On Nov. 2, democracy reform was on the ballot in New York — three ballot measures, to be precise. Voters across the state had the chance to change how political districts are drawn, to further same-day voter registration, and to dump a vote-by-mail restriction.
All three failed.
This shouldn’t be a surprise considering that the supporters spent barely $300,000 to promote yes votes, and the opponents spent at least $3 million to defeat them.
But all that money tells a bigger story — one that stretches far beyond a few ballot measures. New York’s politicians and parties, just like those across the country, don’t necessarily determine the importance of a ballot proposal — or a policy — based on what they believe will benefit their constituents. Instead, their engagement is most often determined by answering one simple question: How will it impact my party’s power and results in the next election?
In New York’s recent ballot measures, the answer was obvious. For the supporters — in the Democratic Party, which already has a stronghold across most of the state — passing them was a “nice to have,” which meant they didn’t really feel the need to put their money where their proverbial mouth was. For the opposition, the Republican Party, the reforms seemed likely to deepen their electoral troubles, which made defeating them a “need to have.”
Regardless of one’s view on the merit of these proposals, this behavior is a great example of the perverted incentive structure that dominates American politics. Here’s the problem: Our political players prioritize power over problem-solving. Sure, they’d like to solve problems, but that comes second, because solving problems isn’t necessarily the best way to keep power.
I propose an answer: Final-Five Voting (FFV).
My proposal was not found on the New York ballot this year, but it is steadily gaining traction in states across America. FFV is the combination of top five primaries and instant runoff voting general elections. Separate party primaries are replaced by a single primary in which all voters participate and all candidates for office appear on the same ballot. The top five finishers from the primary advance to the general election, where the winner is determined via IRV (also known as ranked-choice voting).
FFV works to shift the incentives of elected officials by making them accountable to their full constituency instead of just to the 10% of voters who turn out in their parties’ primaries. Currently, approximately 86% of all House elections are decided in party primaries. As a result, most senators and representatives can’t afford to work on behalf of the approximately 60% of voters who participate in November elections if what they want is different than what “the base” wants. It’s no wonder that Congress’ approval rating hovers around 20%.
We’ve already seen evidence that a Final-Five Voting system could empower our elected officials to break free of what I call “the tyranny of the party primary.” In 2020, an FFV-style measure passed in Alaska and soon after, a coalition of Republicans, Democrats and independents joined together to pass a state budget and avoid a government shutdown — legislative behavior that was newly incentivized under the new election rules. Those in the coalition knew that they wouldn’t automatically lose their party primaries by voting yes on a consensus deal that a majority of general election voters were likely to support. And in 2022, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s reelection fate will be decided on Nov. 8, when the most voters turn out, rather than on August 16 (the primary), when few voters do.
As long as elected officials are beholden to the whims of the primary voter, we will encounter time and again a lack of incentive to do the hard work of legislative deal-making on issues around healthcare, education, the national debt or any of the myriad of other challenges we face as a nation.
If New Yorkers want to see policies and reforms they like, they need to get the political incentives of the system in line. Otherwise, we will continue to see the fate of ballot measures and policies decided by the parties’ power struggles rather than the needs and wants of the majority of voters.
Gehl is founder of the Institute for Political Innovation and author of “The Politics Industry: How Political Innovation Can Break Partisan Gridlock and Save Our Democracy.”
