Here's Where It Gets Interesting - Fair Voting on the Ballot with Deb Otis

Episode Date: November 4, 2024

How can we improve U.S. elections to ensure that every vote truly counts? Sharon McMahon talks with Deb Otis from FairVote about solutions like proportional representation and ranked choice voting. Want to vote for a third party candidate but worried it’s a wasted vote? There’s a way to change that, and it’s on the ballot in some states November 5th! Deb shares her thoughts on reforms that could lead to nicer politicians, and more choices for voters. Credits: Host and Executive Producer: Sharon McMahon Supervising Producer: Melanie Buck Parks Audio Producer: Craig Thompson To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

You've always wanted to be part of something bigger than yourself. You live for experience and lead by example. You want the most out of life and realize what you're looking for is already in you. This is for you. The Canadian Armed Forces. A message from the Government of Canada. Think about something you're good at. Now think about how you got there.

Chances are, you had someone to help you get started. If you're thinking about starting to invest, Questrade's award-winning support team is here to help you learn how to become a better investor. From placing your first trade to setting up customized stock alerts, we're always by your side. Just a few of the reasons why we are Canada's number one rated online broker by MoneySense. Get started today at Questrade.com. Hey, friends, welcome. Delighted to have you with me today. We are talking about a couple of important election related topics. And no, this is not about who you should vote for, which candidate is better. This is about actual elections. I am very excited to be joined by Deb Otis, who works for an organization called FairVote.

And we're going to be talking about things like new proposals for proportional representation, ranked choice voting, and more. So let's dive in. I'm Sharon McMahon, and here's where it gets interesting. I am really excited to be chatting today with Deb Otis because voting is at the top of people's minds right now. You know, how to vote, who to vote for. 2024 is going to be one of those sort of pivotal years. And I know that people always say, well, it's an important election.

Yes, because elections continue to be important. Weird how that works. But in many ways, tell me if you agree with this, we're kind of standing at a crossroads in American public life right now. Which direction are we going to head in? Are we going to continue on the path of advancing the cause of democracy, advancing people's rights, creating better proportional representation in state houses and in Congress, paving the way for more fair voting and a more inclusive voting system? Or are we going to head in the opposite direction? Is that the view from where you sit, Deb? I think you're absolutely right. It feels like

this is a big pivotal moment. It feels like we're at an inflection point. The number of Americans who are happy with the way democracy is going in our country is at an all-time low. And honestly, it can't get much lower. So we either start rebounding and fixing the problems or things get much worse. And so I do think this is a really good time to start talking about some of these solutions. There is a lot of doom and gloom out there, but there is good news too, because there are some fixes that are gaining momentum. We can do right now. Regular people in cities and states are taking action and making democracy better. So despite the doom and gloom, there is some brightness ahead as well. to shore up the democratic process that are designed to make things more fair and allow people to have better access to the ballot and things like that. Many of these things are very time-tested. They're used widely in other democracies. These are actually relatively

simple solutions. Simple doesn't mean easy, right? It doesn't mean that everybody's going to give it a rubber stamp. but many of these things are things that are quite attainable. Some states have already attained them rather simply, and many other countries have as well. So I want to start by talking about, in order to fix problems, we need to know what the problems are. We need to identify, step one, identify the problem. So what are some of the issues you see working in an organization that is designed to increase voting fairness? What are some of the issues that you see right now in the United States? I would highlight two big issues right now. One is voters feel disengaged. Voter turnout in this

country is pretty low overall, especially in primaries or off-year elections. But even in our biggest elections, it's not great. And voters are reporting that they don't feel like their vote matters or they don't like any of the candidates, and so they don't vote. That's one issue. Another one is it doesn't feel like our government is responsive to the needs of the voters. There are issues that have popular support, and yet Congress is unable to act and solve the problems that we elected them to solve. These two problems together are leading to a real decline in the health of our elections. Yeah, so many of the things it seems like Congress and state legislatures spend time on, we're like, no one asked for this. I hear this thousands of times every week. Why are we spending time on this when what I care about is this other long list of things?

And they're spending no time on that. And instead, they're spending all of their time arguing about who should be the speaker. No, we hate Bob. Bob's the worst. They're spending so much time being unproductive on our dime, Deb. Absolutely. It's really infuriating. Well, it all comes back to incentives.

Each of these Congress people is acting based on a real set of incentives. They are beholden to only people in their district, and their districts overwhelmingly are gerrymandered and they are safe for one party. Americans overwhelmingly dislike Congress, but we all like our own Congress person. We just dislike Congress as a whole. There are no incentives to do what's best for the country. There are incentives to do whatever you have to do to get reelected in your one district. Okay, so this, as you know, was the least productive Congress of all time in United

States history. And we have seen some things, okay? We had a whole civil war. We have been through some times. In the year 2024, the least productive Congress that has ever been, what do you see as some of the real practical solutions that can be implemented to address some of these issues that you just identified? I think we need to deal with the incentives where a congressperson who's willing to cross the aisle, willing to work with the other party to make policy, they get ousted. Once they do that, they lose their seat. We have to fix that incentive. A policy that Fair Vote works on that is gaining in popularity that we really believe in is ranked choice voting. This means voters have the option to rank the candidates on the ballot instead of picking just

one. It's an easy change for voters, but it has some really powerful impacts. We said often these are safe districts. So a district might be very Republican or very Democratic. Whoever wins the primary goes on to win the general election and the primaries are crowded you get 10 12 people running the winner has only 30 support in the primary and then they get a free ride in november and so they were only elected by a fraction of the voters in their own district and that is the incentive those are then the voters that they have to cater to going forward so a system like range choice voting requires majority support in order to win, which means more voters have to support you. And this doesn't mean

you have to get a majority of first choices. Sometimes in a crowded field, that's not possible, but you might have to cobble together a lot of first choices and also be the second choice or the third choice of some other voters. So most voters in your district have to be okay with you. They have to like you. That should be the lowest bar, being able to get 50% of people in your district to want you in office. I know some people have definitely heard of rank choice voting. Some people who are listening to this live places where it's used. But for somebody who maybe has heard the term but really doesn't understand what ranked choice voting is. Explain it so that the rest of us can get filled in. Sure. Ranked choice voting just means you get to rank your choices on the ballot. And if your first choice has no chance at winning, your vote

counts for your next choice instead. I'd like to put this in the context of this year's presidential election to kind of make it feel concrete. There are a couple of states that already use ranked choice for presidential elections, Maine and Alaska. So I'll use an example. Let's use Maine. So voters in Maine, when they go to vote for president, they'll get to rank the candidates. And now we've got two candidates from the major parties. We have Democrat and a Republican, but we also have a number of independent and third party candidates running. And so in all of the other states, voters have to do this math. Is it OK to vote for a candidate I like best, even if they're not one of the two front runners? Or is that a wasted vote?

Could that potentially help decide that I like least? So in Maine and Alaska, voters will rank these candidates. And so if your favorite happens to be one of the third party candidates or an independent candidate, then you've ranked backup choices as well. So when they're counting the votes, first up, they count everyone's first choices. If somebody already has a majority, let's say Harris or Trump has a majority in the first round, they would win. But in a lot of our swing states, it's going to be close and there won't be a majority of first choices. When that happens, you eliminate the last place candidate. Maybe that's one of the independent or third party candidates. If you voted for that candidate as your first choice, once they get eliminated,

your ballot goes to count for your second choice. And so your vote stays active. It's just like in a runoff where there's a final round between the top two vote getters and you get to weigh in between those finalists. So it solves a lot of the problems around strategic voting and spoiler candidates while giving voters more choice. Do you see ranked choice voting as benefiting independent and third party candidates? Is it a way to help independent and third party candidates potentially gain traction if they have enough support in their communities? Because that's an issue that a lot of Americans feel like they'd like to see more options. As you highlighted earlier, people do not feel well represented. They do not like the options they have on the ballot.

They feel like, what am I supposed to do when both of these people are terrible, in my opinion? And this is not specific to this election. This is a very widespread sentiment among voters. They feel like if I vote third party, as you mentioned, I'm throwing away my vote because it has an indirect effect on the election instead of a direct effect, meaning it acts as a spoiler for one candidate in a way that maybe they don't intend. The most popular example right now is a vote for RFK Jr. And again, this is not a partisan discussion. I'm just talking about real life examples. A vote for RFK Jr. may have the effect of supporting Kamala Harris because RFK Jr. has more support on the right and it has a tendency to split the right's vote, makes it less likely that Trump would get elected.

Again, I'm just hypothesizing here and potentially may have the effect of assisting Harris in getting elected. And now somebody might think to themselves, yeah, but my second choice would for sure be Trump. If you're an RFK voter, maybe your second choice would be Trump, not Harris. But because of the way the system works right now, you're indirectly impacting who wins instead of directly impacting who wins.

Do you see ranked choice voting as giving more space to third party and independent candidates? I think it can absolutely help people feel more free to vote for their honest first choice. And for some voters that will be independent or third party candidates, I think our elections right now are undercounting support for those candidates because people are scared to vote for them for exactly the reasons that you laid out. And this is asking a lot of voters. When we go into the voting booth, we have to be strategists. We have to be mathematicians. If I vote for this candidate, am I actually harming my own interests? And so ranked choice voting frees voters up to vote

honestly. And so I think it can boost support for independent and third-party candidates, but it can also be a really useful tool for the major parties. We have seen a number of examples where Republican and Democratic primaries end up nominating someone who is too much of a fringe candidate for general election voters.

Ranked choice voting in primary elections helps strengthen these parties by putting their best foot forward. They put forward a strong nominee who has broader appeal. And so that gives general election voters better choices, not just more choices, but better choices. And it helps these parties have a better chance at avoiding nominating these fringe candidates who then go on to lose. dates who then go on to lose. If that doesn't send a chill of anticipation down your spine, nothing will. Get your ghost pepper sandwich today at Popeye's before it ghosts you for another year. I'm Jenna Fisher. And I'm Angela Kinsey. We are best friends. And together we have the podcast Office Ladies, where we rewatched every single episode of The Office.

With insane behind thethe-scenes stories, hilarious guests, and lots of laughs. Guess who's sitting next to me? Steve! It's Steve Carell in the studio! Every Wednesday, we'll be sharing even more exclusive stories from The Office and our friendship with brand-new guests, and we'll be digging into our mailbag

to answer your questions and comments. So join us for brand new Office Lady 6.0 episodes every Wednesday. Plus, on Mondays, we are taking a second drink. You can revisit all the Office Ladies rewatch episodes every Monday with new bonus tidbits before every episode. Well, we can't wait to see you there. Follow and listen to Office Ladies on the free Odyssey app and wherever you get your podcasts.

McPops from McCafe are a new sweet treat available in three delicious flavors, berry, white chocolate, and hazelnut and cocoa. Perfect to add on to a small $1 plus tax premium roast coffee. It's a match made by McCafe at participating McDonald's restaurants. Prices exclude delivery. What are the biggest downsides to using ranked choice voting? I can tell you what I view the biggest downside as, but I'm curious to hear what in your mind, what are the potential pitfalls to sort of switching to this type of voting system? Well, the biggest challenge is just that this is new. This is something different. When voters hear about it for the first time, they go, huh. When they hear about it for the second time, they go,

oh, oh, this makes perfect sense. What we've seen is that once voters use it, they say that they like it, they prefer it to their prior voting method, and they want to expand it and use it. They say that they like it. They prefer it to their prior voting method and they want to expand it and use it for even more elections. Once voters have voted using this ranked ballot, it clicks and they go, oh my gosh, I never want to go back. But to voters who had not experienced this yet, it sounds like something new and different. And so if a city or a state is considering adopting ranked choice voting, they should also do a voter education campaign ahead of that first election so voters are empowered and understand that this system is in place. Luckily, the ballots are pretty intuitive. I mean, we know how to rank things in our everyday lives. You know, I could rank my top three flavors of ice cream, no problem. You ask an elementary school child for their

favorite superhero, you're not getting one answer. You're getting a ranked list of their top 10. This is intuitive to rank things, but you do want to ensure that voters know this is coming. Voters aren't surprised when they walk into the ballot booth and get a ranked ballot. And so that's the biggest challenge, just making sure voters are comfortable with this and know that it's coming. What do you hear as pushback from legislators on implementing ranked choice voting? What are they telling you their reason is for why they don't want it? Is it preserving their own power? Is it that secretly they feel like, well, I would get voted out if that was the case, so I don't want it? Like, what are the reasons politicians use to not implement a system like this? Well, look, these are folks that know how

to win under the old system. And so, of course, they're going to be least likely to want to change the system. It's not even necessarily because they think they would lose. A lot of them would not. My research has found that incumbents perform really well in elections, both with and without ranked choice voting. Ranked choice does not just throw out all of the incumbents. But folks know how to run a campaign under the old system. The choose one voting comes with some very obvious campaign incentives, like

tear down your biggest opponent, you know, do the mudslinging and get into it because you want to depress turnout for your opponent and you want to energize your own base. So go negative, send out those nasty mailers. In ranked choice voting, the campaign strategy changes. And so naturally, that makes politicians uncomfortable because they have to learn how to campaign differently. In ranked choice voting, you do better if you don't go after your opponents too much. Don't go too negative because you want to be ranked as voters' backup choice. If you go after a candidate that a voter really likes, that voter is not going to rank you second. They're ranking you last or not ranking you at all. And so it changes the campaign math a little bit in a way that's good for voters.

But no wonder some current elected officials are more hesitant to change their own system. Yeah, that's a great point that it would force people to change campaign strategy. And that might be another added benefit of ranked choice voting. If you can't spend your whole time being like, Deb is the worst. Here's a mailer about why we hate Deb and why you should hate Deb, why Sharon hates Deb. Frankly, voters are really tired of the amount of vitriol in campaigns. Campaigns take forever. Why does it need to be 18 months of hate mail that I'm subjected to? Why is this the best use of our time? I love the idea too that it would require people to shift their campaign strategy because if they cannot be somebody's first choice,

they for sure want to be somebody's second choice. And it's going to force them to look at how they interact with other people in the field and how they are going to interact with voters. Absolutely. I think it causes campaigns to interact with more voters. We have all of these anecdotes from people who have run in ranked choice elections and won ranked choice elections. They say, in my previous campaigns, you know, if I saw a campaign sign in a yard for my opponent, I would skip that house. But with ranked choice voting, I still have an incentive to go and talk to those voters. I can say, I see that you're supporting Sharon, but I think you and I probably have common ground on this other issue. So consider ranking me second. And so you have just this increased engagement with voters. That's a great point,

that they would still want to engage with voters where maybe they are not that person's first choice. But you might think to yourself, yeah, you know what? He's pretty good. I'd rather have him as a second than that other woman, or whatever. It changes the incentive structure, as you were just saying, changes the incentive structure for how you interact with people. What are some of the other ways that we might address some of the obstacles facing voters in the upcoming election and moving forward? This is not just about the 2024 election. This is about sort of the election system in the United States at large. I've noticed an uptick in efforts in certain states in particular to discredit

elections, to call into question election results, to make it easier for people to question election results, to make it easier for the average layperson to challenge the voter registration of somebody else and be like, I don't think Deb lives there anymore. And you don't even really have to have much evidence. You can just be like, I don't know. I think Deb died. You know what I mean? It doesn't even require that much effort to try to challenge somebody else's voter registration. And it seems as though there is very little disincentive to do so. Like you're not going to get in trouble in many cases if the challenge is not accepted. People are not going to show up at my house and charge me with a crime for lying about the fact that you died

in some of these states, right? What are you seeing as sort of trends around the country when it comes to voting legislation? And what should we be on the lookout for? We are seeing a real mixed bag right now where some states are making it easier to participate in elections and other states are making it easier to prevent people from participating in elections, as you say. These folks are doing a really good job of juggling a lot of balls. It's a tough job. And they're running secure and accurate elections when there are a lot of moving pieces. And so I have a lot of faith in the way that these folks are running our elections right now. The movements to make elections more secure are great up to the point of having trust in our election administrators and having some safeguards where it can go too far. There is a point where it goes too far. And it seems as though some state legislatures are incorporating these new abilities to challenge, et cetera, based on

non-existent problems in an effort to appease a certain group of people. It's a little bit like, why is Congress working on things that nobody wants? Some of them are doing a fantastic job and have always been doing a fantastic job. And it's kind of a thankless job. Most of us don't know who our state election officials are or local election officials are. And they're out here doing very important, meaningful work. And it's kind of thankless. I'm talking about like a handful of actors with questionable motives, right? A handful of people. That's not most people by any stretch. Why do you think the people who do potentially have questionable motives, why are they acting

this way? What's the incentive structure behind trying to make it more difficult for their own constituents to vote? It goes right back to your point earlier about why our legislators are spending time on things that don't matter to their voters and ignoring the things that do matter. I think the combination of low voter turnout and most of these districts being uncompetitive, safe districts means that a lot of times a legislator can do better creating a nasty talking point than they can passing good policy because they're not accountable to a large number of voters. They're accountable to a fraction of the voters in their district.

Yeah. And I think that it's a very important point to underscore, Deb, that the overwhelming majority of voting districts in the United States are not competitive. And what is meant by that is it is nearly a certainty that one party or the other will win that district. And so consequently, who will win that election is decided in the primary, which has a very tiny voter turnout. cited in the primary, which has a very tiny voter turnout. In some cases, you might have a district where like 600 people show up to vote in this primary. And so consequently, that person is elected to the state house or elected to Congress with only a very, very tiny percentage of the voters actually having selected them. So when you say it's like a fraction of people that they're responsible to,

partisan primary voters are the only people that they are accountable to. They don't necessarily care about representing their entire district. They only care about representing the interests of those partisan primary voters who statistically tend to be more extreme in their viewpoints. Am I understanding this correctly? Absolutely. The people they're accountable to in their partisan primary is often less than 10% of the people living in their district. And so that's not governing by mandate. That's governing to the fringes.

Yeah. So if their coffers then go cha-ching every time they're on TV being like, Deb is the worst and we hate her. If I raise $2 million every time I say that, what am I going to be saying five days a week? Of course. The incentive structures swing very heavily to a tiny group of people. This brings me to a topic that I've been interested in for a while, which is proportional representation. You know, we have 100 senators, and I understand that it's in the Constitution that every state gets to. Some states, their voters get a lot more representation with their two senators than

other states do. If you live in California, you're getting a lot less representation than you do if you live in Wyoming. Those are just the facts. But it's even worse in some cases in the House of Representatives, where the proportion of representatives, because the House uses proportional representation, allegedly, theoretically, the number of people that one representative is representing is very, very disproportionate to the number that some people are representing in larger states. Can you talk a little bit more about this?

Is this fair? What are we supposed to do about this? I think there are some ways out of this problem. You know, you talk about skewed representation between states. I think the problem that goes hand in hand with that is the problem of gerrymandering. Gerrymandering isn't just a bunch of legislators sitting in a dark room and evilly drawing bad maps. We have so much geographic sorting of where people live that if you just drew maps by a computer without taking anything into account, you would have districts that are extremely safe for

one party or the other. This is not just a case of people trying to put their thumb on the scale. And so I think to solve both of these problems, we need to rethink our districts. We elect the House of Representatives right now from 435 districts across the country. Each district elects one person and almost all of them, as you say, Sharon, these are safe seats. So you can predict two years out who's going to win that seat even before you know anything about the election cycle that year. You know, oh, that one's going to a Republican and that one's going to the Democrat. This is not delivering good representation for the American people. This is how we get

folks campaigning to the fringes. This is how we get anyone who tries to work in a bipartisan way gets primaried out. They lose their seat. And a lot of voters feel locked out of representation. There are 70 million of us who support one party, but we live in a district that is safe for the other party. So we just have no chance of sending someone to Washington who is going to take our phone call and advocate for our issues. So rethinking districts. Instead of districts that elect one person each, I would suggest we should make the districts bigger and each one should elect multiple people. Multi-member districts are common around all of the rest of the world. There are not many democracies that do what we do. And so it sounds

a little bit radical because we've had these single- districts in the U.S. for decades. But this is a much better way to deliver good representation to the voters. I think of a state like Massachusetts. They have nine representatives. They're all Democrats. About a third of the voters there are Republicans, but they can't elect a Republican representative. There's just no way to draw a map that would be fair, deliver a couple of Republican seats. Similar issues in states like Oklahoma, where there are Oklahoma Democrats, but they have no chance of electing one of their representatives to Congress. So what do you do? Massachusetts, nine districts, that should become three bigger districts that elect three people each. So Massachusetts still has nine reps, but they're coming from three big districts of three people. And this means you're likely to elect members of

both parties. You're likely to reflect the racial diversity in our society a lot better than these single member districts where no matter how much diversity you have in a district, only one voice is getting represented. This is proportional representation. This is how you do ranked choice voting in a proportional way if you do it in multi-member districts. And so it is time to start thinking bigger if we want to solve gerrymandering, solve hyper-partisanship.

As a Fizz member, you can look forward to free data, big savings on plans, and having your unused data roll over to the following month. Every month. At Fizz, you always get more for your money. Terms and conditions for our different programs and policies apply.

Details at Fizz.ca. What do Ontario dairy farmers bring to the table? A million little things. But most of all, the passion and care that goes into producing the local, high-quality milk we all love and enjoy every day. With 3,200 dairy-farming families across Ontario sharing our love for milk, there's love in every glass. Dairy Farmers of Ontario. From our families to your table, everybody milk.

Visit milk.org to learn more. This episode is brought to you by Dyson OnTrack. Dyson OnTrack headphones offer best-in-class noise cancellation and an enhanced sound range, making them perfect for enjoying music and podcasts. Get up to 55 hours of listening with active noise cancelling enabled, soft microfiber cushions engineered for comfort, and a range of colours and finishes. Dyson OnTrack, headphones remastered. Buy from DysonCanada.ca. With ANC on, performance may vary based on environmental conditions and usage.

Accessories sold separately. So you're saying that if we couple the reimagined voting districts with ranked choice voting, that we would have a much better chance of more people feeling at least somewhat represented by their government. You know, there's millions of Republicans in California who are like, we have a couple of districts that might represent Republicans, but the overwhelming number are Democrats. And this is true all over the country. If you're not a swing state and your state leads heavily red or blue, this is a very, very common issue. So am I understanding what you're saying correctly, that we should reimagine the size of these districts? And instead of saying

nine of you will come from nine districts, we should, just using the Massachusetts example, have three districts. And people use rank choice voting within their district to say, I would like number one to be Bob, number two to be Deb, number three to be Sharon. Sharon's not voted in, surprise, surprise, because she's terrible. All she does is talk about how horrible Deb is. What does she even want to do as a legislative agenda? Do you know what I'm saying? Am I making sense here that we would use rank choice voting with larger districts so that the representation from that district would more accurately reflect that district as a whole? Is that what you're saying? Yes, absolutely. That's exactly right. And I think, Sharon, if you did campaign,

like in your example there, where you were too nasty on the campaign trail and so you didn't win a seat, if you still had congressional ambitions and you came back and ran again the next cycle, you would change your behavior. You would learn, don't be so nasty on the campaign trail, forge some alliances, campaign on the issues, not on negativity, and you would do a lot better. Maybe next cycle you'd win one of those seats. That's right. It would change the incentive structure of candidate behavior, which many voters say is a significant issue for them. They're very turned off by candidate behavior. So that's a great point. They're like, well, I didn't win. I'm

going to try again. This time I'm going to talk about how we're going to fix your potholes instead of talking about how much I hate Deb the entire time. And that would be great for voters. Yes, people would love that. That would. Yes. And you would love it too, Deb. I would. Thank you. Yes. We would all be better off. It would change the way candidates engage. And I think that would be a change for the better. Absolutely. So if people are listening to this and they are like, I like these ideas. That sounds very reasonable. I want to have a government that is more reasonable, less ridiculous. Can that be the new motto? More reasonable, less ridiculous. I think we can all get on board with that viewpoint.

Perfect. Let's make t-shirts. Less ridiculousness. Yes, precisely. How do we even do this? Because I know I'm going to get 22,000 emails of like, I love Deb's ideas, but how do we make this happen? What would we do if we like these ideas and we want to see some of these kinds of changes? The good news is this stuff is happening in a lot of states and cities around the country already. One of the reasons I got involved in working on this reform is it's a good mix of this idealistic idea of how things could be, but also this is feasible in the short term where so many other issues are not

moving. Ranked choice voting is gaining traction. It is the fastest growing election reform in the country, and we're winning. It feels good to work on an issue that is feasible right now. Four different states plus D.C. are going to be voting on ranked choice voting ballot measures this November. So we could triple the number of states that use this in addition to a number of cities that will be voting whether to implement it. There is a bill in Congress called the Fair Representation Act, which would do these multi-member districts like this Massachusetts change going from nine districts to three big districts. It's called the Fair Representation Act. You can contact your Congress people about it now. It is an active bill. The lead sponsor is

Congressman Don Beyer from Virginia. And lastly, there are groups in most states that are actively working on election reform issues, and they are looking for volunteers. This is how I got involved in the movement years before I started doing this as my full-time job at FairVote. Look up who is working on range choice voting or open primaries or campaign finance or anti-gerrymandering, whatever is your key issue. There's probably a group in your state. They would love it if you would hop on a Zoom, show up at a meeting, figure out how to get involved locally, because often we can move issues in states and cities a lot faster than we can federally. Would reconfiguring the way voting

districts work, like with your proposal to have larger multi-member voting districts, would that require federal legislation to enact around the country? Or is that something that individual states could choose to do? It would take federal legislation to do it for federal elections. So our U.S. Congress, we would take federal legislation to do it for federal elections. So our U.S. Congress, we would need federal legislation to start doing it for those elections. But states could do it for their state legislature elections anytime. There are already a number of states in the country who use multi-member districts for their state legislatures.

I'm calling in today from Maryland. Maryland is one of those states where they have multi-member districts for their state legislature. And so, yes, states can do it for their own state government anytime they want. What advice would you have to somebody who feels like, I want to be involved in democracy? I care about this. I care about making a better world for my kids, for my grandkids. But, you know, they're busy.

They have kids. They don't work for fair vote, right? They don't have a Sharon Says So platform. They're not a professional podcaster, right? They want to do something, but they have a normal life and a normal job. What are some things that you would recommend that people can do to sort of protect and uphold democracy in their states, in their cities, around the country? How can people be involved in an attainable way so they feel like they're making a difference, but they're not devoting their entire life to something? Absolutely. There are all sorts of ways to be involved at various levels of commitment. I'm sorry to everyone who does not get to do this

as a full-time job because it is a real privilege, but there are so many ways to be involved. I would say as a first step, carve out one to two hours per week and decide this is my Save Democracy hour or hours. Maybe that's a Sunday afternoon and you'll be able to find lists online of how to get involved in your city or your state. Again, I think doing local work can be sometimes a lot more rewarding. You will feel closer to the outcomes and you will get to know other people in your community. And so that can feel more rewarding, spending an hour on that

than spending an hour trying to get the US Senate to pass something that they're not going to pass. So carve out some time, put it on your calendar. This is my democracy hour. I love that. I talked to somebody last night who had such a great idea too, that she volunteered for a couple hours one evening doing phone banking to people who had been removed from voter rolls, meaning that they had been like taken off the list

because they were inactive or they were dead or they had moved and ensuring that in fact that was correct information. That's great. That is a great use of time. Yes. And she said in her like couple hour shift, the group that she was working with found 314 or so people who were incorrectly removed from the voter rolls. People are like, no, I've been living here this whole time. They should not have been removed. And those are 314 people who then, number one, got a reminder that voting is important. We're potentially more likely to engage. But number two, people who would have potentially been denied the right to vote when they showed up in November because they had been removed. And it's completely nonpartisan.

That person can vote for whomever they would like. But it's an important reminder to them to engage in the democratic process. So I love the idea, too, of getting involved at a local level where you're much more likely to see the results of your impact. I love that idea of contacting voters to make sure that they weren't erroneously removed from the voter roll. That is a great use of time and will be very much appreciated by your local election administrators, your local elections office, who needs to make sure that they have correct voter rolls.

And they don't have the time and staff to literally make phone calls to every single person. But yes, election officials want accurate voter rolls, and being able to assist in that regard, I think is amazing. Okay. If people want more information about fair vote, about rank choice voting, how would they obtain that? Check out fair votes website. That is fair vote.org. We have a lot of info on range choice voting, as well as this proportional form and the fair representation apps that would bring this to the house of Representatives, plus a list of state groups who are working on range choice voting in all of the states where they're active. That's a super great resource. Deb, thank you so much. I hope everybody

will check out fairvote.org. There's a lot of great resources for you locally, but also ways that you can contact your representative in the House or organizations to get involved in that could use your time, could use your one hour of democracy volunteerism each week. I really appreciate your work and thanks for being here today. Thank you so much, Sharon. This was a lot of fun. You can get more information at fairvote.org. They have so many good resources there, so be sure to check them out. Thank you so much for listening to Here's Where It Gets Interesting. If you enjoyed today's episode, would you consider sharing or subscribing to this show? That helps podcasters out so much. I'm your

host and executive producer, Sharon McMahon. Our supervising producer is Melanie Buck-Parks, and our audio producer is Craig Thompson. We'll see you soon. bin recycling program ensures the majority of the right items are recovered and transformed into new products. Recycling right is important and impactful. Let's work together and make a difference because small actions lead to big change. For more tips on recycling, visit toronto.ca slash recycle right.