Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Want a democracy that looks like America? Switch to ranked elections.

Ranked-choice voting, "Yes On 1"; RepresentWomen

Ranked-choice voting supporters speak at an RCV rally in New York.

RepresentWomen

Lamendola is the research director at RepresentWomen, which advocates for political reforms it believes would result in more women holding elective office.


Over the last few years, more women have been running for office — and winning — than ever before. But women hold less than a quarter of all elected positions in the country, and large representation gaps remain across ideology, identity, age and geography.

The problem is systemic. And as important as it is to recruit and prepare more women to run, these efforts will yield disproportionate outcomes if we continue to rely on antiquated systems to determine the outcome of elections.

At the national level, the United States follows a single-winner plurality system, otherwise known as the "winner take all" system, which permits candidates to win elections with less than majority support. This system further protects incumbents who remain mostly white and mostly male, rewards negative campaigning — and is often subject to expensive, low-turnout runoffs in the event of a close race.

What's more, the system incentivizes party leaders to ask "spoiler" candidates, who are often women of color, to "wait their turn" so as not to risk splitting the vote.

An election system that actively discourages women from running, and then systematically reduces their odds of success, will not ever produce a reflective democracy. Systemic issues demand systemic solutions, which is why the United States needs to adopt ranked-choice voting.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

In a ranked-choice election, voters rank candidates for each position in order of preference. Those listed as first-choice on a majority of ballots win their race. Otherwise, the candidate named first on the fewest ballots is eliminated, and those ballots are redistributed to the second choices. The process continues until a candidate has secured majority support.

This election method has a long and tested history in this country, with proven benefits for increasing the representation of women and minorities. Research has shown so-called RCV mitigates some of the barriers to representation that prevail in single-winner, plurality-wins systems. Specifically:

  • It eliminates vote splitting. That way multiple women can run without having to worry about "spoiling" the election.
  • It incentivizes positive campaigning. Anecdotal evidence suggests that women are more likely to run in a positive campaign environment.
  • It rewards issue-focused campaigning. That provides women candidates with more space to connect with voters on the issues they care about.
  • It produces more efficient elections. Runoffs are automated, eliminating the need for people to cast a second set of ballots, so elections cost less. This can be particularly important for women running for local positions for the first time.
  • It ensures representative outcomes. Officials elected in RCV contests report that they govern better, knowing they have majority support.

Ranked-choice voting was first introduced in at-large districts in Ohio in 1912. From there, it spread to New York City in the 1920s and was implemented in 1941 in Cambridge, Mass. As cities began electing women and people of color for the first time, the system became a victim of its own success; white men, concerned with the future of their two-party duopoly, began repealing ranked choice procedures. By the 1960s, Cambridge was the only jurisdiction using multi-winner RCV.

In the 1990s, grassroots movements and support for ranked-choice contests fomented. In just the last decade, single-winner and multi-winner RCV election systems were used for local elections in 19 cities and counties. Maine has used the system for statewide elections since 2018. And, at present, there are 62 bills in state legislatures proposing the implementation of ranked-choice voting.


Women elected to city councils through ranked-choice voting


In the previous nine years, there have been 156 local ranked choice elections among three or more candidates — and women have won 48 percent of them. Of those winners, 38 percent were women of color. At the start of this year, women were half of all mayors and 49 percent of all city council members elected by RCV. As more cities, and now states, begin adopting and implementing ranked-choice voting, it will be worth noting if these positive outcomes continue to grow.

Many activists for RCV believe the country is an election cycle away from its widespread acceptance as the national system of choice. This year it was used in the Democratic presidential primaries of four states and has been adopted for both Republican and Democratic party leadership contests in several states.

This November, Maine will be the first state to use ranked-choice voting to award its presidential electors.

RCV is a tried and tested, nonpartisan electoral reform which would not only help elect consensus candidates, but would also increase the number of women and people of color who run, win, serve and lead in our government.

Read More

The Second Dimension of Our Current Politics

Donkey V Elephant

Getty Images//Stock Photo

The Second Dimension of Our Current Politics

Politics has felt weird for a while now. From Donald Trump himself to the noteworthy rise of populist sentiment that is affecting both parties, many informed people are left scratching their heads trying to understand what has come over the country. The American economy, historically the number one issue for voters, is the “envy of the world” according to a recent special report by The Economist; crime and illegal immigration are also down. Yet the 2024 presidential election was a decisive rebuke of the current administration, resulting in Trump leading the Republican party to its largest win in a presidential election since 1988.

Many postmortem conversations have focused on whether Kamala Harris should have run further to the right or the left and focused more attention during her abbreviated campaign on popular social or economic issues. This one-dimensional view of the right-left political spectrum, with traditional conservatism on one end and redistributive socialism on the other, comes up short in describing our current politics. It is only through recognizing the class dimension of political appeal, whereby some candidates tailor their message to the priorities of the educated, cosmopolitan class, and others tailor their message to the concerns of the working class that recent political contests can be better understood.

Keep ReadingShow less
Examining Why DEI Efforts Often Fall Short and How to Foster Effective Change

Diversity illustration concept shows different ethnicity and style of people walking on the street, the contrast of people showing individuality characteristics.

Getty Images//Stock Photo

Examining Why DEI Efforts Often Fall Short and How to Foster Effective Change

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” - Buckminster Fuller

What if I told you that most organizations’ DEI initiatives were doomed from the start? That their failure could have been predicted and even avoided?

Keep ReadingShow less
Meta ditches fact-checkers: What it means for the rest of us

CEO of Meta, Mark Zuckerberg is seen during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with representatives of social media companies at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Wednesday January 31, 2024 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Meta ditches fact-checkers: What it means for the rest of us

This week, Meta announced that it would be ending relationships with its vast global network of fact-checking partners – organizations like Factcheck.org, Politifact, and the Associated Press that have been flagging falsehoods on the platform since 2017. In making the announcement, CEO Mark Zuckerberg claimed these partners were making “mistakes” and engaging in “censorship” and that it was time to “restore free expression” across Meta properties.

Platforms, journalists, civil society organizations and regular folks have long relied on fact-checkers to debunk the falsehoods polluting our information ecosystem. These journalists are trained to research claims and report the facts in accordance with standards set by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) and its European counterpart, the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN). All of Meta’s fact-checking partners were IFCN-approved; none took down content themselves.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Untold Costs of AI: The West Is Paying for the Future That Hasn’t Arrived

robot, technology, future, futuristic, business, tree, symbol

Getty Images//Stock Photo

The Untold Costs of AI: The West Is Paying for the Future That Hasn’t Arrived

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been heralded as a technological revolution that will transform our world. From curing diseases to automating dangerous jobs to discovering new inventions, the possibilities are tantalizing. We’re told that AI could bring unprecedented good—if only we continue to invest in its development and allow labs to seize precious, finite natural resources.

Yet, despite these grand promises, most Americans haven’t experienced any meaningful benefits from AI. It’s yet to meaningfully address most health issues, and for many, It’s not significantly improving our everyday lives, excluding drafting emails and making bad memes. In fact, AI usage is still largely confined to a narrow segment of the population: highly educated professionals in tech hubs and urban centers. An August 2024 survey by the Federal Reserve and Harvard Kennedy School found that while 39.4% of U.S. adults aged 18-64 reported using generative AI, adoption rates vary significantly. Workers with a bachelor's degree or higher are twice as likely to use AI at work compared to those without a college degree (40% vs. 20%), and usage is highest in computer/mathematical occupations (49.6%) and management roles (49.0%).

Keep ReadingShow less