In Monopoly Politics 2016 FairVote explores the extent, causes and remedies to the lack of competition and partisan fairness in U.S. House elections and the increasing polarization of members elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.
Haley Smith explores different aspects of political engagement, showing that, in RCV cities, candidates are more likely to reach out to voters in-person and voters are more likely to discuss politics with their families, friends and co-workers than in cities that do not use RCV.
Cambridge, MA, has used multi-winner RCV to elect its city council for decades. In this report, polarization among Cambridge city council candidates and councilors is explored, showing low levels of polarization.
Washington state has long suffered from noncompetitive congressional elections. It has experienced one of the longest incumbent winning streaks in the nation: no U.S. House incumbent has lost in Washington since 1998.
The State of Women's Representation 2015-2016 finds that women are underrepresented at the national, state, and local level, and that parity for men and women in elected office is unlikely to occur without structural changes in recruitment, electoral, and legislative rules.
A recent study on the impact of RCV in San Francisco presents some surprising findings on differences in turnout between racial groups that contradict previous research on the subject. In this report, we take a closer look at the study and find serious methodological flaws that cast doubt on its findings.
Comparative Structural Reform presents an extensive assessment of the potential impact of 37 structural reforms to election laws and legislative structures in collaboration with 14 prominent political scholars. Scholars participating in the project are authorities on electoral reform and legislative functionality, with extensive collective expertise and mastery of both quantitative and qualitative approaches to the study of American legislatures, elections and electoral rules. Each of the participating scholars was asked to assess each reform’s impact on 16 different criteria fitting within four topline categories: legislative functionality, electoral accountability, voter engagement, and openness of process. Scholars were compensated for their participation. All scholars responded to all eleven surveys and provided a wealth of insightful comments, new sources, and useful information in addition to their well-considered ratings of each reform.