Understanding the partisan split on nonpartisan electoral upgrades. ...
In an era where everything from electric vehicles to candy mascots seem to divide Americans largely along partisan lines, there's one thing voters across the country agree upon: the political system isn't working well. Unfortunately, if 2024 election reform measures in Cascadia are any indication, there isn't a similar consensus on how to fix government dysfunction - at least not yet.
Partisanship played an undeniable role in defeating Idaho, Montana, and Oregon reform proposals (as well as a near miss in Alaska) last year. Democrats and Republicans seemed to approach election reform in different ways: Democratic regions showed higher support for reform than Republican areas, but Democratic leadership was officially neutral across blue and red states. Republicans, on the other hand, were more likely to oppose electoral revamps across the board.
While 2024 was not a permanent setback for the movement, reformers will likely need greater support across both major parties to win-over the public at large. Sharing stories of election reform's real-life benefits and expanding its use at the local government level can bring in more voters and usher new reform champions into positions of power.
Election reform divided voters along partisan lines more than other issues
In 2024, election reform opponents in Alaska put Ballot Measure 2 before voters in an attempt to repeal the state's model system of unified primaries and ranked-choice general elections. Alaska's cast vote record, which allows the public to view data on how voters filled out their ballots without exposing personal information, reveals that 83 percent of Harris supporters voted to keep open primaries and ranked choice voting, while only 19 percent of Trump voters did the same - a difference of 64 percentage points. (Unlike reform measures in other states, a "no" vote was the pro-reform stance; opponents voted "yes" to repeal.)
In other words, for the most part, Ballot Measure 2 split voters along partisan lines. The measure was slightly less polarized than explicit partisan contests such as the statewide US House seat. However, significantly more Trump voters supported Ballot Measure 1 (to increase the minimum wage).
Other non-election ballot measures across Cascadia showed a similar pattern. Traditionally liberal issues outperformed electoral reform measures even in conservative-leaning states, and it wasn't only because they ran up the score in the more liberal areas. Non-election measures such as Montana's CI-128 (to enshrine in the state constitution the right to abortion) beat election reform by five or ten points in counties and districts across the entire political spectrum.
The subject matter could have exacerbated the uniform dip in support. Election reform is unfamiliar to many voters, who are often wary of casting their vote for a concept they don't fully understand. Anti-reform messaging breathed oxygen on the flames of uncertainty. Across ideological lines, opponents advanced the notion that electoral reform (particularly ranked choice voting) would be confusing, costly, slow, and/or unnecessary.
Across states, Democratic support differed, and Republican areas aligned
Oregon and Idaho provide further clues on how partisanship splits support. In Oregon, counties with high proportions of Democrats (measured by Harris vote share) showed somewhat less support for reform than similarly Democratic counties in Idaho. In other words, Oregon Democrats were likely less reform-inclined than their counterparts across the state line.
Take Blaine County Idaho, and Washington County Oregon, for example. Both voted about 32 percent for Trump in the presidential race, but 60 percent of Idaho's most Democratic county supported election reform while only 49 percent of the suburban Portland Oregon county did the same. A similar phenomenon appears in Teton County Idaho, compared with Clackamas County Oregon...
