should have to win the support of a majority of voters to take office. In the poll, more than 90% agreed with the first statement, and more than 75% agreed with the second.



These principles are so reasonable that in the same poll, 70% of respondents thought that they were already true. The unfortunate reality, though, is that those two statements are only true in four states: Alaska, California, Louisiana, and Washington — all states that have eliminated partisan primaries, in one way or another.

In 2022, Unite America — the organization that I lead — published groundbreaking research on the “Primary Problem” with our politics: that a mere 8% of voters elected 83% of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2022. This shocking reality exists for a couple key reasons. First and foremost, 46 states have party primaries and the majority of them restrict which voters can participate. The worst offenders are the nine “closed” primary states, where independents are banned from casting ballots altogether. Second, because of partisan gerrymandering, most general elections aren’t competitive. So whoever wins the primary, will almost certainly take office, even though millions of voters are banned from participating.

The Primary Problem reared its ugly head earlier this month when Rhode Island and Utah held special primary elections for the U.S. House. Rhode Island is a “safe” Democratic seat in the general election, just as Utah is a “safe” seat for Republicans. In last Tuesday’s election, just 10% of eligible voters in Rhode Island’s 1st Congressional District cast ballots, and only about 16% of eligible voters did so in Utah’s 2nd Congressional District.



Clearly, these two elections violate the two key principles that most Americans agree should be true.

As I mentioned earlier, there are four states that have tackled the Primary Problem. Louisiana eliminated primaries altogether in the 1970s, opting instead to have a general election with all candidates on the ballot. If nobody secures a majority, there’s a runoff election between the top-two finishers. Washington and California have top-two nonpartisan primaries, where all candidates appear on the primary ballot and the top two advance to the general election. Finally, Alaska voters adopted a top-four nonpartisan primary in 2020, where the top four vote-getters in the primary advance to the general. The general election is then decided by an instant runoff, ensuring the winner secures a majority.

While each of these four states pursued a slightly different solution to the Primary Problem, they all fulfill the two key principles of reform that most Americans agree on. Every eligible voter can cast a ballot for any candidate they wish, and winning candidates must earn support from a majority of the electorate. Replacing partisan primaries with nonpartisan primaries, and implementing an instant runoff in the general election, is one powerful way to do that.

According to research Unite America has released over the past year, nonpartisan primaries give voters better representation, improve governance, and decrease polarization. For example, before its top-two nonpartisan primary, California was the most polarized state in the nation — by far. But from 2013-2018, it’s one of only five states in the country that has become less polarized. Californians’ opinion of their state government has also improved.

Similarly, the Louisiana State Legislature routinely ranks among the least polarized in the country. To provide a real-world example, its runoff system helps explain how it was the first state in the Deep South to expand Medicaid. In 2015, Democrat John Bel Edwards won a close runoff election for governor. If Louisiana had party primaries, it's likely that his pro-gun, anti-abortion positions would have resulted in defeat. However, because he appealed to the majority of the electorate — not just primary voters — he won the runoff election. Gov. Edwards then joined with moderate Republicans to expand Medicaid under Obamacare, delivering better health outcomes to its residents compared to its neighbors.

Crucially, in all four states, more voters are casting ballots in elections that will actually determine the outcome.

Even though the mood might seem sour in the country right now, there are tangible reasons for optimism. Americans are ready to change our election system, we agree on some bedrock principles that get us there, and we support a powerful solution: nonpartisan primaries. 2022 polling found that nearly two-thirds support replacing partisan primaries with nonpartisan primaries. That includes 56% of Republicans, 68% of independents, 71% of Democrats.

Four states have already done this, and more could and should soon do the same.

Read More

Seattle Votes on Democracy Vouchers Designed To Counteract Wealthy Donors

If approved, the Democracy Voucher program would bring in $4.5 million each year through a property tax.

Road Red Runner/Adobe Stock

Seattle Votes on Democracy Vouchers Designed To Counteract Wealthy Donors

A public funding mechanism for Seattle elections is up for renewal in next week's election.

The Democracy Voucher program was passed 10 years ago. It offers voters four $25 vouchers to use each election cycle for candidates who accept certain fundraising and spending limits. Supporters said it is a model for more inclusive democracy, touting higher turnout, increased participation from more small donors and a more diverse candidate field.

Spencer Olson, spokesperson for the group People Powered Elections Seattle, which supports Proposition 1, said the program helps level the playing field.

"It's really important that people's voices are heard and that candidates can run being supported by their constituents," Olson contended. "Versus just listening to those wealthiest donors, those special interests that have historically been the loudest voices at the table and really dominated what priorities rise to the top."

The voucher is supported by a property tax. Olson and other supporters hope to bring the model statewide. Critics said the program is not big enough to make a difference in elections and has not curbed outside spending. Ballots are due by 8 p.m. Tuesday.

Olson pointed out the vouchers have succeeded in encouraging more diverse participation in local elections.

"The intention of the program was to bring a public financing program to Seattle elections to help empower more candidates -- more diverse candidates, women, renters, people of color -- to have equal access to be able to run, and run competitive elections without having to rely on wealthy donors, special interests," Olson emphasized.

Olson noted because the money comes from a dedicated tax levy, unused vouchers roll over to the next election.

"The goal isn't to create an unlimited pot of money but to be able to provide resources for candidates to run with the community's support," Olson stressed. "But it's not a blank check at the same time."

Eric Tegethoff is a journalist covering the Northwest for Public News Service.

Keep ReadingShow less
Defining The Democracy Movement: Rahmin Sarabi
- YouTube

Defining The Democracy Movement: Rahmin Sarabi

The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's interview series engages diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This initiative is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.

The latest interview in this series features Rahmin Sarabi, founder and Director of the American Public Trust, an organization dedicated to promoting and implementing deliberative democracy practices, such as citizen assemblies.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why Recognizing the State of Palestine Does Not “Reward Hamas”
An Israeli airstrike hit Deir al-Balah in central Gaza on Jan. 1, 2024.
Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Why Recognizing the State of Palestine Does Not “Reward Hamas”

President Donald Trump finally acknowledged there is “real starvation” in Gaza—a reality that has generated momentum among holdout countries to recognize a State of Palestine, as 147 of 193 U.N. members have already done. Trump claims that this impermissibly “rewards Hamas.” Concerns about the optics of “rewarding” a militant group that is not the country’s government should not drive the decision to recognize Palestine as a state or the decision to maintain diplomatic relations with its government.

Countries that have already recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and the fact that the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) forms a defined geographic area with a government and a population—the traditional criteria for statehood. Countries that have not recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) lack of effective control over parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and to the idea that recognition can be used as future diplomatic leverage. But waiting to recognize a state of Palestine until after there is a negotiated agreement between Israel and the PA is an outdated position that amounts to “kicking the can” down an interminable road.

Keep ReadingShow less