The 2024 election has seen rising concerns about the threat of political violence. Glenn Nye and Jeanne Sheehan Zaino write that at times of crisis and political discontent, these sentiments can be channeled into democratic reform. While much of the focus of this year’s elections is on the presidential race, in more than a dozen states, voters will also decide on measures which would change how their elections are run. The health of US democracy depends on its ability to adapt to changing times and circumstances through these kinds of reforms.

Interest in electoral reform in the United States tends to increase when three things happen: crises (whether real or perceived), rising levels of political discontent, and anniversaries. Crises often engender rising disaffection; and, by the same token, increased levels of discontent can trigger crises. This is particularly true when calls for peaceful change go unaddressed over long periods of time.

Rising political violence in the US

We have seen both in the US recently. There has been a rising level of political violence and the threat of violence in the US for some time now: most recently the attempted assassinations of former President Trump; and the violence of January 6 2021, when, for the first time since the early 1800s, the seat of government was attacked by an angry mob. Such threats have become so concerning that just a few months ago, a group of national security experts and law enforcement officials issued a report warning about the increased threat of political violence and urging public officials to create an election safety task force.

Polls show increasing discontent among the American people and historically low levels of trust in our basic political institutions. In 1964 77 percent of Americans said they trusted their government, 60 years later that number has plummeted to just 22 percent. Similarly, this year Gallup found that, on average, less than three out of 10 Americans have confidence in our nation’s major institutions, a historically low finding. Chronic dysfunction in our federal institutions is one root cause.

Discontent can lead to calls for reform

As troubling as these numbers are, there is a silver lining in that when channeled appropriately, crises and discontent of this magnitude tend to trigger calls for reform. And for all the consternation surrounding the upcoming election, a closer look at what is on ballots around the country shows that this is precisely what is occurring as a growing number of Americans this November will be asked to vote on initiatives and referendums which would reform how Americans elect those who represent them. As Americans become fed up with political dysfunction, they are looking to change the political incentives which are inherent in how citizens vote.

America’s states have a primary role in designing and administering elections. Though they share this role for elections for federal offices with Congress, it is very difficult to achieve the needed consensus in Congress to apply systemic reforms across the entire country at once. At the state level, citizens often have initiative powers to propose systemic reforms for state and federal elections. In this cycle we are seeing a significant and historic focus on reforms of electoral systems. The set of rules that govern an electoral process, the rules of the ‘game’, should be designed to ensure that our representatives are selected in a manner that is transparent and fair, and promotes a functioning governing system with incentives to cooperate in the best interests of the country.

“Bozman Center Celebration” (CC BY-SA 2.0) by Arlington County

Electoral reforms on state ballots this November

This year, with minimal fanfare almost 20 percent of states have ballot measures which concern aspects of the electoral system that are under stress and need reform (though three states have measures to reverse or block reforms). According to Ballotpedia, which tracks these measures, this year nine states and the District of Columbia have offered up eleven ballot measures concerning electoral systems (i.e., ‘the method by which elections are conducted or votes are tallied’).

This is an increase in state ballot initiatives on the conduct of election and vote counting during a presidential election year. By comparison, during the previous presidential election cycle six states including systemic electoral reform measures on their ballots.

Among the solutions voters will be asked to consider this year are non-partisan primary election reform, and redistricting, including:

• Alaska: Repeal Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative
• Arizona: Require Partisan Primaries and Prohibit Primaries Where Candidates Compete Regardless of Party Affiliation Amendment
• Arizona: Single Non-partisan Primary for All Candidates and Possible Ranked-Choice Voting General Election Initiative
• Colorado: Top-Four Non-partisan Primary and Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative
• Idaho: Top-Four Non-partisan Primary and Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative
• Missouri: Require Citizenship to Vote and Prohibit Ranked-Choice Voting Amendment
• Montana: Top-Four Non-partisan Primary Initiative
• Montana: Majority Vote Required to Win General Elections Initiative
• Nevada: Top-Five Non-partisan Primary and Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative
• Ohio: Establish an Independent Redistricting Commission
• Oregon: Ranked-Choice Voting for Federal and State Elections Measure
• South Dakota: Top-Two Non-partisan Primary Elections Initiative
• Washington DC: Ranked-Choice Voting (DC elections only)

We are witnessing what US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis described in 1932 as the states acting as laboratories of democracy.

Partisan primaries tend to empower the most extreme voters to decide who gets to be on a general election ballot. Districting processes where politicians choose their voters in an effort to maximize partisan outcomes tend to produce more electoral districts where there is little competition in the general election, making the primary election the decisive stage (this is true for the vast majority of congressional districts). Winner-take-all plurality elections allow candidates to win while appealing to a narrow base of voters. As a result, eight percent of voters elect 83 percent of the House of Representatives for example. Those eight percent tend to be the most ideologically extreme, creating an incentive for politicians to pander to highly partisan base voters, using divisive vitriolic language that poisons the public discourse, and making nearly impossible the kinds of sensible cooperation necessary to govern in ways that solve problems in the best interests of the country

Swapping out partisan primaries for nonpartisan unified primaries, using runoff systems (like Ranked-Choice Voting) that require a winning general election candidate to earn the vote of the majority of voters, and using nonpartisan independent commissions to draw electoral boundaries are reforms that have been implemented in some states and have shown progress in creating a more cooperative and functional governing system.

The need for ongoing democratic reform and renewal in the US

The tremendous momentum in state consideration of election system reforms this year follows a history of reform and renewal that is part of the American experience. The states should be applauded for taking these steps because the health of US democracy depends on the ability to adapt to changing times and circumstances. Failure to adapt is dangerous, as it increases the odds that at some point individuals become so fed up with political dysfunction, they turn to violence for resolution.

Not long after November’s election, the US will celebrate its 250th anniversary. It will be a time for reflection, not just on our past but our current health and future. In addition to celebrating, we should also use this time to promote an ever more robust discussion of ways in which our electoral process can be reformed to help ensure that the nation sustains another 250 years. 

• Please read our comments policy before commenting. 
• Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics. 
• Shortened URL for this post: https://wp.me/p3I2YF-eo0