Summary
We support:
- Policies that maximize voter participation while maintaining the integrity and security of elections
- Open, non-partisan primaries
- Ranked-choice voting (instant runoff elections)
- Voter ID requirements, combined with efforts to make government-issued IDs free and widely accessible
- Early voting and on-request, no-excuse absentee mail-in voting, with appropriate safeguards
- The use of independent, non-partisan commissions for redistricting
We oppose:
- Efforts by state legislatures to overturn or invalidate certified election results
- Requirements for documentary proof of citizenship that create unnecessary barriers to participation
We believe:
- A well-functioning electoral system should be accessible, secure, and broadly trusted by the public
- Structural reforms can better align political outcomes with the preferences of the broader electorate
If you have already made up your mind, then scroll to the bottom of the page and take the poll to let us know how you feel. If you need to hear more, please read the background section below.
Curious how your views compare? Early input has a meaningful impact—vote below (scroll down) to see the current results.
Your input helps us refine these policy positions.
Background
Representation and the Political Center
Approximately 40% of voters identify as independents. We believe that many of these voters, along with moderates in both major parties, are underrepresented in current political outcomes.
We support reforms that give this large segment of the electorate a more proportional and effective voice in government.
Open Primaries
Many states restrict primary elections to registered party members, limiting participation by independent voters.
We support open or non-partisan primaries that allow all voters to participate regardless of party affiliation. These systems can produce candidates who better reflect the preferences of the broader electorate.
Until such reforms are widely adopted, independent voters may need to participate strategically within existing systems.
Ranked-Choice Voting
We support the use of ranked-choice voting (also known as instant runoff elections).
Under this system, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and ballots are redistributed based on second choices. This process continues until a majority winner is determined.
Ranked-choice voting allows voters to express their true preferences without concern that their vote will be “wasted” or inadvertently help elect their least preferred candidate.
Ranked-choice voting improves on traditional plurality systems by allowing voters to express a fuller range of preferences and reducing the risk of “spoiler” outcomes. However, like all voting systems, it is not without limitations. In certain theoretical cases, outcomes may be sensitive to vote transfers, and broadly acceptable candidates may not always prevail. While these issues appear to be rare in practice, they highlight the importance of continued evaluation and thoughtful implementation.
Final Five Voting
We support exploring systems such as Final Five Voting, while recognizing that increased complexity and limited real-world experience warrant careful evaluation before broader adoption.
In this approach:
- All candidates compete in a single primary open to all voters
- The top five candidates advance to a general election
- The general election is conducted using ranked-choice voting
This model can increase competition, reduce polarization, and give voters more meaningful choices.
Third-Party Candidates and Political Strategy
While we support reforms that make it easier for third-party candidates to compete, we recognize that the two-party system remains deeply entrenched.
In the current environment, third-party candidates can sometimes have the unintended effect of drawing support away from ideologically similar major-party candidates. For this reason, we generally favor influencing the positions of major-party candidates and strengthening centrist representation within the existing system.
Voter ID, Early Voting, and Mail-In Voting
We support reasonable voter ID requirements, including the use of government-issued photo identification.
To ensure fairness and access:
- IDs should be free and easy to obtain
- Governments should actively assist eligible voters in obtaining identification
- Expired but recognizable IDs should be accepted where appropriate
We also support:
- Widespread early voting
- On-request, no-excuse absentee mail-in voting
Mail-in voting can expand participation but also raises concerns about ballot security and the integrity of the secret ballot. These risks can be mitigated through:
- Secure request processes
- Verification measures, including ID requirements
- Clear procedures for ballot handling and counting
Requiring ID for absentee ballots can help build confidence in expanded access to mail-in voting.
Proof of Citizenship Requirements
We oppose requiring documentary proof of citizenship as a condition for voting.
While ensuring that only eligible citizens vote is a legitimate objective, documentary proof requirements would impose significant administrative burdens on both voters and election systems. Many eligible voters do not have ready access to the necessary documents, and obtaining them can be time-consuming and costly.
These requirements would likely reduce participation among eligible voters while providing limited additional protection against fraud, which is already rare and addressed through existing safeguards.
We believe that voter eligibility should be verified through practical and efficient means that do not create unnecessary barriers to participation.
The Role of State Legislatures
We oppose efforts by state legislatures to overturn or invalidate election results after votes have been cast.
While legislatures have authority to establish election procedures, challenges to those procedures should occur before elections take place. Changing rules or invalidating outcomes after the fact undermines public confidence and the principle that voters act in good faith under established rules.
The Federal Role in Elections
The Constitution assigns primary responsibility for administering elections to the states, with a limited role for the federal government.
We believe that this division of authority remains important to the functioning of the federal system. At the same time, history demonstrates that federal intervention has, at times, been necessary to protect fundamental voting rights—particularly in response to racial discrimination.
This creates an inherent tension.
On the one hand, broad federal control over election administration raises constitutional concerns and risks undermining the benefits of decentralized governance. On the other hand, the federal government has a legitimate role in ensuring that states do not deny citizens their fundamental right to vote.
We believe the appropriate balance is for the federal government to enforce clear constitutional protections—particularly those related to discrimination—while avoiding unnecessary intrusion into the routine administration of elections. Federal action should be targeted, clearly justified, and grounded in constitutional protections rather than used to broadly standardize election systems.
Redistricting and Gerrymandering
We support the use of independent, non-partisan commissions to draw congressional districts.
The goal should be political neutrality—not the creation of safe districts for any party or group.
Safe districts tend to:
- Reduce competition
- Empower political extremes
- Limit accountability
Efforts to concentrate specific voting groups into particular districts may also reduce their broader influence on policy outcomes.
A fair redistricting process should promote competitive elections and broader representation.
Size of the House of Representatives
We are open to proposals to modestly increase the size of the House of Representatives. A larger House would reduce the number of constituents per district, potentially improving representation and strengthening the connection between voters and their elected officials. It may also modestly reduce the effectiveness of gerrymandering by making districts smaller and more difficult to engineer precisely. In addition, increasing the House would slightly reduce the small-state bias in the Electoral College by increasing the relative importance of population-based representation.
At the same time, expanding the House would not address many of the underlying structural challenges in the current system. It would not eliminate partisan primaries, prevent geographic political sorting, or resolve the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes that is the primary driver of mismatches between the popular vote and Electoral College outcomes. A larger House could improve representation at the margin, but it should be viewed as a complementary reform rather than a substitute for broader efforts to improve electoral competition, reduce polarization, and strengthen democratic institutions.
Conclusion
We support a voting system that is accessible, secure, and reflective of the full range of voter preferences.
Improving participation, reducing polarization, and strengthening trust in elections are complementary goals. Thoughtful structural reforms can help achieve all three.
Go to the Table of Contents or to the Home Page
Ready to weigh in? At this stage, each vote has a meaningful impact—see the current results after voting.
Your input helps us refine these policy positions.