If you want to suggest a pro-democracy idea for coverage in The Expand Democracy 5, please use the contact form at Expand Democracy.
How the Campaign Finance Board makes public financing work in New York City 🏆The challenge of money in politics can seem overwhelming. As RepresentUs visualizes, federal campaign spending has tripled in the last 25 years. More than 100 million dollars is regularly spent on the most competitive races, with costs to run for state and local offices surging too. While most voters would back spending limits (by a whopping 72% to 11% in a Pew poll) such limits aren’t possible legally or in practice.
Among efforts to broaden access to more candidates able to mount a viable campaign, New York City stands out. Once a city election candidate qualifies, the program matches at a rate of eight to one eligible contributions up to $250. That means a contribution of $50 provides the candidate with $450. As reported by the New York City Campaign Finance Board reports, “Over the course of the 2021 election, $126.9 million in public funds was paid to 308 candidates, matching nearly $18.3 million in contributions from New Yorkers.” In tandem with term limits and the liberating effect of ranked choice voting, the result was an infusion of first-time winners, with women increasing from 13 seats to 31 on the city council.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
What makes this level of funding possible is the apparently unique structure of the Campaign Finance Board. The CFB is independent, with its spending determined by proof of need rather than political decisions that typically result in public financing programs running out of money. In addition to administering the campaign finance system, the CFB publishes detailed reports on the program and runs its NYC Votes campaign to educate voters through community outreach, a voter guide, and a debate program. Others would benefit from learning to adapt the CFB to their city and state.
Resources:
Voting reform and responsive government in Alaska and Oregon 🎬There are many reasons to seek better elections in the United States. One reason is to have a more responsive government where elected officials put the needs of their constituents first. It can be exceptionally hard to identify which factors contribute to responsive government, but it’s easy to see what makes it worse – such as when power is overly concentrated in legislative or executive leaders who don’t listen to others, when politicians rigidly refuse to compromise, and when leaders are too timid to take on difficult issues when doing so is not immediately popular.
There is no magic fix to achieve better government, but it’s exciting to see what it means when legislators run in elections with rules that create incentives for representing the people. One example is Alaska’s Top Four primary system, used in 2022 and 2024, with ranked choice voting that opens elections to greater choice and ensures winners can build majorities in competitive elections. Another example is the new proportional RCV city council election system used in 2024 in Portland (OR), where candidates with different views and bases of support have reasons to collaborate because they represent the same voters and will consistently run in competitive elections.
Both chambers in Alaska’s legislature are now run by multi-partisan coalitions of Republicans, Democrats, and independents. Portland’s enlarged city council is forging new means of governance and engaging with city voters. We will need years to truly understand the impact of their new rules. Still, Sightline’s Alan Durning and FairVote’s Meredith Sumpter elevate what they’re seeing in Fulcrum in Our Politics Really Can Work – These Stories Show How, where they write: “Voters in Alaska and Portland got more and better candidates in their ranked choice elections. And the winners of those elections, their newly elected leaders, are working together across party lines to get things done for their constituents. Because ranked choice systems reward candidates who can win—and serve—a majority of us, these leaders can focus on governing rather than grandstanding.”
Resources:
Ballot access fairness and a Wyoming success storyHaving voter choice in elections starts with candidates securing a place on the ballot – a barrier first created in the United States in the late 19th century with the widespread adoption of government-printed and regulated ballots, replacing the practice of voters bringing their own or party-printed ballots to the polls. That change brought more order to elections, but also gave incumbents the power to regulate who appears on the ballot -- a power that too often has been used to maintain what has become a duopoly of two major parties that are deeply entrenched. That power of rules helps explain that dominance even as nearly half of voters are no longer registered with the major parties (see below) and large majorities support the concept of a viable third party.
The essential resource for committed and reasonable ballot access in the United States is Ballot Access News, co-edited by Bill Redpath and Richard Winger. Winger has written helpful overviews about ballot access, including a piece for FairVote on the worst ballot access laws in the United States (as of 2015) and a Fordham Law Review article titled, "How States Can Avoid Overcrowded Ballots but Still Protect Voter Choice” (2021). Under the leadership of Oliver Hall, the Center for Competitive Democracy has served since 2005 as a vital litigation vehicle to hold states accountable for bad laws.
As a recent example of the ongoing struggle for fairness in states, Ballot Access News reports on how a detrimental ballot access bill moving quickly through the Wyoming legislature was stopped by Senate Majority Leader Tara Nethercott. It’s a great example of the power of relationships and political courage. As Rochard Winger concludes, “This incident shows the need for leaders of minor parties to cultivate relationships with state legislators. In the United States, unlike other democracies, there is no consensus that minor parties and independent candidates should be allowed to participate in elections. Minor parties and independent candidates must deal with state legislatures to protect their ability to run.”
[Image credit: Gallup, Jan. 15, 2025]
D.C. Statehood bill has support from a substantial share of Congress⚡Many young Americans might assume that having 50 states is baked into the Constitution, as the result is a nicely round number of 100 U.S. Senators. But that, of course, is not true - we have admitted 37 states to the nation since adoption of the U.S. Constitution. This admission process has sometimes been politicized and had politically impactful implications, such as the Dakotas benefiting from having two states and four Senators despite a combined population of less than 1.8 million – smaller than the population of 40 states and less than a twentieth of the population of California that is limited to two Senators.
With some 587,000 people, Wyoming is our smallest state, far smaller than the 702,000 people living in Washington, D.C. or the 3,236,000 people living in Puerto Rico. The case for statehood for D.C. has been powerfully made for decades, given that it is the only national capital in the democratic world without voting representation in its national legislature. With Congress this year showing every indication of wanting to micromanage the D.C. government even as it slashes its budget, D.C. statehood makes even more sense. That emphasizes the importance of advancing legislation to admit Washington, D.C. as a state, with bills introduced this year in the U.S. Senate (SB 51, introduced by Sen. Chris Van Hollen with 42 cosponsors) and the U.S. House (HR 51, introduced by Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton with 189 sponsors).
Sen. Van Hollen explained his support: “Every American should have a full vote in our country’s future, but we fall short of this promise every day that the residents of the District of Columbia are denied that right in Congress and subjected to taxation without representation. We must grant the District statehood – the people who live in our nation’s capital deserve the same basic political rights afforded to citizens across the fifty states.”
More resources:
[The Adams Morgan area of Washington, DC; image by the Doyle Collection]
Timely Links
