Since adopting ranked choice voting & other reforms in 2020, Alaska has seen several positive changes:
š³ļøElections are more competitive
š¤Lawmakers are working together
š¢Voters understand & use RCV when it counts
Learn more from @sightline.org ā¬ļø
Ranked choice voting rewards elected officials who work across the aisle to get things done for all voters.
At @representwomen.bsky.social's #DemocracySolutionsSummit, Juli Lucky of Alaskans for Better Elections shared how the reform pushed Alaska lawmakers to overcome gridlock and fund education.
Quick "what we know" recap on unified primaries + RCV in Alaska! Expect to publish a few more articles on the subject in the coming months.
The point, though, isnāt to win in court. Trump is engaging in election denialism theater. It makes voters of all sides mistrust the election process and the virtues of democracy. It convinces his supporters that Democrats have to cheat to win, something that will come in handy should Democrats take back control of the House in November with the intent of beginning investigations and potentially impeachment. It lets Trump, the most powerful person on earth, paint himself as a victim of fraud and of ābad, badā judges. It also puts into question the rules of an election that is just months away, giving voters reason to fear that the postal service could sabotage their ballots. (The recent Supreme Court ruling saying that postal service employees cannot be held liable for intentionally failing to deliver mail surely doesnāt help that perception.) Trumpās executive order, seems aimed to sow chaos in elections and depress turnout. We will look back at Donald Trumpās presidency as years where the concept of election integrity got turned on its head. In the name of protecting democracy, Trump is breaking democracy. The damage could last a generation, even if the shelf life of his new executive order might be measured in days.
My new one @slate.com on Trump's new mail balloting executive order: Sometimes it's the chaos, not the cruelty, that's the point.
slate.com/news-and-pol...
chart showing US scores in perspective
The United States Freedom House ratings over time, compared to other countries.
I live in IL-09, was inundated with mailers (none of which were from Abughazaleh), posters, texts, + news about the contest, and I wasn't even aware of the mutual aid effort until I read about it in on NPR three days ago. But we'd be better off if more campaigns used their infrastructure to do good!
A few years ago, though, then-Sightliner Kristin Eberhard wrote a great series on how PR could work for the WA state legislature. I recommend checking it out! www.sightline.org/2018/06/19/h...
Nothing I know of active at the state level in WA, though the VOICES Act (active the last few years, but not yet passed) would give municipalities express permission to adopt the single transferable vote method. In CO, advocates have filed three PR proposals for legal vetting (#1 linked here).
I'm aware of a couple of active state-level proposals to use PR to elect state legislators, but as far as electing US representatives, federal law requires single-member districts for the US House. So a change would have to come from Washington, D.C.
Thanks for asking, Richard. On the federal side, there's the Fair Representation Act, which could start winning more hearts and minds in D.C. in light of the costly and grossly unfair redistricting wars. @fairvote.bsky.social sums up the proposal here:
Portland, Oregon uses both types of ranked voting. The city's official explainer website sums up the difference best. Here's a link! (2/2)
I was hoping someone would ask! Proportional ranked choice voting is just one way to proportional representation. It differs from single-winner ranked choice because multiple candidates run for a set of seats all at once, rather than just one office (like mayor or a single council seat). (1/2)
Not necessarily. The WVRA also allows local govs. a path to remedy issues voluntarily or in response to a challenge. But there has to be a provable representation issue to begin with. There are other workarounds to make elections fairer, though! Ex.: Seattle will use RCV top-two primaries in 2027.
That being said, proportional representation isn't off the table! It's a possible outcome for WA Voting Rights Act challenges. And the Washington VOICES Act, which my colleague Shannon Grimes covered, would allow PR at the local level. It didn't pass this year, but could be reintroduced later. (3/3)
In other words, each seat, whether in the state house or on a city council, gets its own winner-take-all election. And Washington's top-two primary makes proportionality difficult; ultimately, voters have to choose between two candidates. (2/3)
Not yet! Proportional representation requires, at some level, multi-winner elections. But in Washington, even when multiple candidates run in the same district (like for the WA House), they're running for separate positions (District 1-Position 1 and District 1-Position 2). (1/3)
Despite strong elite opposition, voters supported the fairer, proportional system over the unfair first-part-the-post model they'd been stuck with for decades.
That's the bsky-friendly summary, but there's a great 2017 Sightline article covering the whole story! (4/4)
Now, the major parties weren't obligated to support this, and didn't really want to. But to win support of voters in 1990, both major parties included electoral reform in their campaign platforms. Three years later, the NZ Parliament (reluctantly) held a binding referendum on electoral reform. (3/4)
The commission unanimously recommended a mixed-member proportional system (see link), a hybrid of single-member districts (just like NZers were used to) and a "party list" system in which parties win seats proportionate to their vote share. (2/4)
It's a great story! New Zealanders were fed up with unrepresentative results in their winner-takes-all district-based legislative system. They were largely stuck with two parties. After several frustratingly unrepresentative cycles, legislators formed a commission to study alternatives. (1/4)
The great news is, there are plenty of people who would love to help you get started. I recommend reaching out to a researcher at Sightline (of course) or other great reform orgs like @fairvote.bsky.social! We can provide you with resources and help you figure out what's possible in your area. (4/4)
In other jurisdictions, the answer might be more complicated. But whether it's through ballot initiative, the legislature, local ordinance, or even a constitutional amendment, there's always a path to proportional. Some are just more challenging than others. (3/4)
Oregon, for example, has a constitutional provision that lets most local governments adopt proportional representation whenever they want. Pretty cool! (2/4) www.sightline.org/2025/09/23/f...
Great Q! The main thing to know is that it all boils down to where you live and what's possible under state or provincial law.
For Cascadians, Sightline has a series of articles called "Proportional possibilities near you." (1/4)
Itās not an #AMA, itās an #AAA: Ask Al Anything!
Our new-to-bsky researcher @alvanderklipp.bsky.social is on deck until 3PT today to answer any Qs you might have on proportional representation.
No such thing as a dumb question. DM and weāll pass it along anonymously.
Tl;dr: Under any proportional system, there's a broader array of ideas, people, and/or parties represented!
If you'd like to dive in deeper, Sightline's intro to PR page is a great place to start. www.sightline.org/proportional (4/4)
In other words, if a party or group makes up 10 percent of the population, they'll likely win about 10 percent of seats. Legislators and parties can overlap in terms of the policies they support, meaning broadly popular ideas can translate to broadly popular laws. (3/4)
Others, including Portland-style proportional ranked choice voting, are more candidate-centric, but can work in partisan or nonpartisan contests.
Either way, the results are similar. Voters can pick candidates or parties they feel really represent them and their interests; no spoilers here! (2/4)
Short answer: All of the above!
Long answer: There are many paths to proportional representation, and each delivers slightly different outcomes. Some proportional election methods are designed around parties. Large or small parties can win legislative seats in proportion to their vote share. (1/4)
