How do state voting trends compare to the national popular vote in presidential elections since 2000? J. Miles Coleman shares his new analysis that contrasts two regions - the North and South.
Podcast: Leaning into state trends


How do state voting trends compare to the national popular vote in presidential elections since 2000? J. Miles Coleman shares his new analysis that contrasts two regions - the North and South.

Welcome to the latest edition of The Expand Democracy 3, written this week by Rob Richie with the support of Eveline Dowling and Nivea Krishnan. Every two weeks, we highlight promising pro-democracy ideas and local, national, and global news.

The last 5 California governor polls show 2 Republicans ahead. Source: NY Times
Many reformers and thinkers I greatly respect support California’s Top Two system with unified, all-candidate primaries for creating more competition that involves more voters. Others have been deeply skeptical of a system that limits voters to two options when most people vote. But where Top Two is in place, I suspect all would agree it would be best if the November ballot was sure to offer at least one candidate who has the potential support of a majority of voters. That’s not the case today in California and Washington, but Seattle is modeling a solution.
The root of the problem is a voting rule that limits voters to single choice, which reliably works only when voters are limited to two options. We’d never trust ballot measures with single-choice voting where there was one “yes” option pitted against two “no” alternatives. We are quick to call minor parties and independent candidates “spoilers”. Although Top Two’s runoff mechanism is designed to avoid the problem of split votes, it falls short when the majority divides its votes such that none of the candidates it supports advance to the runoff.
This year’s Top Two election for governor of California has so far drawn nine prominent Democrats and two Republicans. The last five public polls all have shown the two Republicans out front even as large majorities of voters prefer one of the Democrats. While analysts like Downballot argue that Democrats will avoid a lockout, I’m more skeptical. It’s hard to force candidates to abandon a plausible chance to win, and the nine Democrats have largely different bases of support without a clear frontrunner.
Far simpler races have experienced majority-party lockouts. In 2016 in Washington state, a state treasurer Top Two race with two Republicans and only three Democrats resulted in a Democratic lockout despite the Democrats winning a majority of primary votes. In 2024, Washington came within 49 votes of Democrats being locked out again in its public lands commissioner race despite its candidates earning 58% of the vote. In 2014, in California’s state controller race, two Republicans together with 45% came within a scant 0.7% of the vote of locking out the three Democrats.
Passed by voters in 2020 and upheld by the legislature and voters ever since, Alaska’s Top Four primary system is a voter-friendly means to prevent general election lockouts of the majority party through advancing four candidates and deciding the November election with ranked choice voting (RCV). Sightline Institute’s Al Vanderklipp detailed the lockout problem and the Alaska solution in a compelling way last October. Even simpler and more inclusive of minor parties would be to do what nearly every city with RCV: hold a single, all-candidate election with RCV.
But some cautious partisans want to see more evidence that RCV works in decisive general elections. For them, there’s an easy fix to the lockout problem that Seattle will pioneer in its Two Two primary next year. Seattle will hold an RCV election in the primary and then advance the top two finishers to the runoff. That brings all the usual positive benefits of RCV to the primary – that is, incentivizing more voter engagement and more substantive campaigns – while always avoiding a lockout of the majority party from the Top Two runoff in November.
Sightline again offers a great analysis of this solution. In November, its executive director Alan Durning detailed the looming problem for Democrats in Washington state, as its two U.S. Senators are both nearing retirement after decades in office, and there is pent-up energy for many Democrats to run. Of course solving the lockout problem isn’t just for Democrats – there are plenty of Republican majority districts in California and Washington where they risk being locked out as well.
Sightline reports that state legislators are preparing legislation to take the Seattle RCV system statewide. Expect California lawmakers to follow.
Note: Last week, House Republicans unveiled their new “Make Elections Great Again” (sic) legislation HB 7300, which is being criticized from across the spectrum for its federal takeover of elections and banning various state innovations. In clear service of coercing voters into a two-party system, it would require single-choice elections in all federal general elections. That would mean no more ranked choice voting in federal elections in Alaska, Maine, and DC, and no chance to consider RCV, approval voting, “STAR” voting, and Condorcet voting in any state. That said, it would not prevent use of RCV in primaries like this proposed use in California.

Takoma Park’s right to vote resolution led to it becoming the 1st American city to extend voting rights to 16-year-olds. Source: Vox
When at FairVote, I took great pride in our leadership in lifting up the proposal of a right to vote in the Constitution. It was featured in our ambitious 2003 Claim Democracy conference, and we worked with the Advancement Project and leaders like Jesse Jackson, Jr., Donna Brazile and Jamie Raskin on an amendment bill that one year drew sponsorship of the entire Congressional Black Caucus.. As the right to vote faces new threats, the case for the amendment is all the more compelling, as argued persuasively in law professor Rick Hasen’s important 2024 book A Real Right to Vote: How a Constitutional Amendment Can Safeguard American Democracy.
I was reminded of the importance of working for a right to vote amendment when listening to an interview conducted by my colleague Eveline Dowling for Expand Democracy’s podcast The Democracy Lab. On platforms like Apple Podcasts and Spotify, the Lab deserves a general shoutout, as we’ve had great guests and conversations. Eveline’s conversation with author Jefferson Cowie was no exception. Eveline and Jefferson unpack arguments in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book Freedom’s Dominion, and how calls for “freedom” can mask attacks on human rights and voting rights.
Cowie, in the podcast, returns repeatedly to his belief that Americans should be campaigning for a right to vote in the Constitution. My experience has been that the goal of constitutional change can feel remote to activists in the trenches of current fights to preserve voting rights. But Cowie argues that we must win this basic argument as part of claiming democracy at all levels of government.
As FairVote understandably began to focus on the case for ranked choice voting and proportional representation, other key priorities like the right to vote amendment and the National Popular Vote plan were left to others. But there is one orphaned project that I believe would be exciting for someone to adopt: the Promote Our Vote project that still has an active website, if not an active leader.
The home page details the project’s vision: “It’s time for an intervention: Voters in local elections are not reflective of their communities. Local elections have the lowest voter turnout rates and the highest levels of discrimination. Promote Our Vote gets at the heart of this problem by empowering localities, organizations, and campuses to raise turnout, protect access, and expand suffrage in the spirit of establishing a Constitutional Right to Vote.”
The project called for communities, colleges and organizations to pass a right to vote resolution, explaining: “Resolutions serve as a statement of principle for localities, campuses, organizations and other individuals and communities. A Right to Vote Resolution maintains that voting is a fundamental right in a democracy. It calls for an explicit right to vote in the Constitution and establishes a task force to explore measures that improve voter turnout, protect voter access, and expand suffrage. Resolutions may include support for additional pro-voting policies and practices, but must contain a call for a right to vote in the Constitution and a task force on pro-voting policies and practices.”
My hometown of Takoma Park (MD) passed such a resolution in 2013, and it truly was transformative. In the more elevated place that the resolution inspired, most city councilors drew on their own experience to propose changes that become law. One councilor talked about people saying they couldn’t vote due to a previous felony conviction. Another detailed how hard it was to campaign in large apartment buildings and talk to tenants as much as homeowners. A third talked about how residents getting interested late in the campaign might not be registered to vote. A fourth talked about how city teenagers were often interested in local government, but were too young to vote.
The result was an historical set of actions. Already a pioneer with ranked choice voting and immigrant voting, Takoma Park became the first city in the United States to extend voting rights to 16-year-olds, with data in subsequent elections showing that more 16- and 17-year-olds started voting than all 18-to-29-year-olds combined. Takoma Park extended voting rights also to residents with felony convictions and changed the code to require landlords to offer chances for candidates in all elections to be able to knock doors in apartment buildings. Ultimately, it consolidated its election date with federal and state elections in even years.
Imagine such a Promote Our Vote campaign around the country today: Building support for a right to vote amendment that is more needed than ever, but also generating concrete change in communities, on campuses and within organizations across the country. This orphan is ready for a new parent!
Avoiding Top 2 Primary Lockouts, Promoting Our Vote, Timely Links was first published on The Expand Democracy 3 and was republished with permission.
Rob Richie leads Expand Democracy. As head of FairVote, he created the partisan voting index, designed Alaska’s Top Four system, and advanced the Fair Representation Act, the National Popular Vote, automatic voter registration, and ranked-choice voting.

Two people have been killed in Minneapolis during a confrontation tied to federal immigration enforcement. The state government is resisting the federal government. Citizens are in the streets. Friends of mine who grew up in countries that experienced civil conflict have started texting me, pointing out patterns they recognize.
I don't know how Minnesota will resolve. But I know what it represents: a growing number of Americans do not trust that our disputes can be settled through legitimate institutions. When that trust disappears, force fills the vacuum. This is the context in which we must think about the 2026 elections.
According to the Pew Research Center, voters in 2024 gave high marks to how their local elections were administered, yet expressed less confidence in how elections were run nationally. AP-NORC found a similar pattern: people consistently trusted their local and state tallies more than the national picture. This gap points toward an opportunity. If legitimacy is experienced locally, it can be reinforced, and local pride in local processes can be spread.
A federal commission won't fix this. What might bring disengaged and skeptical citizens into the process, in their own communities, well before the next contested election? This means listening to each other's hopes and concerns. It means public tours of ballot processing. Poll-worker trainings that include people from different parties. County election officials are holding town halls where they answer hard questions transparently. None of this requires legislation or massive funding. It requires intention and invitation.
I'll be honest about the limits. Some distrust has nothing to do with procedures. It's about who's winning and who's losing. Some distrust is deliberately cultivated by people who benefit from our fighting. But local agency and local pride are powerful tools we have. When people see the process with their own eyes, alongside neighbors who vote differently but also agree that our elections should be run as flawlessly as possible, conspiracy theories lose their grip.
Braver Angels, a citizens' organization that brings together Democrats and Republicans, spent two years facilitating consensus-building conversations about elections: 26 workshops, 194 participants, 727 unanimous points of agreement, distilled into three guiding principles:
1. Voting should be easy. Cheating should be hard.
2. Every citizen should have an equal say in who governs them, through free and fair elections.
3. The American government will fail if candidates refuse to accept any outcome other than victory.
These principles aren't novel. That's the point. They reflect what most people already believe when they're not being told to distrust each other.
Imagine a dozen diverse communities deciding to host public events where election officials walk residents through how voting actually works in the coming months. Pair these with facilitated conversations where people can hear each other's concerns and work to resolve them.
Then connect these communities by video. Let a rural county in Georgia hear from an urban precinct in Michigan. Let them share what surprised them and why they are confident in their local election processes. Give them a chance to experience the goodwill of fellow voters in other parts of the country. If a handful of communities demonstrate this model, thousands might follow. The Election Assistance Commission, the National Association of Secretaries of State, and local League of Women Voters chapters are positioned to help with convening power, toolkits, and more.
What is happening in Minnesota feels alarming. But the dynamic is familiar: institutions lose legitimacy, grievances accumulate, and someone decides the rules no longer apply.
Elections are how we peacefully agree on our leaders. When we lose shared trust in our elections, leaders are no longer perceived as legitimate. Our ability to resolve our other conflicts without violence shrinks. This work isn't complicated. But it asks something many of us are out of practice with: being in the same room with people we disagree with and staying long enough to listen. It means helping communities turn toward each other rather than away when things feel scary.
The 2026 midterms are nine months away. The work can start next week in your county, with a phone call to your local election office, a meeting at the library, or a conversation at your place of worship.
We need each other to get through what's coming. We might as well start acting like it.
Joan Blades is a co-founder of LivingRoomConversations.org, AllSides, MomsRising, and MoveOn. This year, a focus on growing local pride in elections is central to her work. Living Room Conversations' Trustworthy Elections (local) conversation guide is a tested tool for inviting in missing voices, building understanding, and connections.

A child of Holocaust survivors draws parallels between Nazi Germany and modern U.S. immigration enforcement, examining ICE tactics, civil rights, and moral leadership.
I am a child of holocaust survivors, my parents having fled Germany at the last minute in 1939 before the war started, and so I am well-versed in what life was like for Jews in Germany in the 30s under the Nazi regime. My father and other relatives were hunted by the Gestapo (secret police) and many relatives died in concentration camps.
When I have watched videos and seen photos of the way in which ICE agents treat the people that they accost—whether they are undocumented (illegal) immigrants, immigrants who are here lawfully, or even U.S. citizens—I was reminded of the images of Nazi S.A. men (a quasi-military force that was part of the Nazi party) beating and demeaning Jews in public in the years after Hitler came to power.
To these men (and to Hitler), Jews weren't human; they were scum. And so they treated them with an absolute lack of respect. They were not acting to enforce a law; their purpose was to rid the country of Jews. The motto was "Judenfrei," to cleanse the country of the contaminating effect of Jews.
If you listen to Trump's attacks on undocumented immigrants and watch ICE agents in action, there is no question that there is an absolute lack of respect; they—and anyone who supports them—are regarded as scum; and that the goal is to free America of these immigrants, or at least as much as possible. To return America to being an overwhelmingly white nation rather than having whites become a minority sometime around 2050.
Why do I call Trump "inhumane?" When we think of that term, we tend to think of horrific acts like the holocaust, or the Rwanda genocide. But "inhumanity" is defined as being cruel, and being "cruel" is defined as causing physical or mental harm or pain. If you think about your experiences reading the news, in your workplace, or even within your family, you will see that, using this definition, inhumanity is rife within our culture. See my post, "Creating a Safer World for Our Children."
With this definition in mind, one cannot listen to Trump's rantings or view many of his actions without realizing that these actions are examples of inhumanity. This is an especially terrible characteristic in Trump because as President he determines the direction of the country and is looked to by half of the population as a force that will move the country forward.
Because of the reverence they show him, his inhumanity, his lack of morals and ethics have altered their perspective. For example, according to a recent Times/Siena Poll, only 19% of Republicans feel that the tactics of ICE have gone too far; 56% think the tactics are just right; 24% think that ICE's tactics have not gone far enough.
This is evidence of Trump's impact on the humanity, morals, and ethics of his supporters. If immigrants arrested by ICE were hardened criminals—as Trump claims—this attitude would be arguably reasonable. But they are not. The vast majority of undocumented immigrants are not criminals but law-abiding, hard-working people; this according to the government's own data and people's personal experiences. ICE also uses the same tactics when arresting U.S. citizens or immigrants who are here legally and who are supporting undocumented immigrants.
Most people arrested by ICE have done nothing wrong, other than coming into the country illegally. They deserve to be treated like human beings. The Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal." Until someone does something that warrants being treated differently, they should be treated with respect. And when they do something, the punishment must fit the crime.
Here the crime is coming into the country illegally. Punishment for that is deportation. But the process of deportation must be humane and fair. You don't deport someone who was brought here as a child and lived his whole adult life here, working and raising a family.
The recent examples of abusive, violent ICE actions in Minnesota and elsewhere, the vilification of victims by Trump and other federal officials in the face of videos clearly showing the facts are otherwise, and the actions of Trump and Homeland Security to prohibit any fair investigation of these actions by excluding state and local officials, bring to mind, as I stated at the outset, the actions of Nazi thugs (the S.A.) in 1930s Germany towards Jews.
In the United Staes of America, with its Declaration of Independence and its Constitution, this should not be happening. If Congress does nothing to stop these actions because it is subservient to Trump, then it lies with the Supreme Court to state unequivocally that ICE's actions violate the 4th Amendment, prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. While there is a general assumption that the 4th Amendment applies to undocumented immigrants, the Supreme Court has not specifically stated that.
The only other recourse is for people to rise up in mass demonstrations, raise the issue in their communities, and vote in the upcoming midterm elections to return control of Congress to the Democrats, thus restoring the balance of power intended by the Founding Fathers. See my article, "The Murder in Minneapolis and How It Impacts the Rights of All Americans."
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com

Former Centers for Disease Control (CDC) director William H Foege standing next to a bust of Hygeia, the Greek goddess of health, 1985. Image courtesy Centers for Disease Control.
At a time when public health is under attack in America, and people without medical expertise are making decisions that are having negative consequences globally, we would do well to remember those who helped achieve what had been remarkable progress in world health. One such person was Dr. William “Bill” Foege, a giant in the public health sector who died recently at the age of 89.
Among his many achievements is the role he played in eradicating smallpox, a disease that had been the scourge of humanity, killing as many as 500 million people. Like many contagious diseases, smallpox remained intractable in parts of the world that lacked effective healthcare systems.
Enter Bill Foege (pronounced FAY-gee with a hard “g”).
As the New York Times relates in this obituary, Foege was invited to join a World Health Organization project in Africa to eradicate smallpox. Lacking enough of the vaccine to immunize everyone in the area, he came up with a different strategy:
His team identified those infected in the villages, isolated them, and vaccinated everyone who had been in contact with them. They then vaccinated everyone who had been in contact with that second group. As a next step, they vaccinated people who had gathered in primary public places, like markets.
This approach, which became known as “ring vaccination,” was based on Foege’s time fighting wildfires in the American West — attack the fire and clear out fire lines around the fire to prevent it from spreading. In 1973, he was assigned to contain the last pockets of smallpox in India, where he applied the same strategy to great effect. In 1980, the WHO declared smallpox the first disease ever to be eradicated.
Foege served as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 1977 until 1983. He was recruited in 1984 to lead a global health initiative called the Task Force for Child Survival, based in Atlanta, whose primary mission was to increase immunization rates for childhood diseases. Six years later, the rate for children receiving at least one vaccine rose from 15 percent to 80 percent.
Dr. William Foege receives the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Barack Obama in 2012. (White House photo)
A few years later, Foege was also named to be director of the just-opened Carter Presidential Center. This was the point where our paths crossed. I was a volunteer with RESULTS, an advocacy organization working to end hunger and poverty. We lobbied Congress to increase U.S. funding for child survival activities around the world. Part of those efforts included increasing public awareness about the 40,000 children in the world who were dying each day from preventable causes and what could be about that.
Each year in December, UNICEF released a report called “The State of the World’s Children,” and RESULTS chapters around the country organized press conferences to publicize the report. Living in Atlanta, I had access to one of the world’s leading public health experts, someone who could also provide a media-friendly venue, the Carter Center. Foege’s participation ensured the report would get the kind of coverage it deserved. In these pre-Internet times, I would deliver a draft of the report to Foege a few days before its launch. He would pore over the report, and at press conference time, deliver a 10-minute briefing followed by a Q&A.
To entice television coverage, we needed a visual element, and one year, I shamelessly used my almost-four-year-old son, Cameron, who received his MMR booster from our pediatrician at the event. Another visual was Blaze, the 1996 Paralympic mascot designed by my friend Trevor Irvin, which had been introduced to the public in 1994.
After Foege presented the report, Cameron received his booster shot. He was fine until he saw the needle and started crying. After the shot, he was still crying, and Blaze came over, picked him up, and comforted him. We hadn’t planned it, but that was the made-for-TV moment that got on the 6 o’clock news.
Despite his achievements, Foege was one of the most self-effacing people I ever met, eschewing the spotlight and giving credit for his accomplishments to the teams of people he worked with.
Thanks in large part to Bill Foege, we live in a world where far fewer people, particularly children, die from the preventable causes that were rampant when he started his work in the 1960s. For that, he was honored in 2012 with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Unfortunately, ignorant, misguided and malevolent characters are undoing progress that was decades in the making by dismantling USAID, the agency that distributes health resources responsible for saving millions of lives.
Bill Foege, one of humanity’s true heroes, leaves us at a very perilous time. It is our job now to carry on with his life-saving work.