Category: Uncategorized

(From a speech given at the Phoenix No Kings Rally, on Flag Day, June 14, 2025)

The Star and Stripes is a symbol for all Americans to unite behind. It does not belong to any party or group. It represents us all. The Star and Stripes is a symbol for all Americans to unite behind. It does not belong to any party or group. It represents us all. Unity, not Division.

I recently heard Sen. Raphael Warnock speak at the American Democracy Summit. In his speech opening the Summit, he said these words, for which he is somewhat famous: 

“Those without vision, traffic in division.” 

Right now, we live in a country where our political leadership certainly lacks vision and seems to revel in sowing division.

The world tells us that we are divided. But I am here today to tell you that Arizonans are not as divided as we some would have us believe.

A poll taken by the Center for the Future of Arizona in 2022 of Arizonans of all political affiliations and backgrounds found that Arizonans had large areas of agreement on a number of issues. 

Public Education

• 97% of respondents wanted to ensure that Arizona schools have high quality teachers and principals.

Water Conservation

• 95% we need to secure Arizona’s water future with policies that address our long-term drought.

Immigration 

• 87% said we need to create a functioning border for commerce and immigration.

The Economy

• 95% want the state government to work to support Arizona’s long term-economic growth.

The survey responses are from Arizonans from all parties and backgrounds.

With all of these basic areas of agreement, the logical question becomes, why are things not better? Why isn’t our government more effective? Why aren’t politics less toxic?

It is easy to point fingers at different individuals and parties, but if we take a step back and look at things, most of us can agree we have been on this road for a while.

Most of us have watched as our politics have become more toxic and our government less effective with every passing election cycle. This same system will continue to divide us if we only try to treat the symptoms. 

The deeper problem we face is a problem that is caused by our current election system. Our current system limits choices, and rewards candidates who purposely engage in divisive behavior. The way legislative districts are drawn, most elections in this country are decided in low turnout primary elections where participation is limited by party affiliation.

• In this past election, roughly 83% of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives were effectively decided by approximately 7% of voters.

I am guessing that this does not sound like representation to you. However, it certainly explains this next statistic: 

•  In November of 2024, The United States Congress had an approval rate of 19%, and yet 97% of incumbents were re-elected.

Our current system virtually guarantees that our representatives will be re-elected if they keep their base happy. As that base tends to be made up of the most extreme members of the party, elected officials will continue to cater to those extreme elements in order to keep their job.

This is the reason for our Division. Now let me share with you a Vision for the future. 

Voter Choice Arizona advocates a system known as Final Five Voting. This system would use a fully open primary to advance five diverse candidates to the general election. Voters would have the opportunity to rank those candidates.

So, what would this do:

• Voters would have actual choices and be able to focus more on voting FOR a candidate, and LESS about holding their nose, and trying to vote for the candidate who will do the least amount of damage.

• With more choice, our Legislative bodies would become more representative:
  • In the top 100 U.S. cities that do not use ranked choice voting, women hold 33% of city council seats. In the 42 cities that have adopted ranked choice voting, women hold 51% of city council seats.
• When cities in the San Francisco Bay area adopted ranked choice voting in 2004, 39% of offices were held by people of color. Today in those cities, 65% of offices are held by people of color.

• Elections would become more civil, because candidates would need to campaign beyond their base in order to achieve a majority. In simple terms, candidates who behave in an obnoxious manner hurt their chances at being elected, so they tend to behave.

• Our government would become more effective. Because candidates need the support of the majority of their whole constituency to win, once elected, they would be incentivized to work for the benefit of everyone, focusing more on problem solving, and less on playing to a partisan base.

This is the VISION. An election system that gives voters more choice and more voice; creates a more civil discourse, and a more representative government that focuses on solving problems and making our society better for everyone.

We need your help to make this happen. It can happen, nearly 14 million Americans have already voted in a Ranked Choice Voting election. Voter Choice Arizona has a plan to make this vision a reality in Arizona. But we need you to act today! We need volunteers to help spread our message, and with grants drying up, we desperately need your donation.

If you would like to learn more about Voter Choice Arizona, sign up and we will send you information. But please consider helping us out with a donation. With your help, we can soon be well on the way to a better and brighter future for everyone.

Published in the Arizona Capitol Times- May 5th, 2025

This May 1st was punctuated by protests around the country. Whether you agree with the protestors or not, we should all agree that these protests are evidence that the system is not providing a government that represents the will of the majority of the people.

We all know in our hearts, that this problem is more than just one man. If Mr. Trump were to disappear tomorrow, it would not solve our political problems. The divisiveness and the lack of accountability of government to the people would still be there. Beyond the Executive branch, we know there is something wrong with the system when so many of our elected representatives in Congress refuse to meet with their constituents. How can we be living in a representative democracy when the representatives hide from those they are supposed to represent?” 

This situation will continue, and worsen, until we stop treating the symptoms, and start treating the underlying problem.

The problem we face is caused by our election system. As of 2022, here in Arizona, 83% of Arizona legislative districts lean so heavily towards one party that the only election of consequence is a low turnout partisan primary election. Here in Arizona, only about 40% of registered Republican voters vote in the primary, and those individuals tend to be the most extreme of the party. It is that group that decides who will be elected. The situation is similar on the Democratic side. The problem is even worse at the federal level. According to Unite America, in this past election, roughly 83% of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives were decided by approximately 7% of voters. 

This is why so many of our representatives are willing to hide from their constituents. Our current election system virtually guarantees that they will be re-elected if they keep their base happy. It is important to realize that that base is often less than 15% of the people they are supposed to represent. They hide because they can, and they refuse to stand up for the majority of their constituency because doing so increase the likelihood of them being “primaried” in the next election.

Our current system disincentivizes the tools of better governance, including bipartisan discussion, compromise, and consensus building, and instead incentivizes partisanship, primary threats, hostility and negative campaigning.

The good news is that by changing election laws, we can change the incentives that govern our elected officials and make them accountable to everyone they represent. 

Voter Choice Arizona advocates a system known as Final Five Voting. This system would advance five diverse candidates to the general election. Voters would have the opportunity to rank those candidates. With real options, voters could choose a candidate they really want but then be able to select a backup choice. Voters would no longer be faced with the choice of just picking the lesser of two evils or be afraid that voting their conscience might inadvertently help the candidate they like the least. Voters would have actual choices and be able to focus more on voting FOR a candidate, and LESS about voting against their political enemies.

Reforms like this would change the incentives of the people who govern. Because they would be accountable to all of us, our elected officials would be incentivized to work together to solve actual problems, rather than sling mud at each other. Uniting people, rather than dividing them.

Voter Choice Arizona has been working relentlessly to bring about the change that we all deserve. We have a plan, and we continue to build across the state to give voters more voice, more choice, and more accountability in AZ elections. We need your help to reach the critical mass needed to put the power back into the hands of the people. To learn more about our efforts, please visit vcaz.org today.

Mark Cable

Volunteer

Voter Choice Arizona

Orignially published in the Arizona Capitol Times- Feb. 19, 2025

Listening to a recent forum on the future of Arizona elections, I was surprised at the comments from two of the panelists. There seems to be quite a bit of revisionist history and wishful thinking related to the loss of Proposition 140. Prop. 140 lost because 59% of Arizona voters did not approve, only slightly better than the 66% who opposed the effort in 2012. 

 Supporters of Make Elections Fair want to try again to pass an initiative to create a California-style Top Two system. They argue that Prop. 140 failed because “there were too many legal challenges” or “it was too complicated.”  The fact is that voters saw Prop. 140 for exactly what it was – a partial fix that did not go far enough.

 Open primaries are necessary for the effective functioning of a representative democracy. More citizens must be part of the process of choosing our future leaders. However, open primaries alone are not enough. California has only open primaries and is not electing better leaders than Arizona. 

A Top Two system like California unfairly limits voters’ choices and would continue to elect candidates who do not have the support of most voters. More than 80% of Arizona’s legislative districts are drawn in favor of one of the two major parties to such a degree that the general election would be between two candidates of the same party – some choice! Many individuals and groups supportive of reform opposed Prop. 140 because of this critical flaw.

Real reform must deliver hope for justice and unity. It should increase the number of choices voters have, increase competition, and ensure that the candidate elected represents the will of the majority of the electorate. Advancing four or five candidates instead of two will give every citizen a real choice in the November elections. Using an instant run-off will deliver fast and secure results while ensuring all Arizonans have their voices heard. The system is working in Alaska where legislators must now represent all, or at least a majority, of their constituents. “It has very much changed how governing is occurring,” says Cathy Giessel, the Senate majority leader of the Alaska State Senate and a Republican.

Arizonans deserve a truly representative election system and a government that focuses more on solving problems than on mudslinging, gridlock, and continual pandering to a partisan base. If we are going to save democracy, we must be bold and strive for reform that will truly be effective for Arizona. Arizona voters are ready for reform and demonstrated it by overwhelmingly rejecting Prop. 133 in November, which would have enshrined the current partisan primary system in our Constitution. Arizona Voters recognize that a Top Two system is inadequate and have rejected it twice. The time has come to recognize that a Top Two system is not only inferior but unpassable. A Final Five system is the future for Arizona.

Bipartisan effort incentivizes problem-solving in elections.

Voter Choice Arizona and Better Ballot Arizona congratulate the Governor’s Bipartisan Election Task Force, which voted on October 26th to approve numerous voting and election change proposals to recommend to the legislature. It is amazing what can happen when the incentive is problem-solving.  That’s why Arizona needs a top 5 general election ballot that allows voters to use ranked choice voting and shifts the incentive away from elected officials merely scoring political points for getting reelected. 

As reported in the Arizona Mirror:

The task force is made up of election officials and advocates and is led by former Maricopa County Recorder, Helen Purcell. 

The goal of the committee was to make proposals to improve elections in Arizona, and that would garner bipartisan support in the legislature. Seventy-five percent of the group had to agree on each proposal for it to move forward. Some of the proposals would be implemented in the form of policies and procedures, and others would have to be submitted to the legislature for proposed changes to state law.  The proposals are on the following topics:

• Voting Rights Restoration
• Election Timeline Amendments to Ensure Timely Recounts
• Funding for the state’s Access Voter Information Database
• Disability Resource Liaison
• Emergency Voting to Final Weekend Voting
• Ballot Return Interference
• Poll Worker Communication Platform
• Incentives to Improve Poll Worker Recruitment
• Annual Election Officer Certification Training
• Election Fellowship Program
• Comprehensive Website for Voter Information
• Reconciliation Best Practices Guidelines
• Election Security Advancements
• Election Worker Code of Conduct
• Provisional Ballot Form as Voter Registration Form
• Cross-County Voter Registration

A detailed final report was published Nov. 1.

What’s Next for the RCV Movement? 

The RCV movement only continues to grow day by day. As of now, there will be two states voting on RCV in 2024: Oregon and Nevada. Nevadans passed their Final Five Voting initiated constitutional amendment back in 2022 by about 53% to 47%, but due to their state constitution mandating citizen-initiated constitutional amendments to be passed in successive elections, voters will be deciding on it again in 2024. 

State legislators in Oregon have made it the most recent state to include RCV on the ballot for 2024. A small handful of places already use the system in Oregon, like Corvallis, with Portland scheduled to start using RCV in its elections next year. 

From Alaska and Maine, we can follow their playbooks and lessons learned from their campaigns. Thanks to these states, there is now a national discussion of this topic, and organizations in nearly every state working towards the adoption of RCV. Make sure to find yours today and get involved! 

RCV is the future of American elections, and we are just beginning to see the wave crash against our broken first-past-the-post system.

About the author: Auston Collings is a Tucson native who works as a Regional Grassroots Organizer at Voter Choice Arizona. He is a rising sophomore at Yale University majoring in Environmental Studies.

Listen to his podcast here.

Three Magic Reforms

Aficionados of the classic educational shorts from the seventies, “Schoolhouse Rock,” know full well that “Three is a Magic Number.”  And just like we learned that a tripod and a table need at least three legs on which to stand, election reform that will deliver better results for Arizona must stand on three solid legs: Equalized signature requirements, open primaries, and a top-five advancement to a general election in which voters are able to rank their choices (Ranked Choice Voting: RCV). These three components work together to empower voters, not political parties, to have more choices and more voice in the selection of our elected officials.

Enacting these reforms will shift the balance of power from the parties, who have a vested interest in limiting true competition, to the people they are intended to serve. Each separate reform has merit and would provide improvements to our current system. But only by implementing all three reforms together do we achieve the magic: the ultimate goal of reaffirming our system as a true democracy.

A Basic Exercise in Fairness

Equalizing signature requirements is a basic exercise in fairness. Having tougher requirements for candidates who are not anointed by the duopoly keeps good people from running and limits both the number of choices for voters and the range of ideas discussed. We must have a level playing field for all who wish to compete and serve. Still, equalizing signature requirements alone is pointless. If only two candidates emerge from two highly partisan, closed primaries, as they do now, there is little motivation for independent, third party, or fresh candidates to compete. Voters will be left with the same polarized options in the general election that frequently produces the “lesser of two evils” dilemma.

It’s Always Better When Everyone is In

A truly open primary in which all qualified candidates could compete, and all qualified voters could select their one favorite would greatly expand the number of choices and the nuances among them for voters. But without allowing more than two candidates to advance to the general election, the toxic, all-or-nothing, mud-slinging dynamic of today’s campaigns won’t change. New candidates won’t see reason to run in such a narrow field. And since 83% of Arizona’s legislative districts are considered “safe” Republican or Democrat, top-two-only could easily result in only two Rs or two Ds in many legislative races, quashing the influence of independent and minority party voters within those districts.

Ranked Choice Voting

Having five to choose from in the general election would indeed lead to more options, but without ranked choice voting, ”winners” might prevail with far less than 50% support. Without the ability to rank choices, voters will continue to be pressured to vote for the “most viable” instead of the most qualified, skilled, or inspiring candidate in fear of vote-splitting and tipping the scales in favor of their least favorite option.

More Voice, More Choice

It may not be magic, but only the combination of all three electoral reforms can significantly change the incentives of our leaders to serve the people and solve problems instead of simply appealing to a minority of voters who currently determine the outcomes of highly-partisan political primaries and the top-two general election races which are usually foregone conclusions. That’s why Voter Choice Arizona will continue to educate voters about all three components of our proposed electoral reform and work tirelessly to bring you a better ballot that will give Arizonans more choice, more voice, and better outcomes for our state. 

Alaska’s Ranked Choice Voting Journey

Similarly to Maine, Alaska faced numerous gubernatorial elections where the winner didn’t get a majority vote. However, the Alaska Legislature decided to take action to explore voting options. In fact, the legislature referred Measure 1, the Alaska Automatic Runoff Voting Initiative, to voters in the 2002 August primary. Unfortunately, the measure was defeated 63.7% to 36.3%, with much of the opposition coming from the now-supportive League of Women Voters. Subsequent RCV bills introduced in the legislature in the following decade were ignored. 

Still, numerous elections from gubernatorial to congressional to state legislative seats were still won by people who got less than a majority of the vote, leading to Alaskans feeling increasingly displeased with their politicians and political system. 

The Arduous Task of Passing An Initiative

Ultimately, this resulted in Alaskans for Better Elections filing an initiative in mid-2019 to enact a final four ranked-choice voting system. The group mobilized signature gatherers in October 2019 after a successful legal fight surrounding the state’s single-subject rule with Lt. Gov Kevin Meyer. In January 2020, the political group turned in more than 41,000 signatures, blowing past the 28,501 required. The initiative was then placed on the ballot as Alaska Ballot Measure 2. Still, Alaskans for Better Elections now had the arduous task of educating and convincing voters to back this new system. 

The Path to Victory: Finding Common Ground

Sitting down with former Executive Director for Alaskans for Better Elections and former state Rep. Jason Grenn (I-Anchorage) on the RCV Roundtable podcast, I asked how the group was successful in such a geographically vast state with diverse indigenous communities. He credited much of the campaign’s success to the fact that “this reform is truly nonpartisan. During the campaign, we had other groups like Alaskan Natives for Better Elections and Fisherman for Better Elections. It wasn’t Republicans or Democrats for Better Elections. It just was different groups of Alaskans who wanted to change the system to have more power in their vote.”

Ultimately, their strategy of building a big tent coalition and framing the reform as pro-voter had worked as Alaska Ballot Measure 2 passed in the 2020 elections with 50.55% to 49.45%, a margin of less than 4,000 votes. After the initiative’s passage, the group pivoted to start a massive education campaign so that all Alaskans would be able to understand the new system before the 2022 elections. Grenn explained that they had to educate any and every single group that had an audience in Alaska so that voters would feel confident voting with this new system: “In 2021 alone, I gave 300 presentations across the state!” Alaskans ultimately gave good marks to the system, as 62% supported the new primary system, and 85% found the new system simple.

It’s Working, But The Work Isn’t Done

In 2022, Alaskans used their final four RCV system for the first time, resulting in bipartisan coalitions governing in the Alaska State Senate and House and a wide range of politicians from different political ideologies. RCV is working for Alaskans!

There remain threats to Alaska’s RCV elections as the anti-RCV group, Alaskans for Honest Elections, has announced they are at 80% of the signatures needed for a repeal initiative. However, the political group has been caught up in campaign finance complaints alleging the group formed a church to bypass disclosure laws. However, Grenn believes that Alaskans won’t vote to repeal RCV, “Once presented with the facts and once presented with their reflection of how the system works for them, I think Alaskans will reject any repeal to this new system.”

In a matter of four years, the nation now has two states with RCV. In 2024, that number could double, so keep your eyes peeled to find out what states will be voting on RCV in the next blog post! 

About the author: Auston Collings is a Tucson native who works as a Regional Grassroots Organizer at Voter Choice Arizona. He is a rising sophomore at Yale University majoring in Environmental Studies.

Maine’s innovative bottom-up approach

Maine organizers continued to face opposition from the legislature throughout the 2000s and early 2010s, so they decided to take a bottom-up approach to gain support. They pivoted to enacting RCV in local municipalities. When Portland, the state’s most populous city, was electing its decennial charter commission in 2010 to review their city’s constitution, RCV organizers worked to elect RCV supporters on the commission. Their efforts proved fruitful as the city began electing its officials using RCV a year later.

Big Problems, Big Solutions

Eventually, organizers and supporters had enough of the inaction with the state legislature and decided to file a ballot initiative in October 2014. The minimum requirement at the time was 61,123 signatures, and within one year, over 75,000 signatures were collected. The initiative would become Maine Question 5 in 2016, which passed 52% to 48%. In my interview with former state Rep. Diane Russell on my podcast, the RCV Roundtable, she attributed much of the winning strategy to the cross-partisan coalition formed and the vital education campaign. She also highlighted the way signature gathering boosted the movement: “When you take big problems [our current political system], match them with a big solution [RCV], and give people a small way to interact with the big solution–where truly the hands of many make light work–that is when real change happens.”

Challenge Accepted

Unfortunately, the tough battle for Maine’s RCV implementation was just starting. The Maine Senate in early 2017 requested the Maine Supreme Judicial Court to provide an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of RCV in Maine. On May 23, 2017, the court issued their statement suggesting that RCV was unconstitutional for state races (not federal) because the Maine constitution requires state officials to be elected by a plurality of votes. The Committee for Ranked Choice Voting pushed back on this reasoning as a majority is always, by definition, a plurality. The damage had been done, though, as the legislature approved a bill in October 2017 to delay the implementation of RCV until 2021. Unless the Maine Constitution had been amended by then, Question 5 would be nullified. 

Choosing not to back down, the Committee for RCV filed a People’s Veto to block the new delay law five days later, but this time they had only 90 days to collect signatures. The group gladly accepted the challenge by turning in over 80,000 signatures in February 2018. Subsequently, the initiative became Question 1 and was scheduled for the June 2018 primary. Fulfilling voters’ wishes, the group had also successfully sued to ensure RCV would be used in the primary, so as voters were using RCV in the primary, they were also voting on whether to keep RCV. Interestingly, Question 1 did better than Question 5, passing 53.9% to 46.1%. Voters could then use RCV in Maine’s federal elections in November, where RCV proved decisive in who won Maine’s 2nd Congressional district that year. After the election, the system continued to poll highly among voters as 61% of Mainers expressed support or expansion of RCV in Maine.

Igniting the Future

Although the constitutional question remains, as Maine voters still can’t use RCV in state races in the general elections, there might be potential movement on the issue. In May of this year, the Maine Legislature’s legal affairs committee approved a proposal to alter the constitution. Both chambers of the legislature would have to approve the bill by a two-thirds majority, and then it would be sent to the voters for final approval. There may be a future initiative to challenge the constitutional question, as Russell explains it is a possibility. 

Despite a long-fought battle for RCV, Maine ignited the national RCV movement. Make sure you look out for our next blog post where Alaska captures national attention with its first of its kind of ranked-choice voting system! 

About the author: Auston Collings is a Tucson native who works as a Regional Grassroots Organizer at Voter Choice Arizona. He is a rising sophomore at Yale University majoring in Environmental Studies.

Pioneer States: Inside Alaska’s and Maine’s Successful RCV Movements

“When I first tried to talk to people about ranked-choice voting (RCV), people laughed at me. They thought it was cute and funny,” said the former Maine state Rep. Diane Russell (D-Portland) when she first started organizing to get RCV on the Maine ballot. Fast forward to today, Maine has sparked a national movement for better elections after passing not just one but two initiatives that implemented RCV in federal elections for the first time in US history. 

Alaskans soon followed after passing Alaska Measure 2 during the 2020 election. Alaska’s measure was unique in replacing partisan primaries with a final four pick-one primary where all candidates, regardless of party, would run on the same primary ballot. The top four candidates would advance to the general election, with the winner elected by RCV. Their system of RCV has heavily influenced other states as Nevadans will vote (again) in 2024 on their similar Final Five RCV electoral system. 

However, the rise of national and state ranked-choice voting movements would only exist with the decades of grassroots organizing it took to get Alaska and Maine to enact RCV. So how did these two states eventually make RCV a reality? 

The Power of the Citizen’s Initiative

First, one must understand the unique political tools available in Alaska and Maine. These states have citizen initiative processes, just like here in Arizona. However, not only can the residents in each state propose new statutes and constitutional amendments, but residents can also launch veto initiatives to block state laws they disagree with. These processes give residents more power within their state’s political system, allowing them to bypass their legislators if residents believe they aren’t sufficiently doing their jobs. 

Leveraging Legislative Processes

In Alaska, for an initiative to qualify for the ballot, the signature minimum requirement is 10 percent of the total number of ballots cast in the previous general election. The minimum requirement is similar in Maine, but the signature requirement is based on the votes in the previous gubernatorial election. Additionally, Mainers have the unique ability to collect signatures at polling places on election day. Pro-RCV groups in each state, Alaskans for Better Elections and the Committee for Ranked-Choice Voting, eventually used these processes to pass RCV after their state governments consistently stalled and failed to take action on RCV bills in their legislatures. In fact, the first introduction of an RCV bill in the Maine state legislature happened in 2001, over twenty years ago! Despite the early setbacks, supporters in each state remained resilient.

Stay tuned for part two of Taking the First Jump: Inside Alaska’s and Maine’s Successful RCV Movements, which delves into Maine’s innovative bottom-up approach to RCV campaigns!

About the author: Auston Collings is a Tucson native who works as a Regional Grassroots Organizer at Voter Choice Arizona. He is a rising sophomore at Yale University majoring in Environmental Studies.