Nov 26 2024 6 mins 1
Primaries featuring more choice for voters and candidates almost became the law in Big Sky Country.
Nearly half of Montana voters elected to open Montana's primary elections to all candidates and all voters. They almost made Montana the second state, after Alaska, to adopt this reform that gives voters more freedom to choose. Surprisingly, many of the same voters split their ballots on a companion election reform proposals for majority winners. Thus, Montanans pushed one proposal tantalizingly close to victory while rejecting the other by a wide margin.
The first proposal, Constitutional Initiative 126, would have implemented unified primary elections - that is, open to all voters and candidates, regardless of party - with the top four vote-getters advancing to the general election. Almost 49 percent of Montanans voted in favor of this primary system, a dramatically larger share than in neighboring Idaho and more than in Colorado or Nevada, other states that considered proposals for unified primaries.
The second, Constitutional Initiative 127, would have required Montana elections to honor a core tenet of democracy - the principle of majority rule: winners of state general elections would have to secure the support of a majority of voters for statewide and congressional offices. The legislature would determine the method of securing a majority vote. Some 40 percent of voters supported the majority-winner measure.
Open primaries and majority-winner elections deliver a bevy of benefits
The initiatives' election methods together, proposed and supported by a single campaign, probably would have led to a system akin to Alaska's, with open, all-candidate and -voter primaries and instant runoff elections. Alaska's system has effected the following changes:
Political parties used to make the rules for primary elections. Now, laws approved by voters govern the primaries.
Candidates popular with general election voters no longer face the prospect of "getting primaried" - that is, losing in the primary to candidates who appeal to the smaller, often less representative pool of primary voters.
Lawmakers have more freedom to work with colleagues of different political backgrounds on practical policy solutions without fear of electoral backlash.
Independent candidates can now run for office under the same rules as candidates who belong to a political party rather than having to fulfill extra requirements to get on the ballot.
Voters in the general election no longer must worry about "wasting" their vote on a "spoiler candidate." That is, they don't have to vote for a candidate they're not excited about just to keep their least-favorite candidate from winning.
Ranked choice general elections ensure winners have the support of a majority of voters, not just more voters than any other candidate.
In Montana, proponents hoped the measures would rise or fall together, but 9 percent of ballots (almost 54,000 voters) supported open primaries while opposing the majority-winner rule.
Status quo system limits voter choice and sometimes delivers winners without majority support
Under the status quo, Montanans must pick one party's primary ballot and advance one candidate for each race, a system that narrows general election voters' choices and doesn't allow for cross-partisan voting. And in general elections, candidates can win with a plurality, rather than a majority, of voter support. (A plurality means more than other candidates, but less than 50 percent of the vote.)
How has this problem played out in Montana? From 2012 to 2022, in one gubernatorial election, one US Senate election, and two elections for US House, a majority of Montanans voted for losing candidates, meaning someone in each instance won election to a powerful office with less than majority support. Despite these recent high-profile plurality-winner elections, voters rejected CI-127, meaning that future elections are still at risk of unrepresentative results.
Had Montana adopted op...
Nearly half of Montana voters elected to open Montana's primary elections to all candidates and all voters. They almost made Montana the second state, after Alaska, to adopt this reform that gives voters more freedom to choose. Surprisingly, many of the same voters split their ballots on a companion election reform proposals for majority winners. Thus, Montanans pushed one proposal tantalizingly close to victory while rejecting the other by a wide margin.
The first proposal, Constitutional Initiative 126, would have implemented unified primary elections - that is, open to all voters and candidates, regardless of party - with the top four vote-getters advancing to the general election. Almost 49 percent of Montanans voted in favor of this primary system, a dramatically larger share than in neighboring Idaho and more than in Colorado or Nevada, other states that considered proposals for unified primaries.
The second, Constitutional Initiative 127, would have required Montana elections to honor a core tenet of democracy - the principle of majority rule: winners of state general elections would have to secure the support of a majority of voters for statewide and congressional offices. The legislature would determine the method of securing a majority vote. Some 40 percent of voters supported the majority-winner measure.
Open primaries and majority-winner elections deliver a bevy of benefits
The initiatives' election methods together, proposed and supported by a single campaign, probably would have led to a system akin to Alaska's, with open, all-candidate and -voter primaries and instant runoff elections. Alaska's system has effected the following changes:
Political parties used to make the rules for primary elections. Now, laws approved by voters govern the primaries.
Candidates popular with general election voters no longer face the prospect of "getting primaried" - that is, losing in the primary to candidates who appeal to the smaller, often less representative pool of primary voters.
Lawmakers have more freedom to work with colleagues of different political backgrounds on practical policy solutions without fear of electoral backlash.
Independent candidates can now run for office under the same rules as candidates who belong to a political party rather than having to fulfill extra requirements to get on the ballot.
Voters in the general election no longer must worry about "wasting" their vote on a "spoiler candidate." That is, they don't have to vote for a candidate they're not excited about just to keep their least-favorite candidate from winning.
Ranked choice general elections ensure winners have the support of a majority of voters, not just more voters than any other candidate.
In Montana, proponents hoped the measures would rise or fall together, but 9 percent of ballots (almost 54,000 voters) supported open primaries while opposing the majority-winner rule.
Status quo system limits voter choice and sometimes delivers winners without majority support
Under the status quo, Montanans must pick one party's primary ballot and advance one candidate for each race, a system that narrows general election voters' choices and doesn't allow for cross-partisan voting. And in general elections, candidates can win with a plurality, rather than a majority, of voter support. (A plurality means more than other candidates, but less than 50 percent of the vote.)
How has this problem played out in Montana? From 2012 to 2022, in one gubernatorial election, one US Senate election, and two elections for US House, a majority of Montanans voted for losing candidates, meaning someone in each instance won election to a powerful office with less than majority support. Despite these recent high-profile plurality-winner elections, voters rejected CI-127, meaning that future elections are still at risk of unrepresentative results.
Had Montana adopted op...
