Election Reflections 2024: Independent Candidates and Election Reforms

Part 1

Election Reflections 2024: Independent Candidates and Election Reforms

The 2024 U.S. elections presented a dynamic landscape, with independent candidates striving to disrupt traditional two-party dominance and numerous states considering significant election reforms. The biggest independent race of the year was waged by presidential candidate, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as the race that almost was and yet may be… the reason Trump won. We’ll have to work through seven parts of this Election Reflections series to get that whole story articulated.

This post examines the performance of independent candidates in key congressional races and evaluates the outcomes of ballot initiatives aimed at transforming electoral processes. In parts two through seven, we will look at the ballot landscape, the Trump victory, the Harris loss, the war between factions of the donor class, and the impact that RFK Jr. had on the presidential race itself as well as the political realignment happening right before our eyes. The political world is not stable. Grab the popcorn! Here we go!

Major Independent Candidates in Congressional Races

Nebraska Senate Race: Deb Fischer (R) vs. Dan Osborn (I)

In Nebraska, incumbent Republican Senator Deb Fischer faced a notable challenge from independent candidate Dan Osborn. Osborn, a Navy veteran, mechanic, and union leader, campaigned on a platform emphasizing changing the status quo away from corporate interests and championing political independence. Despite his efforts, Fischer secured re-election with a margin of about 6 points (53.3% to 46.7%). The race highlighted the difficulties independent candidates encounter in overcoming established party structures and voter allegiances. Still, Osborn outperformed Harris in the state by almost 8 points, which suggests that two-way races between an incumbent and a well-regarded independent in a safe one-party state offer better appeal to voter concerns.

Through October 16th, both candidates showed FEC filings having raised $8 million a piece. About $20 million of outside spending helped Osborn, while $9 million was spent to help Fischer or oppose Osborn.

On the heels of the close race, Osborn announced the launch of a hybrid PAC, Working Class Heroes Fund, to empower more working class candidates to run for Congress (plumbers, carpenters, teachers, nurses, and factory workers). Osborn said:

Congress is a bunch of millionaires controlled by billionaires and special interests. Both parties are out of touch with working class voters, and regular people are fed up.¹

Ohio's 7th Congressional District: Max Miller (R) vs. Matthew Diemer (D) vs. Dennis Kucinich (I)

Ohio's 7th Congressional District witnessed a compelling three-way contest featuring incumbent Republican Max Miller, Democratic challenger Matthew Diemer, and independent candidate Dennis Kucinich, a former Democratic congressman and mayor of Cleveland. Kucinich's campaign focused on reform policies around cutting the deficit, sealing the border, and stopping endless wars. However, Miller retained his seat with 51.1% of the vote, underscoring the challenges independents face in districts with strong partisan leanings. Kucinich lagged significantly at 12.8% of the vote in the three-way race. His age (78 years) and his previously left-leaning affiliation against a conservative incumbent may have hurt his chances of posting a better independent run.

Ballot Initiatives on Election Reforms

The 2024 elections also saw many states voting on ballot measures aimed at reforming electoral systems, particularly concerning open primaries and ranked-choice voting (RCV). The outcomes of these initiatives provide insight into the nation's evolving perspectives on electoral processes.

Alaska Measure 2: Repeal of Open Primaries and Ranked-Choice Voting

Alaska's Measure 2 proposed repealing the state's existing open primaries and RCV system. The measure was narrowly defeated, with 50.1% voting against the repeal and 49.9% in favor, maintaining the current electoral framework by just 624 votes out of 320,000. About 17,000 voters who cast a ballot for president didn’t address the ballot measure. A recount has been declared to confirm the result.

Arizona Proposition 140: Implementation of Open Primaries

Proposition 140 in Arizona sought to establish open primaries, allowing voters to participate regardless of party affiliation, and using RCV if more than two candidates reached a general election race. The actual measure left several decisions about election structure to be determined by the state legislature if enacted. The proposition was rejected, with 58.7% voting against and 41.3% in favor, indicating a preference to retain the existing primary system.

Colorado Proposition 131: Adoption of Open Primaries and Ranked-Choice Voting

Colorado's Proposition 131 aimed to introduce open primaries (a top four system) and implement RCV in general elections. The measure was defeated, with 53.5% voting against and 46.5% in favor, reflecting resistance to altering the current electoral system.

District of Columbia Initiative 83: Authorization of Ranked-Choice Voting

Initiative 83 in the District of Columbia proposed authorizing RCV for local elections. It also would allow voters who are not affiliated with a party to vote in any party's primary. The initiative passed with substantial support, as 72.9% voted in favor and 27.1% against, signaling a strong interest in trying out a new electoral structure in the nation's capital.

Idaho Proposition 1: Introduction of Open Primaries and Ranked-Choice Voting

Idaho's Proposition 1 sought to establish open primaries and implement RCV. It would require open primaries in which candidates of all parties appear on the same ballot, with the top four vote recipients for each office advancing to a general election. Ranked choice voting would be used in general elections. The measure was decisively rejected, with 69.6% voting against it and 30.4% in favor, indicating a preference to maintain the current electoral system.

Montana Initiative 126: Requirement for Open Primaries with Multiple Candidates Advancing

Initiative 126 in Montana proposed requiring open primaries for state offices and U.S. legislative offices in which candidates of all parties appear on the same ballot, with the top four vote recipients advancing to the general election. The measure was narrowly defeated, with 51.1% voting against and 48.9% in favor, reflecting a closely divided electorate on this issue.

South Dakota Amendment H: Establishment of Open Primaries

Amendment H in South Dakota aimed to establish open primaries. The amendment was rejected, with 65.6% voting against it and 34.4% in favor, demonstrating a clear preference for retaining the existing primary system.

Nevada Question 3: Top-Five Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative

Nevada's Question 3 proposed an amendment to the state’s constitution implementing a top-five primary system combined with RCV in general elections. In 2022, this ballot measure was approved in its first vote. However, as required by Nevada law, it needed to pass a second time in 2024 to be fully enacted. In a surprising turn of events, Nevada voters rejected Question 3 in 2024, with 53.0% voting against and 47.0% in favor. This defeat nullifies the 2022 approval and means the ballot initiative has been permanently defeated. The rejection reflects lingering concerns about the complexity of the proposed system and its potential impact on traditional electoral processes.

Oregon Measure 117: Authorization of Ranked-Choice Voting

Measure 117 in Oregon sought to authorize RCV for state and local elections. The measure was defeated, with 57.7% voting against and 42.3% in favor, indicating reluctance to adopt this electoral reform.

Summary Table from Ballotpedia on 2024 Electoral System Ballot Measures²

Analysis and Implications

The 2024 election outcomes for independent candidates underscore the formidable challenges they face in breaking through the entrenched two-party system. Despite the growing desire among voters for alternatives, independents often struggle to gain the necessary visibility and support to secure electoral victories. Ballot access also remains a challenge.

The mixed results of ballot initiatives on election reforms reflect a nation grappling with how best to structure its democratic processes. While some jurisdictions, like the District of Columbia, have embraced changes such as RCV, others, like Nevada, have reversed course, demonstrating the complexities of building consensus around different voting and primary systems. The defeat of Nevada Question 3 serves as a cautionary tale about the challenges of introducing major electoral changes in a politically divided environment.

For independent voters and candidates, these developments offer both challenges and opportunities. The weak interest in reforms like RCV indicates that independents will need to find ways to win three-way races with the highest vote tally, or champion other plurality voting systems that have more appeal. The resistance to change in many states suggests that significant obstacles remain. Moving forward, it will be crucial for advocates of electoral reform to engage in public education and dialogue to build broader support for changes that can enhance democratic representation and participation.

The proposals in The Common Sense Papers were designed to help independent candidates compete effectively using the current election rules in the United States.

Conclusion

The 2024 elections have highlighted the complexities of advancing independent candidacies and altering electoral structures in the United States. While there is a clear appetite among segments of the electorate for alternatives to the traditional two-party system and for innovations in voting methods, translating this desire into concrete changes remains a formidable task. The experiences of independent candidates and the negative outcomes of ballot initiatives underscore the need for continued efforts to identify the best ways to foster a more inclusive and representative political system. These results provide much to reflect on as we consider how best to evolve our democratic institutions to meet the needs and aspirations of all Americans.

Notes:

The Common Sense Papers are an offering by Common Sense 250, which proposes a method to realign the two-party system with the creation of a new political superstructure that circumvents the current dysfunctional duopoly. The goal is to heal political divisions and reboot the American political system for an effective federal government.

1. Aaron Sanderford, “Nebraska’s Dan Osborn starts hybrid PAC for working-class candidates,” Nebraska Examiner, November 19, 2024, https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/11/19/nebraskas-dan-osborn-starts-hybrid-pac-for-working-class-candidates/.

2. https://ballotpedia.org/2024_ballot_measures#Topics