As a journalist, I once covered a three-way sheriff's race where the winner took office with just 37.7% of the vote. 

Think about that for a moment. More than six out of ten voters wanted someone else, but because their choices were split among multiple candidates, they got a sheriff most of them didn't want.

Not long after that, we all watched something eerily similar play out on the national stage. The single most unfavorably viewed candidate in modern presidential politics captured a major party's nomination, not because most people wanted them, but because establishment party members split their votes among several more favorably viewed candidates.

This isn't just bad luck. This is what happens when we're stuck with an outdated system that forces us to choose just one candidate in a given race, even when multiple candidates might reflect our values.

Now, after learning about these flaws in plurality voting, I spent years wondering what the founding fathers would think of the system we use today. 

I know now that we don't have to wonder. The answer is right there in the Federalist Papers.

In Federalist 10, James Madison warned about the danger of faction—groups united not by the common good, but by narrow ambition, willing to override the rights and interests of everyone else. Madison believed that as our nation grew, more voices would emerge, keeping any single faction from taking over.

But here's what Madison and his peers couldn't have known—what nobody knew until the mid-20th century: plurality voting inevitably leads to a two-party system. That diversity of thought Madison counted on to protect us? It gets squeezed out of our elections entirely.

Today, we're staring down something Madison would recognize immediately: the real possibility of total authoritarian capture, made possible by our flawed voting system. It's faction, exactly what the Federalist Papers warned against.

We’ve seen this playbook unfold around the world. Divisive identity politics, voter suppression, rigging legislative districts through gerrymandering—the same tricks that leverage the problems with plurality voting here at home made it possible for authoritarians to take and consolidate power abroad. 

Hungary, Turkey, Poland—along with recent near-misses in Germany and France—they all serve as warnings for the threat our country now faces.

Our country's prosperity, its stability, and the basic rights everyday Americans have taken for granted all hang in the balance. 

The best solutions address root causes, and the root cause of the peril our democracy faces is plurality voting.

Think about it. How many times have you been forced to compromise your own principles because elections became about binary choices? How many times have you voted not for what you believed in, but against what you feared? 

Plurality voting forces millions of Americans into exactly that position. It's a would-be autocrat's best friend.

But there's a way out, and we can see it in other countries that have beaten back would-be autocrats. In Poland, democracy prevailed when everyone opposed to authoritarianism set aside old divisions and put up a unified front. They reframed their national debate: instead of right versus left, they made the choice between democracy and authoritarianism.

That's what we need to do here. And approval voting—a system where you can support every candidate who reflects your values, not just the "least bad" option on offer — is how we get there.

For those whose party no longer represents them, it's a genuine way to be part of the solution: a patriotic movement for a more united, representative democracy. For sidelined voters who don't see themselves in the current system, it means they can finally support candidates who actually reflect their values.

Now, let me be clear: approval voting can't be implemented in time for the 2026 midterms. But it can serve as our rallying cry—an urgent call that can mobilize voters, build momentum, and forge the congressional firewall we need to keep the guardrails of democracy in place while the threat is most acute.

Our political views don't fit into one tidy little box—they're complicated, nuanced. We care about economic opportunity AND environmental protection. We believe in strong communities AND individual liberty. We want security AND justice. Our votes shouldn't have to fit into that same restrictive box either.

Approval voting recognizes that complexity. It puts power back in the hands of voters. It makes every choice count. It makes broad appeal the winning strategy instead of just firing up your base.

This is about more than electoral mechanics. This is about what's possible in America when we refuse to accept that division and dysfunction are just how things have to be.

The choice is ours. We can accept the status quo and watch as authoritarian capture becomes more likely. Or we can do what Americans have always done when faced with an imperfect system: we can make it better.

Plurality voting got us into this mess, but approval voting can get us out—by changing what's possible in America, by upgrading the way we choose.

The time for half-measures is over. The time for bold action is now.

Let's change what's possible in America by upgrading the way we choose.

Matt Koesters
Founder and Executive Director
Fortify Democracy