Americans are frustrated with politics, and one group claims to have the answer. Self-appointed election reformers promise that if we enact their plans, things will get better. One problem is that they have a lot of different, conflicting proposals. Worse, many of them would double-down on past reform mistakes. A recent string of losses on state ballot measures should be a wake-up call for reformers – if they’re willing to learn.
Just two years ago, ranked-choice voting (RCV) was “hot” and “the ‘it’ reform” according to a Minnesota political science professor interviewed by NPR. Maine had adopted RCV in 2016 and Alaska in 2020. It was used in a slew of cities and towns, including a dozen in Utah under a statewide pilot project. Money was flooding into ballot measure campaigns in six states pushing what Politico Magazine had dubbed “the hottest political reform.”
The party ended on election night. Voters rejected RCV in “purple” Arizona and Nevada, “red” Idaho and Montana, and “blue” Colorado and Oregon. It was adopted in the District of Columbia, but only because RCV was bundled with other, more popular, changes. In Alaska, RCV survived a repeal effort by just 737 votes and another repeal campaign is already underway.
Undeterred, RCV groups narrowed their focus for 2026 to Michigan. Yet that campaign is already over, after lackluster fundraising and strong opposition left it without enough signatures to reach the ballot. The pilot project in Utah is winding down after most of the cities that tried RCV later rejected it. And since 2022, 17 states have proactively banned the use of RCV in their elections.
So why has RCV gone from hot to not? One reason is, as it gets used in a few places, people can see that it fails to live up to the hype. This is a common theme with political reforms. Advocates claim to have “the answer,” yet never seem to fix anything. And in some cases, they make things worse.
Consider campaign finance reform. The late Sen. John McCain promised 25 years ago that he would “get the government out of the hands of the special interests, the big-money people.” His Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act passed, making it much harder for political parties to raise and spend money, but now that money – and a lot more money – goes to less accountable, less transparent political groups.
Sen. McCain complained that, in 2000, lobbyists “spent $1.4 billion” in Washington, DC. Yet a quarter century after McCain passed his signature reform, that amount has only grown, reaching a record high $4.5 billion in 2024.
Campaign finance reform failed, and it made things worse. By piling on new regulations, it tipped the scales in favor of bigger groups that can afford lots of lawyers and accountants. And by weakening parties, McCain’s “bipartisan” reform made politics less accountable and more extreme. Today’s would-be reformers include some of the same people and organizations that pushed campaign finance reform, but instead of owning up to past mistakes, they’re doubling down.
Reforms like RCV and “open” or top-two primary elections are designed to further weaken political parties. Those organizations are easy to criticize, but as we’ve seen, the alternatives are shadowy groups and nastier politics. Healthy parties are essential for a healthy democratic process. They engage voters in a way that is bigger than individual candidates, more focused on ideas, and more willing to compromise and look to the future.
Voters seem to be catching on, at least when it comes to RCV. While those pushing the change promise kinder, gentler politics, research from Maine found just the opposite there. Oakland, California, uses RCV and their last mayor was recalled and then indicted. The system fails to make things better but does add complexity and delays. Who needs that?
RCV campaigns spent more than $100 million pushing failed state ballot measures in 2024. They lost their one campaign this year, in Michigan, before the year even began. Reformers should pay attention to voters, who understand that tinkering with our elections comes at a cost. Public policy is rarely about solutions – it’s about tradeoffs, and also learning from the past. The last thing Americans need are reforms like RCV that double down on past election reform mistakes.
