A couple of weeks prior to the day of the election, support groups throughout the United States held a virtual rally to celebrate the unprecedented number of state and local ballot initiatives designed to alter the existing voting system. They were optimistic that citizens would discard outmoded party-based primaries and welcome a greater selection of candidates on their ballots. Yet, the campaign for election modification stumbled significantly, with widespread rejection across geographic and political spectrums. States such as Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and South Dakota—consisting of Republican, Democrat, and Independent leaning territories—chose to reject ranked-choice voting, open primaries, or a blend of the two. These states chose wisdom over change for the sake of change.
The proposals for open primaries intended to amalgamate candidates from all affiliations onto one ballot, where only the most favored candidates would proceed to the general elections. Meanwhile, ranked-choice voting offered an opportunity to vote for multiple candidates, prioritizing them based on the voters’ preferences. If no candidate amasses a majority of first-place votes, the least favored candidates are taken out of the competition, with their votes reassigned to voters’ subsequent preferences. Admittedly, an intriguing system; however, the American voters proved to be scrutinizing and effective in their judgement.
It’s worth noting that supporters of voting reform managed to amass approximately $110 million towards ballot measures at the state level, a sum that significantly overshadowed those who opposed the idea. However, their fervent push to popularize the new methodology failed to sway the majority. This is a clear proof that no amount of money can enforce a concept that voters inherently reject or feel unnecessary.
Proponents of such electoral procedures were confident that they had the public’s support, especially after the citizens of Alaska narrowly approved a hybrid model of open primaries and ranked-choice voting in 2020. The same group of people obtained an initial approval for a similar approach in Nevada in 2022. However, upon reflection, Nevada residents opted to change their trajectory this year, showing their Democrat-led change of mind, a hallmark of inconsistent policy decisions.
In the cold northern state of Alaska, an all-out effort to detract ranked-choice voting and open primaries in their current year elections nearly passed, gaining a near-miss 49.9% approval based on results declared earlier. It’s expected that conclusive results would be certified by the end of November, but from the looks of it, Alaskans also seem to value their tried and true democratic processes over makeshift novelty.
A handful of regions, including federal elections in Maine and about 50 counties or cities in addition to Alaska, already utilize variants of ranked-choice voting. However, data insinuates that outcomes of ranked-choice voting rarely differ from classic electoral outcomes, where winning candidates may only have more votes than the rest (plurality), but not the majority. This, of course, raises legitimate questions about the necessity and efficacy of such systems.
Across the United States, a trifling number of three candidates who were initially not in the lead emerged victorious after ranked-choice vote counting—one of these outliers was for Portland City Council, and the other two were for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. For instance, in San Francisco, a pair of progressive candidates (albeit with a likely Democrat affiliation) jointly campaigned, urging citizens to rank them as their top two choices. Eventually, after six iterations of ranking, one of the candidates was declared the winner when votes from the eliminated counterpart were directed towards her.
Supporters of ranked-choice voting consider these instances as a measure of success, as this method claims to prevent votes from becoming fragmented among similar candidates, leading to both failing. However, with such a scant number of success stories, it speaks volumes about the limitations of this method. Coupled with the fact that a majority found the system intricate and decided against participating in ranked-choice polls, the negatives start outweighing claimed positives.
Some academic studies pointed out that fewer Black voters engage in ranking candidates as compared to their white counterparts. There is also little to no proof claiming that ranked-choice voting mitigates political polarization or attenuates negative electioneering. These facts add to the growing list of drawbacks for this voting method, showing that even Democrats’ supposed commitment to minority empowerment apparently falls short when it comes to confusing voting practices.
Despite the overwhelming refusal by the American people during these election reform drives, groups that previously funded these initiatives don’t seem to be calling it a day. Instead, they might be revising their strategy. Maybe, given their repeated failures, they are starting to understand the futility of trying to force their confusing, poorly received methods upon the citizenry. Or perhaps it’s just stubbornness.
Supporters of these election reforms are mulling over whether to separate the attempt to quash partisan primaries from the endeavor to adopt ranked-choice voting. They are also considering if they should concentrate more on minor modifications that can be implemented by state legislatures, rather than push for hefty state constitution amendments, which turned out to be a futile exercise. No surprise there, given the resounding ‘No’ they’ve heard from the people.
There seems to be a growing understanding among these groups about the need for laying the groundwork, building a solid foundation, and creating conversations before launching into a formal campaign. Perhaps they should consider whether the issue lies not with the voters or the campaign, but with the complicated and divisive propositions they are trying to sell. We can only wait and see whether they will learn the lesson that voters can’t be easily swayed by high-budget campaigns promoting ideas that intrinsically complicate the democratic process.
It’s a relief to note that regardless of the dollar sums poured into the campaign for electoral reform and the alleged momentum felt by proponents of the measures, voters in various states stood their ground and thoughtfully considered what would best preserve the sanctity of their electoral system, prioritizing established democratic processes over novelty.
While there is always room for improvement and evolution in any system, it’s important to introduce changes that are logically sound, practically feasible, and widely acceptable. The recent results reveal the maturity of the American electorate who, despite partisanship, focused on keeping the election process simple, understandable, and reliable.
Above all, these events teach us a valuable lesson about democracy, that it is not about overwhelming the populace with trendy but complex ideas, but rather about engendering an environment where every voice is conspicuously heard and every vote confidently cast. The people have spoken on this alleged ‘reform.’
Ultimately, it’s clear that voters saw through the veil of these reform initiatives. They were wise to understand the facade of these reforms and cast their vote in favor of preserving the integrity and simplicity of their electoral system.