Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The one-word ballot change that can unite our divided democracy

The one-word ballot change that can unite our divided democracy
Getty Images

Jean-Paul Ciardullo is a Los Angeles-based litigation attorney who helps his clients find creative solutions to their conflicts. Mr. Ciardullo is not a member of any political organization or action group, and his views on voting reform are his own.

What if there were a way to heal the partisan political divide in our country by making a simple change to our voting system? It is called Approval Voting, and to understand it, let’s look at how our country chose its most loved dessert.


It is said that there is nothing more American than apple pie, so it might come as a surprise to learn that apple pie is actually not the favorite pie of most Americans. The reason apple pie is so popular is because when people are choosing a dessert to share, they set aside their different individual favorite choices – like blueberry or cherry – and compromise by selecting the pie that most people approve of, even if it may not be their first choice. In fact, this is the way we innately make group decisions.

Our existing voting systems eliminate this “apple pie” compromise by reducing every election to a contest between two polarized first choices, a never-ending battle between “blueberry” and “cherry.” Polling shows that the vast majority of Americans actually agree on a wide range of issues (many more than most of us realize), and are dismayed by how the extreme ends of the political spectrum have hijacked the national conversation. We could accomplish so much together if this “silent majority” of Americans were empowered to form a united voting block. Yet under our existing voting systems, the structure of the ballots forces voters to pick between one of two polarized sides instead of being allowed to reach a popular consensus that a true majority could be happy with.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

On most ballots, each of us is only allowed to vote for one candidate per election: a “pick one” system. There does not appear to have been any democratic process that led to the adoption of this ballot structure, and until recently, little serious attention was given to its leading role in polarizing politics. In fact, a “pick one” ballot naturally causes the formation of two dominant political parties, with each side seeking more than half the vote, an effect that political scientists call Duverger's Law. Each of the two dominant parties must try to appeal to their more extreme members, which makes it difficult for politicians with popular consensus views to get elected, limiting choice by artificially halving the country.

Furthermore, Ranked Choice Voting – where voters rank candidates in order of preference – may sound like a good solution at first, but in fact can actually perpetuate a polarized, two-party dichotomy. Many people assume that everyone’s rankings are taken into account like a scoring system, but that is not true. In fact, many, and sometimes all, of voters’ second choices may never be counted. If one candidate gets over fifty percent of first choice votes, that candidate immediately wins, and none of the rest of the rankings are considered. This frequently leads to razor thin wins of just over fifty percent, where the other half of voters strongly disapprove of the winner. If no candidate gets over fifty percent of first choice votes, then candidates who get the fewest first choice votes are eliminated, and their votes are redistributed to whoever (if anyone) they picked as their second choice. Only the minimum number of second choice votes are counted to push one candidate over fifty percent, meaning that many (if not most) voters’ second choice preferences will never be considered.

Continuing the pie analogy, let’s say public opinion is split between voters who rank blueberry first and voters who rank cherry first, but a majority of people on both sides also vote for apple pie as a broadly appealing second choice. Under Ranked Choice Voting, apple pie would be eliminated because it received the fewest first choice votes, preventing a consensus around what was in fact the most widely approved option. In many cases, this can lead to paradoxical results where apple is eliminated even though it would have beaten blueberry or cherry in a one-on-one election. As applied to some of the most common election scenarios, Ranked Choice Voting is essentially just a third party elimination system, redistributing support to one of the two dominant political parties, while the public remains polarized.

Approval Voting counts every second choice vote, and in doing so empowers Americans to elect new kinds of political parties and candidates that reflect the views of most voters across the political spectrum. Instead of limiting voters to pick only one candidate per election, or having them unwittingly eliminate popular consensus choices by ranking them out, an Approval Voting ballot allows you to vote for as many candidates as you approve of, with each vote counting equally, rather than being ranked. In short, the phrase “pick one” on the ballot is changed to “pick all you like.” The voter places a mark on the ballot next to all candidates they approve of, and the winner is simply the candidate who gets the most total votes in the election. Though each voter privately knows which candidate was their first choice and which were their second choices, the ballot counts them all the same, and that is the key to arriving at a true popular consensus.

If voters were people shopping for pie, even if half vote for cherry as their first choice and the other half vote for blueberry as their first choice, if a majority of all of them also cast a vote for apple as an acceptable alternative choice, apple will win. Although voters can choose to only vote for one candidate, everyone is faced with the reality that if they do not support at least one widely appealing candidate, someone they dislike might win the election instead. Voters are thus strongly incentivized to arrive at a consensus. It is the equal weighting of first and second choice votes (rather than ranking) that allows the most broadly appealing candidate to get enough votes to win. Approval Voting also has Occam’s Razor simplicity: the winner is just the candidate with the most total votes, and it requires barely any change to our existing ballots or vote tabulation methods. No other voting reform proposal is so easily understood or implemented.

While Approval Voting would not reverse partisan polarization overnight, it incentivizes a fundamental paradigm shift in politics. Because winning an Approval Voting election requires candidates to appeal to the widest range of people across the entire political spectrum to get the largest combined total of first and second choice votes, Approval Voting naturally results in the creation of new political parties (and the realignment of existing ones) to advocate views that a supermajority of Americans agree on. As voters, politicians, and financial donors all realize this, the two-party political stalemate would fade away, and we could finally unite behind parties and candidates who advocate for all of the urgent and widely popular policies that the vast majority of Americans support. Polarizing candidates would become unelectable. Candidates that today might be thought of as second choices would become the new first choices. In short, Approval Voting creates a pathway for Americans to unite behind what they have in common, rather than be divided in half by their differences. We have lived for so long with a false narrative of unavoidable two-party polarization that we do not even know all the things we could agree on and accomplish together if given the chance.

Allowing people to reach a consensus by considering both their first and second choices is one of the oldest and most basic forms of human cooperation. There is no reason why it cannot be applied to our political system to end partisan stagnation, and empower Americans to have more control over their democracy. Approval Voting is the system we were always meant to have. It is as American as apple pie.

Read More

Rep. Gus Bilirakis and Rep. Ayanna Pressley

Rep. Gus Bilirakis and Rep. Ayanna Pressley won the Congressional Management Foundation's Democracy Award for Constituent Accountability and Accessibility.

Official portraits

Some leaders don’t want to be held accountable. These two expect it.

Fitch is president and CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation and a former congressional staffer.

There is probably no more important concept in the compact between elected officials and those who elect them than accountability. One of the founding principles of American democracy is that members of Congress are ultimately accountable to their constituents, both politically and morally. Most members of Congress get this, but how they demonstrate and implement that concept varies. The two winners of the Congressional Management Foundation’s Democracy Award for Constituent Accountability and Accessibility clearly understand and excel at this concept.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Sutherland, Jane Fonda and others on stage

Donald Sutherland (left), Paul Mooney, and Jane Fonda performing in an anti-Vietnam War FTA (Free The Army) show in the Philippines in 1971.

Stuart Lutz/Gado/Getty Images

This young GI met Donald Sutherland in a bygone era. RIP to an original.

Page is an American journalist, syndicated columnist and senior member of the Chicago Tribune editorial board.

News of Donald Sutherland's death at age 88 took me back to a day in 1971 when he was protesting the Vietnam War onstage with Jane Fonda and I was one of about 1,000 off-duty soldiers in their audience.

I hoped, in the spirit of John Lennon's anthem, to give peace a chance.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman speaking at a microphone

Rep. Lucy McBath is the first lawmaker from Georgia to win a Democracy Awarrd.

Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Surprise: Some great public servants are actually members of Congress

Fitch is the president and CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation and a former congressional staffer.

TheCongressional Management Foundation today announced the winners of the seventh annual Democracy Awards, CMF’s program recognizing non-legislative achievement and performance in congressional offices and by members of Congress. Two members of Congress, one Democrat and one Republican, are recognized in four categories related to their work in Congress.

Americans usually only hear about Congress when something goes wrong. The Democracy Awards shines a light on Congress when it does something right. These members of Congress and their staff deserve recognition for their work to improve accountability in government, modernize their work environments and serve their constituents.

Keep ReadingShow less
Man climbing a set of exterior steps

The author, Miliyon Ethiopis, following a court’s decision to grant his asylum request on June 18.

U.S. immigration court ruling on statelessness could have wide impact

Ethiopis is a co-founder of United Stateless, a national organization led by stateless people.

I feel like I have been born again, after a U.S. immigration court made a remarkable ruling in my “statelessness” case in June. I hope that my case will have significant, broader implications for other stateless people in America.

Being stateless means no country will claim you as a citizen. We don't belong anywhere. Stateless people are military veterans. We are Harvard graduates. We are Holocaust survivors. There are millions of stateless people around the world, and 200,000 such people in the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
two Black people wrapped in an American flag
Raul Ortin/Getty Images

July Fourth: A bittersweet reminder of a dream deferred

Juste is a researcher at the Movement Advancement Project and author of the reportFreedom Under Fire: The Far Right's Battle to Control America.”

“Besides,
They’ll see how beautiful I am
And be ashamed—
I, too, am America.”
— Langston Hughes, I Too

On the Fourth of July we celebrated many things: our nation’s independence, our democracy and the opportunity to gather with loved ones who, ideally, embrace us for who we are. Yet, this same nation does not always make room for us to live freely for who we are, who we love, what we look like and how we pray. And it is this dissonance that renders the Fourth of July’s celebration a bittersweet reminder of a dream deferred for many of us.

Keep ReadingShow less