Voters across America are warming up to the notion of an alternative election system, with the midterms resulting in expansion of ranked-choice voting. And RCV’s proponents head into Thanksgiving feeling good about the state of reform in America.
November voting saw RCV initiatives triumph in Nevada, Seattle and a number of other notable cities across America.
“We saw another good run on the ballot,” said Rob Richie, CEO of the election reform group FairVote. “We’re just doing our year end communication to supporters and I just genuinely feel really optimistic.”
In Nevada voters approved a ballot initiative proposing a change to ranked-choice voting for state and congressional elections (but not for presidential contests), with 52.8 percent in favor. However, the state requires such changes to go through a second round of approval, so there will be another vote in 2024. If that measure is adopted, it will also institute an open primary in which all candidates appear on one ballot with the five candidates who capture the most votes advancing to the RCV general election. The earliest RCV could be implemented in Nevada would be the 2026 midterm election.
In another two-part decision, Seattle voters were asked whether they would prefer ranked choice voting or approval voting, a system that allows voters to support as many votes as they prefer. A big majority (76 percent to 24 percent) answered that they would prefer RCV, but a second question asked Seattle voters whether they even want to make a change. The nearly complete totals show 51 percent opted to reform the city’s primary election system, although the results have yet to be certified.
Other cities – including Portland, Ore.; Portland, Maine; Ojai, Calif.; and Evanston, Ill. – also adopted RCV this year.
While local organizations were heavily involved in many of these campaigns, FairVote has been a leader at the national level. The nonpartisan organization advocates for ranked-choice voting and multimember representation (unless the current congressional system in which each House district has one lawmaker). The group hopes to see RCV implemented in 10 presidential primaries by 2024.
Richie, is “very optimistic” about the future of ranked-choice voting. In 1992, he deteremind RCV is the best way to mitigate a lack of representation in Congress and the growing polarization between the two-party system.
FairVote and its allies have had some other big wins heading into the 2022 elections. New York City approved a move to RCV for municipal elections in 2019, and that system debuted two years later.
Richie also pointed to Alaska, which became the second state to adopt RCV for federal and state elections in 2020. Voters in Alaska got to try out the system for the first time this year, and it led to notable outcomes, including divided government. Democrat Mary Peltola, won an RCV special election earlier this year to become the first Alaska Native elected to Congress. She is now waiting for the second round of counting to determine whether she will defeat former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin a second time and earn a full term in the House.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, is also under 50 percent after the first round of counting but is expected to win reelection once the last place candidate is eliminated.
Richie noted that Alaska “will be governed by a bipartisan coalition” — an outcome that stemmed from RCV and its ability to “create incentives for the candidates to not be so driven by party labels but to reach beyond their base and make a case for themselves.”
Ranked-choice voting, also known as instant-runoff voting, is an alternative system in which voters rank multiple candidates by preference instead of voting for a singular candidate. In most elections across the country, winners of the election are the individuals who earn the most votes. However, RCV candidates only win if they get more than 50 percent of votes. If no candidates receive a majority, the candidate with the fewest is eliminated and their ballots will go to each voter’s second-choice. This continues until there is an outright winner.
The system had been in use long before New York and Alaska adopted it. It began gaining wider traction in 2016 when Maine made the switch for its gubernatorial, legislative and congressional elections.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.