American voters have become increasingly frustrated with the polarized state of our politics, and many believe that our winner-take-all voting system is at least partially to blame. While our traditional system is simple – the candidate with the most votes wins – it incentivizes candidates to take hard-line positions that appeal to partisan extremists, rather than a broad array of voters.

In practice, this means that candidates can often win elections without earning support from a majority of voters. In 2016, seven Congressional seats in six states were won by candidates who garnered less than half of the vote. Governors in New Hampshire, North Carolina, and West Virginia also took office with less than 50 percent support.

This system alienates a lot of voters, including many independents and moderates. That’s why electoral reforms like ranked-choice voting and open primaries have been gaining momentum in recent years. Maine recently held the nation’s first statewide election using ranked-choice voting, while candidates in California squared off under the state’s open primary system.

In a nation where the Congress has less turnover than Europe’s monarchies, is it time to reform the way we elect candidates?

Supporters argue that:

• “When voters can express their political preferences more fully, the politicians they elect will be more likely to represent them more fully. And ranked-choice carries no built-in advantage for any party.” (Source: New York Times editorial board)
• In traditional elections, “candidates benefit from ‘mud-slinging’ by attacking an opponent’s character instead of sharing their positive vision with voters. With ranked choice voting, candidates do best when they reach out positively to as many voters as possible, including those supporting their opponents.” (Source: FairVote)
• Elected officials “head to D.C. incentivized to cater to tiny groups of voters that support them in the primaries; the only elections that count for most members of Congress.” But in California, which uses an open primary system, “elected officials face off in fairly drawn districts and compete in public, not partisan, primaries. They go to Sacramento after running campaigns that appeal to diverse constituencies, not just party activists.” (Source: John Opdycke, president of Open Primaries, The Hill)

Opponents argue that:

• “The complexity of ranked-choice voting is obvious. Instead of simply voting for the candidate you prefer, each voter must have an election strategy. They have to guess at what will happen to their backup votes.” (Source: Gordon L. Weil, former local Maine elected official, Portland Press Herald)
• “The California system, the jungle primary… is not a reform. It is terrible. It prolongs the process, it costs more money…it shuts out smaller parties.” (Source: Rep. Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, C-SPAN)
• “It doesn’t reflect representative government…I mean, 34 candidates ran for the U.S. Senate in 2016. The top two candidates were members of the same party. That’s wrong. The top vote-getter in each party should move on to the general election. That’s representative government.” (Source: Tom Palzer, California Republican activist, The Atlantic)