JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Two weeks before Election Day, activists from across the country gathered for an online rally to usher in the historic number of state ballot initiatives that seek to change the way people vote. Hopes were high that voters would abandon traditional partisan primaries and embrace ballots with more candidate choices.
Instead, the election reform movement lost virtually everywhere it appeared on a statewide ballot.
“In hindsight it turns out that we were not ready for prime time,” says John Opdycke, chairman of the interest group Open Primaries, which organized the meeting.
In Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and South Dakota – a mix of red, blue and purple states – voters rejected both ranked choice votingopen primaries or a combination of both.
The open primary proposals were intended to put candidates from all parties on the same ballot, with a certain number of top candidates advancing to the general election. Ranked choice voting allows people to vote for multiple candidates, in order of preference. If no one receives a majority of first-place votes, the candidates who receive the fewest votes are eliminated and their votes are redistributed to people’s next choices.
Electoral reform advocates have raised about $110 million for the statewide ballot measures, far outpacing their opponents, according to an Associated Press analysis of campaign finance figures that could grow even higher as post-election reports are filed. Still, their promotional effort was not enough to convince most voters.
“While Americans are frustrated with politics, I think most Americans are fine with traditional voting,” said Trent England, executive director of Save Our States, which opposes ranked choice voting.
Proponents of alternative election methods had thought momentum was on their side after Alaska voters narrowly approved a combination of open primaries and ranked choice voting in 2020. Then voters in Nevada — where initiatives proposing constitutional amendments require approval in two consecutive elections — passed the first round. approval for a similar measure in 2022. But Nevada voters changed course this year.
In Alaska, an effort this year to repeal open primaries and ranked choice voting appears to have fallen just short. The results released Wednesday received 49.9% support. The final results are expected to be certified on November 30.
In addition to Alaska, there are versions of ranked choice voting already exists in Maine ‘s federal elections and about 50 provinces or cities. Voters in Washington, D.C., and the Chicago suburb of Oak Park, Illinois, both approved ranked-choice voting in November. And voters in Bloomington, Minnesota, a suburb of Minneapolis, reaffirmed their use.
Data shows that ranked-choice voting rarely produces different outcomes than traditional elections won by candidates who receive a plurality of support, but not a majority. The AP analyzed nearly 150 races this fall in 16 jurisdictions that allow ranked-choice voting, ranging from the Board of Assessors elections in the village of Arden, Delaware, to the presidential elections in Alaska and Maine. The ranking system was necessary in only 30% of those cases, as the rest were won by candidates who received a majority of the initial votes.
Nationally, only three candidates who initially trailed in first-place votes ultimately won after ranked votes: one for the Portland City Council and two for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
In San Francisco, two progressive candidates campaigned together, encouraging voters to put them first and second. Initially, they fell behind a moderate candidate who would have won a traditional election. But after six rankings, one of the progressive candidates emerged victorious when the other was eliminated and his supporters’ votes were redistributed among her.
Proponents of ranked choice voting consider this a success because it prevented two similar candidates from splitting the vote and both losing.
“It’s kind of like a pressure valve: You don’t always need it, but when you do need it, you really need it,” said Deb Otis, director of research and policy at FairVote, which advocates ranked-choice voting. choice.
In Portland, Oregon, voters used ranked choice for the first time in their mayoral and municipal elections in November, while Oregon voters simultaneously rejected a measure to implement it for federal and statewide offices. Political outsider Keith Wilson, who led Portland’s 19-person field for mayor with about a third of the initial vote, eventually won the elections after 19 rounds of ranked tables. At least thirty rounds were needed to decide on one municipal seat.
But not everyone participated in the new voting method. About a fifth of Portland voters skipped council races, and about one in seven voters left the mayoral primary blank.
Opponents of ranked-choice voting argue that some people find it confusing and don’t vote in ranked-choice races.
Academic research has also cast doubt on the benefits of ranked-choice voting, said Larry Jacobs, a professor of politics at the University of Minnesota. Fewer black voters tend to rank candidates than white voters, he said, and there is little evidence that ranked choice voting reduces political polarization or negative campaigning.
“I think the tide is turning on ranked choice voting,” Jacobs said.
Groups that heavily funded this year’s election reform initiatives are not giving up, but may be rethinking their approach. Advocates are considering whether to separate efforts to end partisan primaries from those to implement ranked-choice voting, and whether to focus more on incremental changes that state lawmakers can enact rather than on high-stakes initiatives to amend state constitutions.
Opdycke said some of this year’s initiatives may have been launched prematurely, counting on ads to sway voters without first cultivating enough grassroots support.
“I think there is a deeper appreciation for the kind of masonry, foundation-laying and conversation-creating that needs to happen as a precursor to launching a formal campaign,” he said.
Unite America, which has spent about $70 million this year on its efforts to end partisan primaries, is analyzing voter surveys and focus group results to help reform its approach.
“The question is not whether we should continue those efforts,” said Nick Troiano, executive director of Unite America, “but how do we ultimately succeed?”