“I’m not primarily an elections scholar,” said Jesse Crosson, a political scientist and co-director of the Program on American Institutional Renewal (PAIR) at Purdue University. “I focus much more on the policymaking process. The reason I got interested in elections was that I saw a difference in the quality of public servants that were getting into position in the first place.”
Though most people don’t study how legislation develops and whether government delivers, Crosson’s sentiment about the quality of candidates is familiar. Voters want fewer performers — politicians and campaigners — and more leaders with the gumption to push through solutions.
Strong conservatives and strong liberals can care about policy and work with others, Crosson said. But select people for showmanship, Crosson observes, and we should not be surprised when governing becomes another campaign performance.
So how can parties put forth candidates with a willingness to work on policy, candidates with both ideas and the willingness to work across the aisle? Does it require election reform?
“People expect election policy to be the silver bullet,” Crosson said. “No policy intervention ever has been a silver bullet.”
Crosson discussed reform with Spencer Deery, the Republican state senator representing Indiana’s District 23, after he won a series of challenges to his re-election win. One idea that intrigued Deery after talking with Crosson was top-two primaries, a system used in the states of Washington and California.
Under the familiar party-primary model, voters help select a party’s nominee. In a heavily Republican or Democratic district, that contest can effectively settle the election before November. Crosson doubts that simply letting voters choose either party’s primary ballot changes much: most Democrats still choose Democrats, and most Republicans choose Republicans.
Top-two primaries change the competition itself. All candidates appear on one primary ballot, and each voter chooses one. The two highest vote-getters advance to November regardless of party — even when both are Republicans, or both are Democrats.
“There’s one ballot in the primary,” Crosson said.
Consider a district split roughly 70% Republican and 30% Democratic. Under Indiana’s current system, Democratic voters may repeatedly support candidates with little realistic chance of winning. Crosson calls them “orphaned voters”: not necessarily independents or ideological moderates, but people whose preferred party consistently loses where they live.
If, as is likely in rural Indiana, two Republicans advance to the general election, those Democrats could join Republicans in deciding which Republican wins.
“It makes the political orphans actually the kingmakers, queen makers,” Crosson said.
Their ballots become less like throwaway votes and more like leverage. These voters already show up, he notes; reform would give their participation greater consequence.
What about ranked choice voting? Ballotpedia notes that Alaska uses a top-four ranked choice voting system, a variation on top-two voting. Alaska combines a top-four primary, which advances the four candidates who garner the most votes in the primary to the general election ballot, with ranked-choice voting. Voters rank the four candidates in the November election; if nobody wins an initial majority, the last-place candidate is eliminated, and the ballots that ranked them first are transferred to their voters’ second-ranked choice. Counting continues until a winner emerges.
Crosson does not dismiss ranked choice.
“I don’t have any special disdain for RCV,” he said.
But he questions how much it accomplishes when the practical choice remains one Republican and one Democrat. Ranking two candidates produces essentially the same choice as ordinary voting.
Alaska’s top-four approach addresses that limitation, but it requires a sufficiently competitive field. Crosson doubts many legislative districts can regularly attract several viable candidates. Top-two, he argues, works more directly with America’s durable two-party structure, creating competition within a dominant party rather than depending on additional viable alternatives.
He acknowledges that there are limits to the top-two format. Parties can maneuver to avoid same-party November contests, and a party can be shut out of the general election [SG1.1]. It may be frustrating to voters in “wave election” years, as this one is. Reform also needs credible candidates willing to run. No election rule manufactures problem-solvers.
The goal, again, is installing lawmakers who demand meaningful work once they arrive. Today, Crosson says, major policymaking is concentrated in the House speaker’s and Senate majority leader’s offices. Leaders can even hold prepared bills and offer sponsorship to members who fundraise or carry the party message. Legislative opportunity becomes a reward for loyalty, rather than independent initiative.
Breaking that system requires lawmakers who are willing to use their votes for leaders and rules packages as leverage.
“I want to be able to write the policies that I want to write,” Crosson said, describing the demand they must make.
History shows newcomers can change that organization. After the 1974 election, the “Watergate babies” joined senior reformers in challenging powerful House committee chairs and weakening seniority-based authority. After Republicans won in 1994, Newt Gingrich moved in the opposite direction, consolidating party leadership’s control. New members can democratize power — or surrender it.
That is the creative destruction this moment needs: lawmakers who reject leadership’s monopoly, reclaim responsibility and rebuild Congress and legislatures across the country more democratically — not for their party’s next campaign, but for their constituents.
The League of Women Voters, a non-partisan, multi-issue organization encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase public understanding of major policy issues and influences public policy through education and advocacy. All men and women are invited to join the LWV where hands-on work to safeguard democracy leads to civic improvement. For information, visit the website www.lwvmontcoin.org or the League of Women Voters of Montgomery County, IN Facebook page.
