HELENA, MT – Montana voters had the chance to vote on two election reform amendment proposals this year.
Constitutional Initiative 126 would have implemented unified (all-candidate, all-voter) primary elections, with the top four candidates advancing to the general. More than 48 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.
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 had to secure the support of a majority of voters for legislative, statewide and congressional offices. Some 39 percent of voters supported the majority-winner measure.
The initiatives’ election methods together likely 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 a number of 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.
“Nearly half of Montana voters cast ballots in favor of reform and of more choice and more freedom in their elections,” said Sightline Fellow Alice Buckley, a Bozeman resident. ” Though the two ballot initiatives lost, Montana voters sent a strong signal that the status quo is not working. Going forward, the connections and coalitions built during this campaign will carry a lot of weight in discussions on how to build upon our state’s democracy.”
Per Sightline’s free use policy, all research, graphics, and other resources are available to republish.
Sightline fellow Alice Buckley and researcher Al Vanderklipp are available for comment on election outcomes.
Contacts: Alice Buckley, alice@sightline.org; Al Vanderklipp, Sightline Institute, al@sightline.org
Analysis:
- Montana’s Plurality Problem
- FAQ: Election Reform in Montana
- Majority Winners, Runoffs, and Montana’s Constitutional Initiative 127
Related:
- Nonpartisan open primaries let Alaskans choose values over party
- Open primaries and ranked choice voting strengthened moderate Republicans in Alaska’s legislature
- Idaho has a spoiler problem
###
Alice Buckley is a Fellow with Sightline Institute, supporting local initiatives for abundant housing and stronger democracy in Big Sky Country.
Al Vanderklipp is a Senior Research Associate with Sightline Institute’s Democracy program, where he focuses on election systems in the Northern Rockies.
Sightline Institute is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank providing leading original analysis of democracy, forests, energy, and housing policy in the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, British Columbia, and beyond.
