Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Ranked-choice voting poised to return to Vermont's largest city

Burlington, Vt.

Voters in Burlington will give RCV a second shot.

James Buck/Getty Images

Tuesday was a big day for fans of alternative voting systems.

Two-thirds of voters in Burlington cast ballots in favor of restoring ranked-choice voting in Vermont's largest city. If Vermont's Democratic-majority General Assembly and GOP Gov. Phil Scott also sign off on the ballot initiative, ranked-choice voting will be used for city council elections starting next March.

And a rival method, approval voting, made its debut in St. Louis after winning its own approval last year.


With this latest win in Burlington, momentum for ranked-choice voting continues to build across the country. More than 20 cities or counties use RCV, and Alaska just joined Maine as the first states to implement the system. More than two dozen states have active campaigns advocating for RCV, but its biggest debut will be in the New York mayoral primary in June.

Burlington was an early adopter of ranked-choice voting in 2005, when voters chose to implement it for city council and mayoral elections. However, five years and two mayoral elections later, voters decided to revert back to traditional plurality voting after a controversial mayor was elected through RCV.

After a decade without ranked elections, the city council attempted to put an initiative to use RCV for all citywide elections on the ballot last November, but the effort was vetoed by Democratic Mayor Miro Weinberger. Council members then amended the initiative so RCV would only be used for council elections. The mayor approved this narrower use and the initiative was placed on the March 2 ballot.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The pro-RCV campaign Better Ballot Burlington was led by City Councilor Zoraya Hightower, a member of the Progressive Party, and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a Democrat.

Under this alternative voting system, voters rank candidates in order of preference. In the case that no candidate receives majority support, the election goes into an instant runoff in which the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and that person's support is redistributed to voters' second choices. This continues until one candidate crosses the 50 percent threshold.

Proponents say ranked-choice voting deters negative campaigning and supports more consensus-driven politics, while also boosting the election prospects of women and people of color. Opponents argue the system is confusing and doesn't necessarily lead to better representation.

While ranked-choice voting is probably the most widely known and used alternative voting method, it's not the only option. St. Louis used approval voting for the first time in its mayoral election Tuesday, becoming the second city to employ the system (after Fargo, N.D.).

This voting system allowed the city's voters to "approve" of as many of the four mayoral candidates as they liked. The two candidates who received the most votes, Tishaura Jones and Cara Spencer, will now advance to the April general election — guaranteeing the city will have its second female mayor.

Read More

Democrats Look to Independents for Help

A person voting, casting a ballot at a polling station, during elections.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Democrats Look to Independents for Help

Democrats are taking stock. Some are arguing for a major overhaul in light of growing defections of working-class, Black, and Latino voters. Others want to stay the course. Some want to work with Trump when possible while others advocate for a program of permanent resistance.

It’s a familiar conversation. With a new twist. If you listen closely, some Democrats are uttering words of blasphemy: Maybe we can’t regain our relevancy without the help of independent voters.

Keep ReadingShow less
What Would Patrick Henry Say Today?

An engraving from a painting of Patrick Henry delivering an address before the Virginia Assembly. From the New York Public Library.

Getty Images, Smith Collection/Gado

What Would Patrick Henry Say Today?

In Federalist 10, explaining some of the protections of the new Constitution in 1787, James Madison observed that, “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm….” The Founders defined tyranny as the legislative, executive, and judicial powers all being combined in the hands of a single individual or small group of people. So, they divided these three powers into separate and independent branches of the government that checked and balanced each other, preventing this accumulation of power. If, however, the people elected an authoritarian president and a legislature of toadies, who allowed this president to install a compliant judiciary, this protection could be lost. Hence, when asked shortly after the Constitutional Convention concluded in 1787 what the delegates had created, Benjamin Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Echoing Madison, the Supreme Court in 1866, in Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866), wrote, “Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln” as they overturned Lambden Milligan’s conviction before a military commission under martial law in Indiana during the Civil War. Milligan was charged with aiding a secret society that gave material support to the rebellion, conspiring to free Confederate prisoners, and conspiring to raid northern arsenals to come to the aid of the South. The Court’s five-member majority ruled that martial law could not be imposed in states where the civilian courts were open and functioning. Four members of the Court disagreed because state courts could be open and functioning but be in the hands of rebels. Martial law may again be tested, but more fundamental questions are how to prevent the rise of a tyrant in the first place and what remedies are available should the voters elect one.

Keep ReadingShow less
One Year After Total Child Marriage Ban, New Hampshire Considers New Exceptions
Equality Now

One Year After Total Child Marriage Ban, New Hampshire Considers New Exceptions

A new child marriage bill in New Hampshire is drawing attention from lawmakers and activists across the United States. Last year, the New Hampshire Legislature passed a landmark bill, amending the law to prohibit child marriage under the age of 18 without exceptions. The long fought for legislation was widely celebrated, despite some lawmakers in the state previously supporting child marriage. Now, during the current 2025 legislative session, lawmakers will vote on a proposal to amend the law by creating a military exception for 17-year-olds.

Child marriage, defined as a formal marriage or informal union before the age of 18, is a harmful practice that puts the lives, health, and futures of children at risk. Around the world, 12 million girls are married each year before they turn 18, often to adult men much older than they are. This practice is recognized internationally as a human rights violation and a form of violence against women and girls.

Keep ReadingShow less
silhouettes of people arguing in front of an America flag
'One side will win': The danger of zero-sum framings
Pict Rider/Getty Images

Is Civility in Politics Possible?

In an era of increasing political polarization, the need for civility in politics has never been greater. Engaging in constructive and respectful dialogue is essential for maintaining a healthy democracy, fostering unity, and ensuring that governments function effectively. Unfortunately, modern political discourse is often characterized by hostility, personal attacks, and a reluctance to find common ground.

President Donald Trump reminded me of this deterioration in political decorum when he sparred with Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, over transgender athletes during a meeting of governors at the White House last week.

Keep ReadingShow less