JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Two weeks before Election Day, activists across the country gathered for an online rally announcing the historic number of state ballot initiatives aimed at changing the way people vote. Hopes were high that voters would abandon traditional partisan primaries and embrace ballots offering more candidate choices.

Instead, the election reform movement lost almost everywhere it appeared on a statewide ballot.

“It turns out, in retrospect, that we weren’t ready for prime time yet,” said John Opdycke, president of the advocacy group Open Primaries, which organized the rally.

In Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and South Dakota – a mix of red, blue and purple states – voters rejected ranked-choice voting, open primaries or a combination of both.

The open proposals for the primaries were intended to place candidates from all parties on the same ballot, with a number of those coming in first advancing to the general election. In ranked-choice voting, people can vote for multiple candidates in order of preference. If no one gets a majority of votes in first place, then the candidates with the fewest votes are eliminated and their votes are redistributed to the next people’s choices.

Voting reform supporters have raised about $110 million for statewide ballot measures, far outpacing their opponents, according to an Associated Press analysis of campaign finance figures that could rise further as post-election reports are filed. However, their promotional efforts were not enough to convince most voters.

“Even though Americans are frustrated with politics, I think most of them are very accepting of the traditional way of voting,” said Trent England, executive director of Save Our States, which opposes ranked-choice voting.

Supporters of alternative voting methods believed momentum was on their side after Alaska voters narrowly approved a combination of open primaries and ranked-choice voting in 2020. Next up were voters in Nevada — where initiatives proposing constitutional amendments require approval in two consecutive elections — gave first-round approval of a similar measure in 2022. But Nevada voters changed course this year.

In Alaska, an attempt this year to repeal open primaries and ranked-choice voting appears to have narrowly failed, garnering 49.9% support in results released Wednesday. The final results are expected to be certified on November 30.

(Ranked-choice voting and open primaries held in Alaska by fewer than 700 votes after final count)

In addition to Alaska, versions of ranked-choice voting already exist in federal elections in Maine and in about 50 counties or cities. Voters in Washington, D.C., and Oak Park, a suburb of Chicago, Illinois, both approved ranked-choice voting last November. And voters in Bloomington, a suburb of Minneapolis, Minnesota, reaffirmed their use of this system.

The data suggest that ranked-choice voting rarely results in different outcomes than traditional elections won by candidates with majority, but not majority, support. The AP analyzed nearly 150 races this fall in 16 jurisdictions where ranked-choice voting is allowed, ranging from board of assessors elections in the village of Arden, Delaware, to presidential elections in Alaska and Maine. The ranking system was only necessary in 30% of these cases, as the rest were won by candidates with a majority of the initial votes.

Nationally, only three candidates who were initially behind in first-place votes ended up winning after the votes were tabulated: one for the Portland City Council and two for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

In San Francisco, two progressive candidates campaigned together, encouraging voters to rank them No. 1 and No. 2. At first, they found themselves behind a moderate candidate who would have won a traditional election. But after six rounds of classification, one of the progressive candidates emerged victorious while the other was eliminated and the votes of his supporters were redistributed to him.

Proponents of ranked-choice voting consider this a success because it prevented two similar candidates from splitting votes and both losing.

“It’s kind of like a pressure valve: You don’t always need it, but when you need it, you really need it,” said Deb Otis, director of research and policy at FairVote, which advocates preferential voting.

In Portland, Oregon, voters used ranked-choice voting for the first time last November in mayoral and city council elections, even as Oregon voters simultaneously rejected a measure to put it implemented in federal offices and statewide. Political outsider Keith Wilson, who led Portland’s 19 mayors with about a third of the initial votes, ultimately won the election after 19 rounds of ranked tabulation. It took at least 30 rounds to decide on a seat on the city council.

But not everyone participated in the new voting method. About a fifth of Portland voters skipped council races, and about one in seven voters left the mayoral election empty.

Opponents of ranked-choice voting argue that some people find it confusing and don’t vote in ranked races.

Academic research has also cast doubt on the benefits of ranked-choice voting, said Larry Jacobs, a politics professor at the University of Minnesota. Fewer black voters tend to rank candidates than white voters, he said, and there is little evidence that ranked-choice voting reduces political polarization or negative campaigning.

“I think the trend toward ranked-choice voting is moving away from that,” Jacobs said.

The groups that heavily funded this year’s election reform initiatives aren’t giving up, but may be revamping their approach. Supporters question whether to separate efforts to end partisan primaries from those to embrace ranked-choice voting, and whether to focus more on incremental changes that state legislatures can make rather than on high-stakes initiatives to amend state constitutions.

Opdycke said some of this year’s initiatives may have been launched prematurely, relying on ads to convince voters without first having enough popular support.

“I think there is a greater appreciation for the kind of brick-and-mortar, foundation-building, and conversation-building work that needs to continue as a precursor to launching a formal campaign,” he said. he declared.

Unite America, which has spent about $70 million this year to end partisan primaries, is analyzing voter surveys and focus group results to help it reshape its approach.

“The question is not whether we should continue this effort,” said Nick Troiano, executive director of Unite America, “but how will we ultimately get there?”