ERN’s primary goal is to lessen partisan influence on the election ecosystem. As such, we have developed a wide-reaching portfolio of research, resources, and thought leadership on major reform ideas over the years. As national and state-level opportunities for structural change arise, we hope these materials will continue to inform the democracy reform space.
Adopting best practices from other countries is an opportunity to buttress policies and procedures that make US elections free and fair and draw inspiration from others facing the same challenges.
This presidential election reform concept would end winner-take-all for the electoral college votes (which is not in the Constitution). Instead, states would allocate their electoral votes proportionally to the top vote-getters in the state.
The traditional method of simple plurality for determining the winner in U.S. election works well when two candidates are running. But in crowded races – such as primaries – this system can easily result in winners with low percentages of the vote, who may not be preferred by the majority.
Simple plurality works well enough when few candidates are running, but in crowded races it can easily result in winners with low percentages of the vote, who may not be preferred by, or even be in step with, the majority.
The political dysfunction so evident in the presidential race has two key sources, writes ERN Exec. Director Kevin Johnson for The Fulcrum: toxic polarization that elevates cultural warfare over policymaking, and rules that protect the major parties and allow them too much control over elections.
Free countries around the world are finding new ways to stem political polarization and combat misinformation and disinformation.
Here in America we don’t have the same range of parties as in the U.K. — in part because our Congress is undersized, with only one-seventh the number of representatives per citizen. But we do have political groupings that have trouble gaining representation in proportion to their share of the population.
This post originally appeared on the Rank the Vote Blog. In November of 2019, after a hard-fought campaign, New York City voters overwhelmingly approved a ranked choice voting ballot question. With a ballot that allows support for multiple candidates in order of preference, RCV gives the electorate more impact on race outcomes and a greater...
It has become clearer to Americans than ever before that the Electoral College is archaic and represents a threat to our democracy and needs to be significantly altered if not abolished...
Fundamentally, ranked choice voting doesn’t preference either party; it preferences mainstream candidates of both parties over spoilers and fringe candidates. We need this change given the competitiveness of crowded primaries.
The op-ed originally ran in The Fulcrum. In New York City, most people had never heard of ranked choice voting when the city's Charter Commission announced that the reform would be on the November ballot. The result tripled the number of Americans living in jurisdictions using RCV to more than 12 million, with many more likely to follow.
A big problem with the primaries stems from our tradition of limiting voters to only one choice. That works for two candidates, but collapses with a huge, dozen-or-more field. Is it fair if 84 percent of voters are shut out and a 16-percent-candidate declares victory?
With the help of hundreds of chilly volunteers, and a last minute appearance from rock star John Fishman, the Committee for Ranked Choice gathered and submitted 80,000 signatures Friday to the Maine Secretary of State, and as a result a promising voting reform will be in use at a state-wide level for the first time in US history...