Summary:
- Efforts for election reform failed in states all across the country in 2024
- Though partisan opposition is part of the reason, political polarization is an even deeper one
- Voters say they want better political choices, but their actions say otherwise
American democracy finds itself in an awkward spot. On one hand, in poll after poll and survey after survey, Americans consistently express their deep dissatisfaction with the current two-party system and the political choices they’re offered. Political careers like Andrew Yang and Robert Kennedy Jr. have been launched by appealing to exactly this widespread dissatisfaction. Yet when offered meaningful changes that would provide a break from the traditional electoral system in the 2024 election, Americans soundly rejected them.
The widespread failure of election reform efforts on state ballots this year, from ranked-choice voting (RCV) to independent redistricting reform, offers a stark example of a classic principle of human psychology: everyone wants progress, but many fewer want change. As long as that’s the case, the future of American electoral reform is uncertain.
What the people want
Large majorities of Americans, including a large majority of independents and, at various times, majorities of both party voters, declare that the United States desperately needs a third major political party. They tell pollsters, talk show hosts, and almost anyone who will listen that the current system is “broken.”
Yet when presented with meaningful alternatives, as in the 2024 election, these same voters are nowhere to be found.
In the 2024 election, proposals to introduce ranked-choice voting (RCV) were on the ballot in seven different states: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and South Dakota. All seven proposals were decisively defeated. A proposal to repeal Alaska’s RCV system survived only by a razor-thin margin. Only in the District of Columbia did a new RCV initiative pass.
Meanwhile, in Ohio, voters were asked to ratify a ballot initiative to establish an independent redistricting system which promised to break the stranglehold of partisan gerrymandering. It, too, was soundly rejected by voters. Though supporters of the measure rightly insist that the language on the ballot describing the measure could be misleading for voters, it was defeated nevertheless.
The disconnect on display is remarkable: on one hand, voters claim to want more responsive and less partisan representation, but when offered concrete mechanisms to achieve this, they balk. This isn’t just political apathy; it’s a deeper psychological resistance. Most voters have a vague sense that something is wrong with the current system, but they reject meaningful alternatives. A closer look at why is in order.
Conservative Resistance to Electoral Innovation
In every state where the topic has arisen, the most consistent and organized opposition to electoral reform has come from the Right. In state after state, conservative activists aligned with the Republican party have mounted aggressive campaigns against proposals like ranked-choice voting and independent redistricting reform. Fully ten Republican-led states have now banned ranked-choice voting entirely. This organized opposition has arisen out of a growing sense on the conservative Right that that efforts for election reform pose a political threat.
The 2022 Alaska U.S. House race provides a good example why. In that year, Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system led directly to the defeat of Republican former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin to a moderate Democrat, Mary Peltola. It was a moment celebrated by political moderates as an example of how RCV incentivizes more moderate politics, but conservative activists and Republican allies immediately began painting the system as fundamentally illegitimate. The partisan opposition quickly coalesced.
Partisan opposition from the Right to independent redistricting reform is easier to understand. In states like Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and (yes) North Carolina, conservative activists aligned with the Republican Party have vigorously opposed any effort to institute independent reform because doing so might weaken their political power. When thus painted as a tribal issue, most partisan base voters retreat instinctively to their respective corners and vote for their favored “team.” Voters might say they want better political choices, but most still vote the way their existing ones recommend.
The Long Road to Electoral Reform
Supporters of electoral innovation – from ranked-choice voting, to independent redistricting, to proportionally representative systems – face formidable obstacles. Perhaps the most significant is simple voter comprehension. Ranked-choice voting, for example, remains mystifying to many Americans accustomed to traditional voting models. Most people simply do not understand these systems, let alone the elaborate reasons behind why they’re needed. For voters with little general interest in politics, election reform is simply not a high priority.
In the meantime, both parties also rightly view third parties as a potential threat. Third parties, which typically purport to represent genuine alternative political points of view, primarily function in our existing electoral system as “spoilers.” This is because third parties nearly always draw votes disproportionately from one ideological end of the spectrum or another: Libertarians from Republicans, for example, or the Green party from the Democrats. Indeed, this year saw several elections in North Carolina and the U.S. as a whole potentially swung simply by the presence of a third-party candidate on the ballot (both Greens and Libertarians).
This has even led to a cynical partisan weaponization of third parties. Major Trump supporters backed Robert Kennedy’s quixotic third-party campaign until it became clear he drew more from Trump than Biden, at which point he was ordered to drop out. Republican activists were also behind Cornel West’s ballot access campaign in battleground states. While these candidates stood little or no chance of election, their opportunity to damage the Democratic ticket was well-understood by campaign professionals.
The path to meaningful electoral reform is highly unclear. Voters may tell pollsters (and perhaps even themselves) that they want change, but their voting choices plainly say otherwise. An alternative diagnosis is thus worth taking seriously: perhaps political polarization is now so deeply embedded in the American electorate that structural change requiring bipartisan cooperation is mostly infeasible. Like all things in politics and life, this, too, shall pass – but probably no time soon.
