Andrew Yang is at it again. Starting with his debut on the national stage in the 2020 presidential election, the entrepreneur without government experience jumped into the political arena with a fresh message and camera-ready charisma. And though he lost his quest for the presidency, he gained a national following and reputation for deep thoughts.
An individual submitting their vote into a ballot box.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers has introduced the Let America Vote Act, aiming to strengthen electoral integrity and inclusivity. Spearheaded by Representatives Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Jared Golden (D-ME), and Andrew Garbarino (R-NY), this legislation ensures that the right of a U.S. citizen to vote in any taxpayer-funded election for public office shall not be denied or abridged on the grounds of political party affiliation or lack thereof. Specifically, the act:
The legislation addresses two key principles in the continued fight for election reform and integrity:
The first pillar of the Let America Vote Act mandates that states allow unaffiliated voters to participate in primary elections for federal offices. Currently, millions of independent voters are barred from primary elections due to their non-affiliation with major political parties. This exclusion not only disenfranchises a significant portion of the electorate but also perpetuates a system where candidates cater primarily to partisan biases, often sidelining moderate voices. By opening primaries to unaffiliated voters, the act seeks to foster a more inclusive political environment where candidates must appeal to a broader spectrum of constituents.
To ensure this pillar stands, the act proposes withholding federal funds from states that refuse to grant unaffiliated voters access to primary elections for state and local offices. To facilitate this transition, it offers additional federal funds to states implementing these inclusive measures.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Importantly, the legislation also includes provisions to protect the privacy and independence of unaffiliated voters by restricting the use of their voter data.
The second pillar of the act emphasizes that only U.S. citizens should have the right to vote in taxpayer-funded elections. While federal law already prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections, some jurisdictions have allowed non-citizen participation in local elections. This legislation seeks to standardize voting rights across all levels of government by prohibiting states from permitting non-citizens to vote in any public office elections. States that contravene this provision would also face a withdrawal of federal funds.
Representative Gluesenkamp Perez articulates the essence of the act, stating, "In Southwest Washington, we value our independence, know that our beliefs don’t always fit neatly into one box, and recognize there’s not a political party that cares about our community like we do. Good ideas come from both sides of the aisle, and they originate on the ground in our communities, so Americans shouldn’t be denied the right to vote for the candidate of their choosing because they aren’t affiliated with a national political party."
The Act has garnered support from various organizations advocating for electoral reform. Rye Barcott, Co-Founder and CEO of With Honor, emphasizes, "The opportunity to vote is a sacred right of all American citizens. Regrettably, independent Americans, who by many measures make up more than 40% of the population, are disenfranchised in many state primaries. This is especially true today due to the gerrymandering of safe electoral districts by self-interested politicians. This bill ensures these tens of millions of Americans are able to vote in primaries and brings more competition to our elections."
Todd Connor, Co-Founder and CEO of Veterans for All Voters, adds, "The Let America Vote Act is a critical piece of legislation to ensure that all Americans have access to safe and secure elections. In particular, with estimates that over 50% of military veterans identify as registered independents, this legislation ensures that those who have given the most in service to this country have the basic right to vote in the taxpayer funded elections we have fought to protect."
The introduction of the Let America Vote Act comes at a time when trust in government is near historic lows, and nearly half of Americans feel that democracy does not adequately represent them. By addressing systemic barriers that hinder full participation in the electoral process, this legislation aims to restore faith in our democratic institutions.
In a recent op-ed, Representatives Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden highlighted the urgency of such reforms, stating, "Our democratic system requires the faith of the people. So this loss of confidence in our system is dire. Americans across party and ideology see a Congress that seems unrepresentative of their communities and values and has become increasingly partisan, dysfunctional, and unproductive."
The Let America Vote Act represents a significant step toward revitalizing our democracy by ensuring that every citizen's voice is heard. As this bipartisan effort moves forward, you can support it by letting your elected officials know by using this tool.
Kristina Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
A photo of multiple checked boxes.
This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.
Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.
The purpose of primary elections is to let citizens winnow down the number of candidates to a more manageable number for the general election, when more voters are paying attention (typically two or three times as many). To decide who appears on the general election ballot, Maine uses traditional closed party primaries, where one candidate from each party advances and voters must declare affiliation with that party to participate in that choice. In Alaska’s open nonpartisan primary, candidates from all parties, as well as independent candidates, appear together on the same ballot for each office, and only the top four advance to the general election.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
With 57% of Alaskan voters having no party affiliation, many independent voters could only have a meaningful say in who was elected by joining the dominant Republican Party so that they could vote in their primaries. It was no surprise, then, that they instead favored a nonpartisan primary, which also allowed them to “split their tickets” and vote for candidates from different parties for different offices. In contrast, these other state initiatives undoubtedly suffered from a less independent electorate, from 26% in Idaho and 35% in Nevada to 48% in Colorado. Combining that with opposition in these states from the Republican and Democratic parties, but also from smaller parties and other organizations, these initiatives were destined for failure.
How can this dual-election system be improved so that there is more support and less party opposition? As the first implementation, let’s consider Alaska’s experience. Oddly, while ranked choice voting is being used in the state’s general elections, it is not being used in its primaries! Each voter is only allowed to pick one candidate, even though the voting machinery exists to allow them to rank at least some of the candidates. As a result, the primaries have the same detrimental consequences as any such election:
These factors combine, in effect, to reduce choice in the general election, where it matters the most, and potentially prevent the election of a candidate with actual majority support. Let’s consider them in turn.
Vote Splitting
Alaska’s first use of its new system is a good example, a high-profile special election to replace their lone and long-serving representative in the U.S. Congress, Don Young, who passed away in the spring of 2022. A special primary election was scheduled for June to fill the last few months of his term, and 48 candidates threw their hats in the ring. Two of the Republicans advanced to the general election, Sarah Palin (27%) and Nick Begich (19%), along with one of the Democrats, Mary Peltola (10%), and a “Nonpartisan”, Al Gross (13%, a former Democrat). But were they actually the most popular choices? One-third of the votes went to other candidates! With so many in this primary, including multiple candidates from the four largest affiliations, there was undeniably a great deal of vote splitting occurring. The two Libertarians are a clear example, they might have picked up additional support if there had been only one of them and fewer of the other competitors.
Strategic Voting
Alaskan voters clearly engaged in strategic voting in the special primary. Polling is intended to estimate voter support for the various candidates, but when it’s published before the election it also influences them. Which candidates have the best chances to advance? Voting for your favorite may split the vote with a similar but more popular candidate and prevent either from moving on to the general election, so you may abandon the former and strategically vote for the latter. We can see this effect when we compare the early polling to the primary results, where the more popular candidates expanded their leads, enough to advance to the general election. The early polls clearly influenced voters from expressing their true preferences at the poll that really matters, the primary. In addition, this effect is subject to the tentativeness of early polling and manipulation via “fake” polls.
Under-Representation
In Alaska’s special primary election, the smaller parties were completely shut out. For example, the Libertarian Party didn’t gain any support from independent voters, and the Alaska Independence Party’s candidate saw little support even from its membership, who presumably felt that would be a wasted vote. The general pattern of advancement in the subsequent two regular primaries in 2022 and 2024 is four Republicans and Democrats in some combination. Previously, smaller parties would have been allowed to run a candidate in the general election and present their case to its larger audience. As a result, this multiplex primary system has become an even greater barrier to their participation than the strategic voting with which they previously coped. This is hardly the “diverse competition” claimed by its proponents!
Negative Campaigning
Another feature of ranked choice voting is that it encourages more positive campaigns because most candidates need to rely on second- and third-choice votes to win a majority of the vote. Pick-one primaries do not provide this incentive, because a candidate can vigorously attack others and, if victorious, have time before the general election to mollify those candidates’ supporters. This was amply demonstrated in the special primary, where the Republican candidates Palin and Begich continuously feuded. When both candidates made it into the general elections, a large number of Begich’s supporters snubbed Palin and ranked the Democrat second, providing the support Peltola needed to win in the final round of voting.
Solutions
There are a number of changes that could be made to Alaska’s primaries to fix these issues and make them more acceptable to those who oppose it:
These changes to Alaska’s nonpartisan primaries would provide voters with more choice and more voice in who they elect, and let the community respond to changing politics more easily than with the two-party system. Hopefully, now that a few years have passed, legislators will be more comfortable with ranked choice voting and be willing to fix the primaries themselves. If not, I encourage good government groups in Alaska to bring another ballot initiative, as it will result in a much more delicious experience for voters.
It’s also clear that for a state to adopt this paired election system of nonpartisan primary and ranked choice general elections, there should be, at the very least, a substantial number of independent voters. If not, then it should start by adopting ranked choice voting for both its general elections and partisan primaries, and first get comfortable with this more palatable half of the system.
Andy Anderson is the Senior Academic Technology Specialist for Data Science and Spatial Analysis at Amherst College, and a ranked choice voting activist.
The United States Supreme Court.
Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).
Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.
The plaintiffs argue that California’s top-two system is a violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as “the rights of voters who wish to vote for and associate with minor political parties, their candidates and the issues for which they stand.” It’s a party-centric argument, adopted by some reformers, that the only legitimate expression of “voter choice” is a November election in which all candidates who wish to run appear on the ballot. The longer the menu, the more choices you get. Take something off the menu, you're denying choice.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
So why do California voters find the top-two system so appealing if there are “only” two choices? In fact, the choices these plaintiffs are suing to offer voters already exist—in the primary. In that way, the primary is much more like a general election, and, like any general election, all voters get to participate. The general election, then, becomes a runoff of the top vote-getters. It could be any combination of candidates. What matters is that the people themselves—not the parties—get to make the choice of who they like best to compete head-to-head. That’s the appeal of the California system—it’s voter-centric.
Since the adoption of the top-two system, electoral competitiveness has gone way up in California. Uncontested elections have virtually disappeared. Five million independent voters have access to the ballot box. And, all voters have access to the only electoral system that pits the two most favored candidates against each other head-to-head and guarantees a majority winner.
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs collectively represent 2% of the CA electorate (less than half a million voters out of 24 million registered). Twenty years ago, long before the top-two system, they represented—you guessed it—2% of the electorate. As millions of voters have left the major parties in CA, and tens of millions nationwide, the number of independent voters has more than doubled, going from 14% of the electorate twenty years ago to almost a quarter of the CA electorate today. California voters are clearly not very interested in the “choice” these plaintiffs are offering.
The case is unlikely to be successful. There is no absolute right for any party or candidate to be on any ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court has limited its guidance to directing states to “provide a feasible opportunity for political organizations and their candidates to appear on the ballot.” The top-two system treats every party equally. Indeed, the parties in their brief acknowledge that, despite a very modest amount of public support, some third-party candidates have had success in CA under the top-two system. Not to mention that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the top-two primary is constitutional.
Perhaps the case will start some new conversations. How should the rights of third parties be balanced with the rights of voters—especially the explosion of independent voters? How do you articulate the value of a reform that has shown real merit but that is hard to capture in a state as large and as complicated as CA? Whose opinions on the value of a reform matter more—reformers or the public they profess to be serving?
If the case prompts thoughtful answers to any of these questions, these plaintiffs may still yet succeed in unwittingly advancing a very different goal—a more voter-centric reform movement.
Diversity Equity and Inclusion Text on Wood Block
This action is part of a broader initiative led by Elon Musk, who heads the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Musk has previously criticized DEI initiatives, labeling them as detrimental.
The ongoing debate around DEI laws and programs has seen significant opposition from some Republican leaders, who argue that these initiatives may undermine merit-based systems in hiring and education, particularly for white individuals.
Trump's stance on DEI programs is having a significant impact not only within the federal government but also on American business practices, state policies, and higher education institutions.
In It is time to rethink DEI, Fulcrum co-publisher David Nevins wrote: In the coming months, The Fulcrum will reexamine the complexities of DEI. We must ask ourselves if diversity means a granting of privileges to those who are not deserving or whether it means an equality of opportunity so that our nation can merely live into the diversity that is America. As politicians will use fear to appeal to the hearts and minds of Americans, The Fulcrum will instead lead through deep inquiry and analysis.
Nevins, Kristina Becvar (co-publisher, Fulcrum), and I discussed the challenges and opportunities of diversity, equity, and inclusion in a recent episode of the Fulcrum Democracy Forum.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
- YouTubeyoutu.be
“The piece that David wrote; I saw what he saw,” said Becvar. “Instant reaction to words, and that is to me the crux of the whole debate around DEI because the term has been used by those that are looking to sew conflict and benefit from it. And we’ve gotten away from the discussion of what that (DEI) even means.”
As the persons charged with the editorial focus of the Fulcrum, we firmly believe this isn’t a time to cower to political pressure and retreat from programs necessary to ensure that institutions meet the needs of increasingly diverse populations. This is the time to advance on DEI initiatives.
I am a diversity, equity, and inclusion trainer and practitioner. As such, I share in the support and criticism of programs that, while well-intentioned and necessary, have often missed their goal. It’s been my experience that this is largely due to the short-sightedness of C-suite decision-makers who see DEI as a problem to be solved rather than an opportunity to be realized. A negative rather than a positive.
When faced with a problem, people tend to rush to fix it. That’s when mistakes are made. The intent is far from the impact. When faced with an opportunity, people tend to take a step back to strategize on how to acquire it. They invite others to do the same.
Also, initiatives fail when they’re conceptualized as superficial corporate marketing; “lipstick on a pig.”DEI initiatives should be transformative workplace culture tools examining if the status quo is reflective of and relevant to our ever changing society.
The Fulcrum welcomes the discussion and debate on redefining DEI to serve all communities best, leveraging the rich complexity of their diversity, and not just the optics of it.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Kristina Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
.Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and a board member of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, the parent organization of The Fulcrum. He is the publisher of the Latino News Network and a trainer with the Solutions Journalism Network.
