The Architecture of a Difficult Bargain
A balanced approach to electoral reform begins with recognizing that both access and integrity are legitimate values, that neither is served by treating the other as pretext, and that the most dangerous outcome is not the victory of one side’s reforms but the collapse of shared belief in the system itself. The compromise below will satisfy no one completely – which is precisely why it might work.
On voter identification, require ID to vote, but make it free and universally accessible. Every state should offer a no-cost government-issued photo ID through multiple channels – DMV offices, mobile units, mail applications, and community centers – imposing no financial or logistical burden. Accept a broad range of documents, including expired IDs for elderly voters and student IDs from accredited institutions. Federal funding should ensure no state can claim inability to afford it. This gives integrity advocates the verification they seek while eliminating the legitimate concern that ID requirements function as barriers.
On gerrymandering, establish a federal standard requiring every state to use an independent, nonpartisan redistricting commission. Commissions should be composed of citizens who are not officeholders, party officials, or lobbyists, selected through a balanced process. Their maps should face judicial review for Voting Rights Act compliance and basic standards of compactness, contiguity, and community coherence. Both parties gerrymander when given the chance, and both parties’ voters are harmed when the other side does it. Removing this power from the legislators who benefit is not partisan reform – it is structural reform.
On the Electoral College, a constitutional amendment to abolish it is effectively impossible in the current environment. A more modest compromise: states could allocate electoral votes proportionally or by congressional district rather than winner-take-all, making more states competitive and more voters’ preferences visible. Maine and Nebraska already use the congressional district method. This retains the Electoral College’s basic structure while mitigating its most distorting effects – unlikely to satisfy abolitionists, but a meaningful improvement that could attract bipartisan support.
On campaign finance, focus on transparency and public financing rather than spending limits, which face First Amendment obstacles. Every dollar spent to influence federal elections should be disclosed promptly and publicly. The current system of shell corporations and opaque nonprofits that let donors hide their identities is corrosive regardless of one’s views on limits. A robust public matching funds system – small donations matched at six-to-one or higher – would amplify ordinary citizens’ voices and give candidates a viable alternative to reliance on large donors.
On voting access, establish a baseline of reasonable accommodations: at least two weeks of early voting including weekends, no-excuse absentee voting with signature verification, and same-day registration as the national standard. Voter rolls should be maintained regularly with safeguards against improper purges. These represent existing practice in many states that conduct elections with both high participation and high integrity.
On statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, acknowledge these are fundamentally political questions. The democratic case for representation is strong – both jurisdictions pay taxes, obey federal laws, and serve in the military. For DC, retrocession to Maryland, if agreed upon by both, would provide full representation without a new state. For Puerto Rico, a clear binding referendum followed by congressional action. Neither territory should be a pawn in partisan gamesmanship.
The overarching principle: electoral rules should maximize both participation and confidence – making it as easy as possible for every eligible citizen to vote and as hard as possible for anyone to cheat, while ensuring the rules are perceived as fair by the broadest possible majority. A democracy in which half the population believes the other half is cheating is a democracy on the brink.
But no compromise survives first contact with the people who must live under it. Each of these five Americans sees a fatal flaw.