{"id":600,"date":"2021-06-30T11:32:06","date_gmt":"2021-06-30T11:32:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-misdirected-attempts-at-electoral-reform-in-the-u-s\/"},"modified":"2021-06-30T11:32:06","modified_gmt":"2021-06-30T11:32:06","slug":"construire-la-democratie-2-0-les-tentatives-malavisees-de-reforme-electorale-aux-etats-unis","status":"publish","type":"article","link":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/fr\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-misdirected-attempts-at-electoral-reform-in-the-u-s\/","title":{"rendered":"Construire la d\u00e9mocratie 2.0 : les tentatives malavis\u00e9es de r\u00e9forme \u00e9lectorale aux \u00c9tats-Unis"},"template":"","class_list":["post-600","article","type-article","status-publish","hentry","article_type-blog-post"],"acf":{"details":{"summary":"This is part 12 in a multi-part series examining ways to build an inclusive democracy for the 21st century.","featured_image":null,"article_type":162,"authors":["{\"site_id\":\"68\",\"post_type\":\"person\",\"post_id\":555}"],"related_issues":[109,417],"related_work":false,"location":null},"sidebar":{"helper_enable_sidebar":false,"helper_media_contact":{"heading":"Media Contact","manually_enter_person":false,"person":null,"name":"","role":"","phone":"","email":""},"helper_links_downloads":{"heading":"Links & Downloads","links":null}},"page_layout":[{"acf_fc_layout":"layout_wysiwyg","_acfe_flexible_toggle":null,"component_wysiwyg":{"content":"Introduction<\/strong>\r\n\r\nNow that we have examined the types of electoral systems and seen how they evolved to address specific problems on the ground, we can better understand reform efforts in the U.S.\u00a0 This story picks up during the Progressive Movement, which witnessed a number of reforms in response to the extreme wealth disparities, labor unrest, rural poverty, and urban dislocation at that time.\u00a0 Political dysfunction and bitter polarization crippled government\u2019s ability to respond meaningfully to these crises.\u00a0 In response, \u201cFighting\u201d Bob LaFollette and other leaders of the Progressive Movement galvanized public support around a series of reforms related to democracy.\u00a0 The secret ballot, direct election of U.S. Senators, suffrage for women and citizen initiative all gained passage.\u00a0 In addition, reformers succeeded in pushing forward a new candidate-centric, primary system that weakened political parties.\u00a0 The primary system \u2013 unique to America \u2013 has had a lasting impact on our democracy and continues to shape reform today.\r\n\r\nOne area of reform from the Progressive Movement has received little attention.\u00a0 It relates to electoral systems.\u00a0 Political thinkers at the time took note of the link between political dysfunction and the system of voting.\u00a0 Two national organizations sprung up to advance electoral reform.\u00a0 One of these organizations produced a set of model laws that could be adopted at the local level.\u00a0 The model laws advocated preferential voting systems, including the Alternative Vote and the Single Transferable Vote described earlier.\u00a0 A number of cities adopted these systems.\u00a0 However, the legacy of this reform effort is checkered.\u00a0 By focusing on local government, the reforms did not affect partisan elections at the state and federal level.\u00a0 Ultimately, the model failed to gain momentum and was abandoned by every jurisdiction except Cambridge, Massachusetts.\u00a0 Further, it took the focus off single member, winner-take-all voting as the source of polarization and dysfunction in government.\u00a0 Instead, it placed blame on political parties.\u00a0 Substituting parties for winner-take-all elections as the cause of dysfunction has hampered reform efforts to this day.\r\n\r\nThe Road Not Taken<\/strong>\r\n\r\n\"\"The Progressive Era saw an explosion of activity by reformers searching for ways to cure the ills that afflicted American society.\u00a0 In addition to expanding democracy, activists focused on the dysfunction of the political system. To that end, a group met at the Chicago World Fair in 1893.\u00a0 Also known as the Columbian Exposition, this event marked the 400th<\/sup> anniversary of Christopher Columbus\u2019s cross Atlantic voyage.\u00a0 Through its vision of an energetic, urbanized nation, the Exposition proved to be a cultural watershed.\u00a0 Designers know it for the Beaux Arts \u201cWhite City\u2019\u201d and the beginning of the City Beautiful movement.\u00a0 Many other firsts happened there, including Frederick Jackson Turner\u2019s lecture on the Closing of the American Frontier, the creation of the Ferris Wheel, first recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance and the introduction of Cream of Wheat and Pabst Blue Ribbon beer. \u00a0Erik Larson\u2019s The Devil in the White City<\/u> offers one of the best dramatic accounts of Daniel Burnham\u2019s remarkable feat in producing this event.\r\n\r\n\"\"One organization lost in the ether of history also got its start at the Columbian Exposition:\u00a0 the Proportional Representation League. During the Exposition, this group organized its first meeting at the Memorial Art Institute.\u00a0 It aimed to promote the concept of proportional voting.\u00a0 Several prominent members included Rhode Island Governor Lucius Garvin, federal judge Albert Maris, and economist and labor reformer, John Commons.\u00a0 Commons provided the intellectual heft for this organization.\u00a0 After studying at Oberlin College and Johns Hopkins, Commons went on to teach at the University of Wisconsin for nearly 30 years.\u00a0 He pioneered research on the relationships among labor, market structure, collective action and social change.\u00a0 He has been credited for \u201cthe Wisconsin Idea,\u201d a pipeline of ideas from the university to the legislature during the Progressive Movement.\u00a0 While at the university, Commons authored bills on workers compensation, unemployment insurance and the regulation of utilities. \u00a0The Wisconsin Idea and its agenda helped make Bob LaFollette a national figure.\r\n\r\nThe meeting in Chicago occurred well before Commons\u2019 tenure in Wisconsin.\u00a0 He was only 30 years old and just starting his academic career.\u00a0 Nevertheless, he managed to give a keynote speech to the Proportional Representation League in Chicago.\u00a0 He advocated the Swiss voting system based on list proportional representation (List PR).\u00a0 He continued to develop his ideas on electoral systems in his book Proportional Representation<\/u> published three years later. \u00a0In it, Commons surveys the range of reform efforts percolating at that time and demonstrates a keen technical understanding of electoral systems.\u00a0 He examines how different systems influence the behavior of voters.\u00a0 He sees clearly that majority voting systems fail the test of fairness and equality because they exclude minor parties and independent movements from government.\u00a0 He cites a number of jurisdictions, including the Illinois state legislature, experimenting with cumulative voting \u2013 where voters get as many votes as the number of seats and can \u201cplump\u201d their vote on one candidate to boost that candidate\u2019s chances.\u00a0 Commons concludes that the cumulative vote results in guesswork and wasted votes since a voter can assign multiple votes to one candidate or spread the votes across several preferred candidates.\u00a0 Commons intuitively understands the complexity such a choice presents to voters.\u00a0 Instead of drawing a direct connection between a voter\u2019s preference and an electoral outcome, the cumulative vote imposes strategic considerations about how the allocation of votes may impact multiple candidates.\r\n\r\nHe then turns to the Single Transferable Vote.\u00a0 As discussed previously, Thomas Hare created this system in response to the suppression of minority viewpoints by the winner-take-all system.\u00a0 Commons writes that the Single Transferable Vote was described as the \u201cclassical form of proportional representation from the great ability with which it was presented by its author, Mr. Thomas Hare, and advocated by John Stuart Mill.\u201d \u00a0Beyond some practical challenges with the system, Commons cuts to the chase:\u00a0 \u201cThe Hare system is advocated by those who, in a too doctrinaire fashion, wish to abolish political parties.\u201d\r\n\r\n\"\"Commons asserts that voters primarily vote for individuals based on membership in a party.\u00a0 The characteristics of an individual candidate are secondary to party affiliation.\u00a0 Commons points to the outcome of \u201cgeneral ticket\u201d voting in the U.S. as evidence for his thesis.\u00a0 The general ticket allows voters to vote for a candidate for each of several \u201cat large\u201d seats; however, each candidate requires a majority to win.\u00a0 Despite having the freedom to vote for a candidate from any party for each seat, voters invariably choose candidates from the same party.\u00a0 Consequently, all of the candidates from one party tend to win or lose the election by the same margin.\r\n\r\nCommons relays the story of Thomas Gilpin, an American who devised a proportional system more than a decade before Hare.\u00a0 Like Hare, Gilpin was driven by a desire to give minority groups a voice in government.\u00a0 He presented the idea of proportional voting at a meeting of the Philosophical Society of Philadelphia in 1844.\u00a0 Moreover, he worked out the mechanics of establishing the quota for multi-member districts well before Hare did.\u00a0 But instead of having voters rank candidates as with Hare\u2019s preferential voting system, each voter casts only one vote for a party.\u00a0 Commons argues that the \u201cpresentation\u201d of this system \u2013 a choice among parties \u2013 comports with how voters want to express their preference.\u00a0 According to Commons, the psychology of voters should figure importantly in how to structure the voting system, and a party-based proportional system closely aligns with that psychology.\r\n\r\nCommons shows how proportional voting evolved in Europe and then describes the system in Geneva, Switzerland as a worthy model.\u00a0 It allows voters to use cumulative votes for individual candidates but uses the total number of votes cast for a party to determine each party\u2019s share of representation.\u00a0 In this manner, the system has a mechanism \u2013 like Mixed Member Proportional or Open List PR \u2013 to ensure parties end up with the number of seats proportional to the total votes they receive.\u00a0 At the same time, it allows voters to supersede any ranking of candidates by a party.\u00a0 By highlighting the logic of electoral systems that elevate parties above candidates in voting decisions, Commons foreshadows why List PR systems emerged as the dominant electoral system in the 20th<\/sup> century.\u00a0 His work also underscores the momentum proportional voting had at this time, describing various legislation, including a recent bill introduced in Congress for such a list proportional system.\r\n\r\nIn sum, there was considerable support for proportional voting at the end of the 19th<\/sup> century. \u00a0Gilpin proved that the U.S. could be an innovator in electoral design.\u00a0 John Calhoun provided the theoretical basis for minority representation that inspired Hare.\u00a0 Commons and other thought leaders picked up that mantle as interest in reform increased during the second half of the 19th<\/sup> century.\u00a0 They understood and articulated the logic of party-centered proportional representation.\u00a0 Commons could see that parties are a creature of the voting system in which they operate and not vice versa.\u00a0 In a winner-take-all system, \u201cthe party becomes a machine, sustained by spoils and plunder, and there is no freedom for the voter.\u201d\u00a0 In contrast,\r\n

Proportional representation \u2026 is based on a frank recognition of parties as indispensable in free government. \u00a0This very recognition, instead of making partisan government all-powerful, is the necessary condition for subordinating parties to the public good.\u00a0 To control social forces, as well as physical forces, we must acknowledge their existence and strength, must understand them, and then must shape our machinery in accordance with their laws.\u00a0 We conquer nature by obeying her.<\/p>\r\nOpen list PR accomplishes this by allowing voters to \u201ccontrol the nominations of their party\u201d and giving voters the \u201cpower to defeat obnoxious candidates without endangering the success of the party\u201d \u2013 not by eliminating parties from the decision-making process of voters.\u00a0 With the creation of the Proportional Representation League in Chicago, the U.S. was poised to address the problems created by winner-take-all systems.\u00a0 But that did not come to pass.\r\n\r\nThe National Civic League<\/strong>\r\n\r\nFive months after John Commons gave his address at the Columbian Exposition in Chicago, another group met in Philadelphia at the National Conference for Good City Government.\u00a0 It boasted an all-star cast, including future president, Teddy Roosevelt, future Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis, and iconic landscape architect and social critic, Frederick Law Olmsted.\u00a0 They met to discuss the \u201cincompetence, inefficiency, patronage and corruption in local governments.\u201d\u00a0 A new organization called the National Municipal League sprung into existence at this convention.\u00a0 It continues to this day as the National Civic League, providing guidance and support on best practices for local governments around the country.\r\n\r\nThe League championed significant reforms that included nonpartisan elections, a city manager form of government and inclusive civic engagement.\u00a0 Significantly, the League created the Model City Charter, a crucial tool encouraging best practices.\u00a0 Still in use today, the Charter serves as a \u201cblueprint\u201d for local government charters, which are akin to the constitution or legal framework that governs a city.\u00a0 The Model City Charter is now in its eighth edition.\u00a0 As an example, it recommends that a professional manager run city government while an elected, nonpartisan council act as a board setting the policy direction for the city and overseeing the manager.\u00a0 The model charter sets forth detailed provisions for the administration of budgets, duties of city officials and staff and the conduct of local elections.\u00a0 Most recently, it outlines steps to improve inclusiveness and prohibit discrimination.\r\n\r\nPreferential Ballot<\/strong>\r\n\r\nOne of the few failed efforts undertaken by the Model City Charter relates to electoral reform.\u00a0 In 1914 at a meeting in Baltimore, the League presented \u201cMunicipal Home Rule and a Model City Charter.\u201d This document covered a number of issues that would shape local government in the years to come, including initiatives, nominations and elections, referenda and city management.\u00a0 Two ideas contained in this model charter \u2013 the \u201cPreferential Ballot\u201d and \u201cProportional Representation\u201d \u2013 continue to influence ideas within the electoral reform community \u2013 despite their failure to take hold during the 20th<\/sup> century.\r\n\r\nUnder the section of the Model Charter entitled, \u201cPreferential Ballot,\u201d it states \u201cAll ballots used in the election held under the authority of this charter shall be printed by the city and shall contain the names of the candidates without party or other designation.\u201d\u00a0 The nonpartisan aspect of this section is consistent with other sections of the charter related to local elections and in keeping with the anti-party ethos of the Progressive Movement.\u00a0 The model provides that each ballot shall have columns with the names of candidates so that voters can mark their first choice, second choice and \u201cother choices.\u201d\u00a0 It says \"If any candidates receive a number of first choices equal to a majority of all the ballots cast, they shall be declared elected in order of the votes received. If no candidate receives a majority, election officials then go on to count the second choice.\"\u00a0 As discussed in the essay on majority voting systems, this proposal matches the Alternative Vote used sparingly in other countries.\u00a0 Currently, its use is limited to Fiji, Papua New Guinea and the lower chamber in Australia.\r\n\r\nNote 12 on Proportional Voting<\/strong>\r\n\r\nThe Model Charter contains two important notes.\u00a0 Note 7 says, \u201cFor all cities desiring proportional representation the provisions therefor [are] set forth in Appendix B.\u201d\u00a0 Note 12 provides more detail on proportional voting.\u00a0 It reiterates the desirability of an at-large system where candidates run city-wide in order \u201cto eliminate the evils of ward representation.\u201d\u00a0 However, it acknowledges that at-large districts in a winner-take-all system has \u201cthis disadvantage that they do not ensure minority representation and that the watchful care exercised over a city government by those who are in opposition may be entirely absent.\u00a0 In order to remedy this defect, a system of proportional representation may be introduced.\u201d\u00a0 These comments acknowledge that winner-take-all systems deny minority representation and that proportional voting offers a remedy.\r\n\r\nNote 12 explains the \u201ctwo well-proved methods by which the system of proportional representation can be applied.\u00a0 One is the List system, in use in Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland and elsewhere; the other, the Hare system, in use in Tasmania and South Africa and incorporated for Irish parliamentary elections in the Parliament of Ireland Act recently passed.\u201d \u00a0Further, the Town of Ashtabula, Ohio had just adopted the Hare system.\u00a0 Of the two systems, the Hare System \u201cgives the voter more perfect freedom in the expression of his will than does the List\u201d by allowing voters to mark individual names rather than party.\u00a0 As importantly, the system designers at the time believed the Hare system \u201cmore effectively discourages the retention of national party lines in city government.\u201d\u00a0 Consequently, the Model Charter selected the Hare system for those cities opting for a proportional system.\r\n\r\nAs discussed previously, leading reformers of the Progressive Movement blamed political parties for the pervasive and rampant corruption in government.\u00a0 Therefore, reforms centered on weakening the authority of parties.\u00a0 This anti-party sentiment tipped the balance in favor of Single Transferable Vote or \u201cHare System\u201d over list PR as proposed by John Commons. \u00a0The Hare system presented individual names on the ballot rather than party names consistent with the Charter\u2019s advocacy of nonpartisan elections (i.e., elections in which party labels do not appear on the ballot).\u00a0 Further, it prevented national parties from controlling nominees, making it easier for reformers to attack the patronage system plaguing American politics at this time.\r\n\r\nElectoral Reform at the Local Level<\/strong>\r\n\r\nWith the introduction of preferential voting in the 1914 Model Charter, the U.S. set off on a course that hindered the long-term prospects for significant electoral reform.\u00a0 It is important to note the major parties had little incentive to promote reform.\u00a0 In contrast to other industrialized nations at this time, neither of the two major parties perceived a significant threat of replacement by a worker\u2019s party.\u00a0 That is not to say the U.S. lacked a labor movement.\u00a0 In some respects, the U.S. experienced more labor unrest and violence than other economically advanced nations.\u00a0 Jonathon Rodden shows in Why Cities Lose<\/u> that worker parties in the U.S. enjoyed similar levels of support in dense urban districts as these parties did in other nations. Despite pockets of strong support, worker parties failed to win many seats held by the Democratic or Republican Parties.\u00a0 There are numerous theories why a labor party in the U.S. failed to match its strength in other industrialized countries.\u00a0 Certainly, a vast new nation with abundant opportunities presented a starkly different landscape compared to Europe\u2019s feudal history and concentrated urban areas.\u00a0 Regardless, the lack of threat from a worker party at the height of the labor movement meant that neither major party saw any reason to advocate for proportional voting as a means of self-preservation.\r\n\r\nConsequently, the push for electoral reform in America came at the local level as part of the good government movement.\u00a0 Given the mission of the National Municipal League, the Model Charter only addressed local elections, and as stated, the League advocated for nonpartisan elections.\u00a0 While the desire to crush local party machines may have driven the League to support nonpartisan elections, such elections succeeded for other reasons.\u00a0 Local politics does not depend on national party distinctions.\u00a0 Policy agendas typically focus on clean water, policing, housing, transportation and sanitation.\u00a0 Recall Madison\u2019s insight in Federalist 10 \u2013 the perspective of political leaders correlates to the number of their electors.\u00a0 A small electorate focuses officials on the \u201clesser interests\u201d of a locality while a large electorate urges officials to \u201cpursue great and national objects.\u201d\u00a0 Local government falls in the first camp.\u00a0 As such, cities do not require big philosophical debates that benefit from a party system to frame policy distinctions.\u00a0 Cities require leaders who can work together on a common agenda, building needed infrastructure and managing budgets.\r\n\r\nThe political support for the Municipal League and the inclusion of electoral reform on its agenda stole the energy from the Proportional Representation League \u2013 despite its intellectual heft and laser focus on electoral reform.\u00a0 Lacking funds to advance its reform agenda more broadly, the Proportional Representation League was eventually collapsed into the Municipal League.\u00a0 Consequently, the energy for electoral reform in Congress and the states dissipated.\u00a0 The model charter became the de facto source of electoral reform in the U.S.\u00a0 In the decades following publication of the 1914 model, a number of cities adopted preferential voting systems.\u00a0 After Ashtabula in 1915, Boulder, Kalamazoo, Sacramento and West Hartford followed suit.\u00a0 By the mid-1920s, several large cities such as Cincinnati, Toledo and Cleveland adopted the model charter.\u00a0 New York City adopted it in 1936, which spurred other cities to join the trend.\u00a0 In all, nearly two dozen cities joined the reform movement.\r\n\r\nDouglas Amy, a proponent of proportional voting and professor at Mt. Holyoke College, describes this period in \u201cA Brief History of Proportional Voting in the United States.\u201d\u00a0 He notes a study that examined the impacts of proportional voting on the cities that adopted it.\u00a0 The authors of that study draw several conclusions.\u00a0 First, parties won seats more proportionally to votes received.\u00a0 Second, racial and ethnic minority groups gained seats in city government.\u00a0 Finally, researchers found some support that preferential ballots helped break the power of political machines by allowing voters to choose representatives rather than the parties.\r\n\r\nNevertheless, adoption of the model charter had limited effects.\u00a0 It did not result in the emergence of vibrant multi-party governments across the U.S.\u00a0 More importantly, it did not gain a lasting support base among the populace.\u00a0 Amy attributes the abandonment of the Single Transferable Vote by cities to a range of factors.\u00a0 They include the rejection of other elements of the model charter such as the city manager form of government, legal challenges by major parties, and backlash against minority representatives, particularly in the days before the Civil Right movement.\u00a0 Powerful interests also financed referenda to repeal proportional representation. \u00a0As of today, Cambridge remains the last holdout deploying the original model charter from 1914.\u00a0 No other city uses the Single Transferable Vote.\r\n\r\nLessons from the Model Charter<\/strong>\r\n\r\nThere are important lessons in the history of reform efforts at the local level.\u00a0 Most importantly, proportional systems work best with political parties on the ballot.\u00a0 Proportional representation arose out of a desire to afford minority groups \u2013 aligned along broad public interests \u2013 a voice in government.\u00a0 Parties provide a necessary vehicle to allow groups to advance their political agenda.\u00a0 In contrast, local government tends to function well without partisan elections.\u00a0 As mentioned, the National Municipal League introduced model charter language supporting nonpartisan elections in the early 20th<\/sup> century and has stuck with that position.\u00a0 Most cities in the U.S. have adopted this language and continue to hold nonpartisan elections.\u00a0 Local governments can satisfy the needs and desires of the electorate without party representation for the reasons identified by Madison and other political thinkers:\u00a0 representatives of small geographic areas attend to constituents\u2019 immediate practical needs. Voters do not need parties to signal which officials are better adept at meeting these needs.\r\n\r\nThe other lessons relate to preferential voting systems.\u00a0 As we saw in the essays on majority and proportional voting, preferential voting has a spotty record.\u00a0 Very few countries use them.\u00a0 The Republic of Ireland has used the Single Transferable vote for nearly 100 years and has withstood referenda to eliminate it.\u00a0 Obviously, there is an attachment to it by the public.\u00a0 However, the only other nation using the Single Transferable Vote for elections to its lower legislative chamber is Malta.\u00a0 And similar to the experience with cities in the U.S., countries such as Estonia and South Africa abandoned the system after adopting it.\u00a0 Single Transferable Vote simply does not breed strong loyalty among voters.\u00a0 It requires voters not only to consider their preference for a candidate, they must also weigh the impact of the ranking system on other candidates.\u00a0 Is it better to vote for only one candidate?\u00a0 Will voters hurt a preferred choice if they rank a rival highly?\u00a0 These questions add complexity to a process seeking to unlock the collective mind of the electorate so that government can carry out the will of the people.\r\n\r\nRanked Choice Voting<\/strong>\r\n\r\nFrustration over gerrymandering, unfair representation, limited choice and polarization has rekindled reform efforts in recent years.\u00a0 The current movement has two strains \u2013 one originating in Ohio and the other on the West Coast.\u00a0 Ohio was ground zero for the reforms in the 20th<\/sup> century.\u00a0 Many of its major cities adopted the Single Transferable Vote suggested in note 12 of the 1914 model charter.\u00a0 These cities withstood multiple efforts at repeal.\u00a0 Cincinnati was the last city in Ohio to succumb to these repeal initiatives.\u00a0 With it, Black representation on city council ended.\u00a0 Other ethnic groups lost representation.\u00a0 However, the experience in Ohio was not forgotten.\u00a0 A nonpartisan organization called FairVote formed in Cincinnati in 1992 to kick start the reform movement.\r\n\r\nFairVote advocates the same preferential voting systems contained in the National Municipal League\u2019s 1914 Charter.\u00a0 Instead of referring to them as the Alternative Vote and the Single Transferable Vote, FairVote uses the terms Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and Proportional Ranked Choice Voting (PRCV), respectively.\u00a0 At the federal level, FairVote supports the Fair Representation Act.\u00a0 The Act would require PRCV for Congressional races.\u00a0 Any states with five or fewer seats would have one multi-member district.\u00a0 States with six or more seats would have more than one multi-member district with no less than three seats.\u00a0 The Act also requires an independent redistricting commission when a state has sufficient congressional seats to require more than one multi-member district.\u00a0 Any state with one or more multi-member districts would rely on PRCV.\u00a0 The Act was introduced in Congress in 2017 and 2019.\u00a0 Among the Act\u2019s seven sponsors, Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia has been its most vocal advocate.\r\n\r\nApart from introduction of the Fair Representation Act in Congress, most of the reform activity centers on the winner-take-all, RCV system.\u00a0 FairVote tracks implementation of RCV in jurisdictions across the U.S.\u00a0 As reflected in the map below, its most common use occurs in party primaries and local elections where the election focuses on individual candidates rather than choices among parties.\u00a0 Also known as \u201cinstant run-off voting,\u201d RCV is an effective tool when it is difficult to hold in-person elections or run-off elections such as the oversees military.\u00a0 New York City recently used RCV in the 2021 mayoral election.\u00a0 A number of cities in the State of Utah will use RCV in 2021.\r\n\r\n\"\"\r\n\r\nThe most significant victory to date for RCV occurred in Maine in 2016 when the Ranked Choice Voting Act passed by referendum with 52% of the vote.\u00a0 The law went into effect in 2018 and applies RCV to all primary and general elections for governor, state legislature, Congress and President.\u00a0 In 2019, legislation passed to expand RCV to the presidential primary and general election in Maine.\u00a0 Given the recent use of RCV in Maine, analysis on its effects remains limited.\r\n\r\nBlanket Primary <\/strong>\r\n\r\nThe other strain of electoral reform relates to primaries.\u00a0 It builds on the primary system unique to the U.S. and is based on a view that diminishing the role of parties serves the cause of reform.\u00a0 As noted earlier, the Progressive Movement led to the creation of closed and open primaries in different states.\u00a0 The former requires a voter to be affiliated with a party to vote on that party\u2019s ballot in a primary election.\u00a0 The latter allows a voter to access a party\u2019s ballot in a primary election regardless of the voter\u2019s party affiliation.\u00a0 California continued to push the envelope toward removing party control over primary elections with Proposition 198, which passed in 1996.\u00a0 This measure is known as a blanket primary.\u00a0 With a blanket primary, voters receive a single ballot listing candidates from all parties for the primary election.\u00a0 Voters can choose candidates as they wish.\u00a0 For instance, they can vote for a Democrat for the Democratic Party\u2019s U.S. Senate candidate and a Republican for the Republican Party\u2019s Gubernatorial candidate.\r\n\r\nThe U.S. Supreme Court initially stuck down this law in California Democratic Party v. Jones<\/u> (2000) as a violation of the First Amendment\u2019s right to freedom of association. \u00a0Justice Scalia wrote the 7-2 opinion, stating \u201cProposition 198 forces political parties to associate with \u2013 to have their nominees, and hence their positions, determined by \u2013 those who, at best, have refused to affiliate with the party, and, at worst, have expressly affiliated with a rival... A single election in which the party nominee is selected by nonparty members could be enough to destroy the party.\u201d\u00a0 To overcome the constitutional objection, reformers on the West Coast created the nonpartisan blanket primary. This type of primary places all candidates for an office on the same ballot without listing party affiliation.\u00a0 Because these primaries are nonpartisan, the courts have ruled them constitutional.\u00a0 Justice John Roberts concurred in a 2008 decision, stating as long as no reasonable voter would believe the candidates on the ballot are nominees of or otherwise associated with a party, the system would likely be constitutional.\r\n\r\nOnce the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door, reformers on the West Coast began introducing bills to establish blanket primaries.\u00a0 In California and Washington, the top two vote-getters for each office now go on to the general election regardless of party label.\u00a0 That means two candidates of the same party may face each other in the general election.\u00a0 In 2020, voters in Alaska approved Measure 2, which combines a top four blanket primary system and a RCV system for the general election.\u00a0 Except for the presidential election, all federal and state offices will be determined under this system.\u00a0 With a top four system, any combination of parties may be on the ticket in the general election.\r\n\r\nKatherine Gehl, a business owner, and Michael Porter at Harvard Business School support the Alaska measure as well as Unite America, a nonpartisan advocacy organization.\u00a0 In The Politics Industry:\u00a0 How Political Innovation Can Break Partisan Gridlock and Save Our Democracy<\/u>, Gehl and Porter apply the principles of economic competition to understand how American democracy has devolved into a corrosive \u201cduopoly.\u201d\u00a0 They connect polarization and non-competitive general elections to party control over primaries, which makes it difficult for moderate candidates to succeed.\u00a0 They believe elections will produce more competition and more \u201cmoderate, compromise-oriented politicians\u201d when candidates must appeal to voters from both major parties.\u00a0 Instead of the most extreme elements of each party selecting candidates in the primary, a larger, moderate group of voters will have more power according to the authors.\r\n\r\nMeasure 2 goes into effect in 2022 so its effects remain to be seen.\u00a0 Studies focusing on the results of California\u2019s top two system have shown parties with multiple candidates on the primary ballot have been hurt from vote splitting.\u00a0 Thus far, there is no evidence of greater success for moderate candidates, and turnout among unaffiliated voters has not increased.\u00a0 More importantly, this strain of reform misses the source of the problem.\u00a0 As shown by Duverger\u2019s Law, polarization and extreme candidates result from majority voting in single member districts.\u00a0 Blanket primaries keep intact majority voting in single member districts.\u00a0 Equally important, this reform continues the misplaced effort to weaken political parties begun during the Progressive Movement.\u00a0 As discussed, political parties are critically important in organizing groups around issues important to voters, solving the calculus of voting, driving legislation through a political caucus and holding candidates accountable once they are elected.\r\n\r\nConclusion<\/strong>\r\n\r\nAn examination of electoral reform in the U.S. reveals a road littered with missed opportunities.\u00a0 America produced some of the great thinkers on electoral reform.\u00a0 The work on proportional voting by Thomas Gilpin predated Thomas Hare, who in turn was influenced by John Calhoun. \u00a0American innovators understood the winner-take-all voting system stifled minority voices, led to unfair outcomes and stirred divisiveness.\u00a0 Consequently, numerous states and local governments experimented with forms of proportional voting in the second half of the 19th<\/sup> century.\u00a0 John Commons studied these efforts and proposed a proportional system that recognized the way voters make decisions, placing a party framework above individual candidate selection.\u00a0 His words inspired a new organization, the Proportional Representation League, that came to life just at a moment when the U.S. embraced serious reform.\r\n\r\nUnfortunately, America missed that opportunity. Instead, it ambled down a different path.\u00a0 Leading reformers diverted electoral reform from state and federal elections to the local level at a time when cities adopted nonpartisan elections.\u00a0 Moreover, the model charter for reform employed a candidate-centric, preferential voting system rarely used by other countries.\u00a0 A number of cities adopted it from the 1920s to the 1950s, but each one eventually abandoned it with the exception of Cambridge.\u00a0 Historians cite different reasons for this outcome, but what is clear, the voters gave in to forces seeking to eliminate preferential voting.\u00a0 That is not the case in countries using list proportional voting, the predominant system in the world.\u00a0 Now that political and economic circumstances rival those of the Progressive Movement, reformers have taken up the torch for preferential voting systems and other candidate-centric measures.\u00a0 American\u2019s rich history of innovation based on a recognition that winner-take-all, single member districts can destroy democracy largely has been lost.\u00a0 Can we reclaim our role as innovator?\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\nMack Paul is a member of the state advisory board of Common Cause NC and a founding partner of Morningstar Law Group.<\/em>\r\n\r\nParts in this series:\r\n\r\nIntroduction: Building Democracy 2.0<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 1: What Is Democracy and Why Is It Important?<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 2: How the Idea of Freedom Makes the First Innovation Possible<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 3: The Second Innovation that Gave Rise to Modern Democracy<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 4: The Rise and Function of Political Parties \u2013 Setting the Record Straight<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 5: How Political Parties Turned Conflict into a Productive Force<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 6: Parties and the Challenge of Voter Engagement<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 7: The Progressive Movement and the Decline of Parties in America<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 8: Rousseau and \u2018the Will of the People\u2019<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 9: The Dark Secret of Majority\u00a0Voting<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 10: The Promise of Proportional\u00a0Voting<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 11: Majorities, Minorities and Innovation in Electoral\u00a0Design<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 12: The Misdirected Attempts at Electoral Reform in\u00a0the\u00a0U.S.<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 13: Building Democracy 2.0: The Uses and Abuses of Redistricting in American Democracy<\/a>\r\n\r\n "}}]},"yoast_head":"\nBuilding Democracy 2.0: The Misdirected Attempts at Electoral Reform in the U.S. - Common Cause North Carolina<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/fr\/articles\/construire-la-democratie-2-0-les-tentatives-malavisees-de-reforme-electorale-aux-etats-unis\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"fr_FR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Building Democracy 2.0: The Misdirected Attempts at Electoral Reform in the U.S.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/fr\/articles\/construire-la-democratie-2-0-les-tentatives-malavisees-de-reforme-electorale-aux-etats-unis\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Common Cause North Carolina\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/common-cause-share-image.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"630\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-misdirected-attempts-at-electoral-reform-in-the-u-s\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-misdirected-attempts-at-electoral-reform-in-the-u-s\/\",\"name\":\"Building Democracy 2.0: The Misdirected Attempts at Electoral Reform in the U.S. - Common Cause North Carolina\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-06-30T11:32:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-misdirected-attempts-at-electoral-reform-in-the-u-s\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-misdirected-attempts-at-electoral-reform-in-the-u-s\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-misdirected-attempts-at-electoral-reform-in-the-u-s\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Building Democracy 2.0: The Misdirected Attempts at Electoral Reform in the U.S.\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/\",\"name\":\"Common Cause North Carolina\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Construire la d\u00e9mocratie 2.0\u00a0: les tentatives malavis\u00e9es de r\u00e9forme \u00e9lectorale aux \u00c9tats-Unis - Common Cause North Carolina","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/fr\/articles\/construire-la-democratie-2-0-les-tentatives-malavisees-de-reforme-electorale-aux-etats-unis\/","og_locale":"fr_FR","og_type":"article","og_title":"Building Democracy 2.0: The Misdirected Attempts at Electoral Reform in the U.S.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/fr\/articles\/construire-la-democratie-2-0-les-tentatives-malavisees-de-reforme-electorale-aux-etats-unis\/","og_site_name":"Common Cause North Carolina","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":630,"url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/common-cause-share-image.png","type":"image\/png"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-misdirected-attempts-at-electoral-reform-in-the-u-s\/","url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-misdirected-attempts-at-electoral-reform-in-the-u-s\/","name":"Construire la d\u00e9mocratie 2.0\u00a0: les tentatives malavis\u00e9es de r\u00e9forme \u00e9lectorale aux \u00c9tats-Unis - Common Cause North Carolina","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-06-30T11:32:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-misdirected-attempts-at-electoral-reform-in-the-u-s\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"fr-FR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-misdirected-attempts-at-electoral-reform-in-the-u-s\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-misdirected-attempts-at-electoral-reform-in-the-u-s\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Building Democracy 2.0: The Misdirected Attempts at Electoral Reform in the U.S."}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/","name":"Cause commune en Caroline du Nord","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"fr-FR"}]}},"distributor_meta":false,"distributor_terms":false,"distributor_media":false,"distributor_original_site_name":"Common Cause North Carolina","distributor_original_site_url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/fr","push-errors":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article\/600","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/article"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article\/600\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=600"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}