Americans often say they hate how vitriolic and polarized our politics has become, and yet our current political system helps to promote this very behavior. That's why there's been a push for electoral reforms that incentivize candidates to appeal to voters across the political spectrum instead of just focusing on the most ideological and extreme voices in their party.
Reforms like a primary system that all candidates, regardless of party, run on the same ballot, with the top two or more advancing to the general election. Another reform is ranked choice voting, which asks voters to rank their pick of candidates in order of preference.
The thinking behind these ideas is that the American public is less divided than the elected officials we send to congress, and that makes it harder to pass legislation that many people actually support. So if there's a way to run our elections so that candidates didn't have to appeal to the more extreme elements of their parties, shouldn't we move towards that kind of system? That all sounds like something voters would like to see, right?
Reformers thought so too. And in 2024, they helped get ranked choice voting on the ballot in a bunch of states like Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and Idaho, as well as Washington, DC. But while Americans are quite unhappy with how politics and governing worked these days, these reforms ultimately were rejected in almost all the places where they appeared on the ballot.
Why was that? We asked Nick Troiano to join Amy on the podcast to help answer this question and learn more about where the electoral reform movement goes next. Nick has long been a part of the electoral reform movement. He's the executive director of Unite America, a nonpartisan election reform organization.
He's also the author of The Primary Solution: Rescuing Our Democracy From The Fringes.
