How 2024 rewrote expectations

Even after nine years of Donald Trump laying waste to political convention, the tumult of the 2024 cycle has been striking.

Initially, a race between the two oldest major-party nominees in history and the first presidential rematch since 1956. Then, the first time since 1880 that a person elected to the presidency declined to seek re-election — and the first U.S. presidential election ever in which a major-party nominee ended their campaign after securing the nomination. The first person, since the dawn of the presidential primary contest system in the 1970s, to be nominated by a major party without winning a single primary contest.

The first former president to be renominated by a major party since 1892. The first person nominated for president by a major party three straight times since 1944. The first millennial on a major-party ticket. The first Asian American, second woman, and second Black nominee by a major party. The first time since 1976 that neither ticket includes a Bush, Clinton, or Biden. An end to the era of the Commission on Presidential Debates. An assassination attempt. A result that will bring either the first convicted felon and oldest person ever, or the first woman and first Asian American, to the White House.

For some Americans, the year may be just one more reality TV-style season in an ever more chaotic political show. But for many who’ve spent years advocating for political reform, shattering of norms has brought something different: renewed optimism for change. “Things can't keep getting worse forever,” said Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at New America who has written extensively on the merits of a multi-party system. “Eventually that leads to positive transformation.”

That most Americans believe the system is getting worse is beyond dispute. Even as public opinion of the candidates has brightened — nearly half of voters now view both nominees favorably, a notable change from just a few months ago — Americans continue to view the electoral system with historic pessimism. A record-low 28% are satisfied with the state of democracy, according to Gallup. Pew finds just 19% consider the U.S. a good example for other democracies. 76% believe democracy in the U.S. is under threat, per a New York Times/Siena poll. Polling averages find less than a quarter approving of Congress’s job performance and a supermajority believing the country is on the wrong track.

For many pushing reform efforts, the data is validating. “The idea that voters don't feel heard or seen by the current system, isn't just a feeling. It's incredibly accurate,” said Alyssa Cass, a political strategist and spokeswoman for National Popular Vote. The group has spent years attempting to build an improbable end run around the electoral college, lobbying states to bind their electoral votes to the national popular vote result. Seventeen states and D.C., comprising 209 electoral votes, have joined the National Popular Vote Compact, which becomes effective only when enough join to reach 270. Cass argues that yet another split between the popular vote and electoral college this year could “create a groundswell” for more states to pass legislation.

Regardless of the election’s final outcome, the group feels the campaign has already vindicated their efforts: According to data from Fair Vote, 93% of Harris and Trump’s campaign stops have occurred in just the seven swing states, a statistic the group is eager to point out. “Maybe it’s the most important election of our lifetimes, but only seven states are going to matter,” said Dr. John Koza, chairman of National Popular Vote.

While residents of the swing states do enjoy outsized influence, they’ve also experienced the downside: a crushing deluge of advertising. As of early October, a record $15.9 billion had been spent on the 2024 election, according to OpenSecrets. Pennsylvania alone has seen nearly $950 million in ad spending — more than twice the combined amount John McCain and Barack Obama’s campaigns spent during the entire 2008 general election. The avalanche of money has helped a cottage industry of scam PACs and partisan dirty tricks to proliferate.

“The public is so sick of this. They know they're being disenfranchised in Washington,” said Nick Penniman, founder and CEO of Issue One, a leading advocate for campaign finance reform. But Penniman, too, sees opportunity in Americans’ dissatisfaction — and the turmoil of the political environment. “There is an emerging populism in the Republican Party that is starting to convert into a critique of big corporations and the system,” he said. “The system is breaking at this point.”

Still, campaign finance reform requires congressional action, making it a longshot in the current climate. As broader federal efforts remain gridlocked, some activists have turned their focus to the states, where a bumper crop of changes have quietly passed in recent years, most notably ranked-choice voting (RCV). The system, which is on the ballot in five states this year, allows voters to rank multiple candidates while requiring the winner earn a majority.

“At a time when a lot of other issues are stuck in gridlock, ranked-choice voting is actually expanding,” said Deb Otis, Research and Policy Director at Fair Vote. She attributes the momentum to Americans’ dissatisfaction with national politics. “I think it comes from a place of discouragement and has turned into a place of hope.”

RCV has emerged as one of the most fervently debated electoral reforms in recent years, with supporters arguing it could be a powerful weapon against polarization and incentivize consensus-minded candidates. They have some evidence to point to: the two reddest House seats in the Democratic caucus are held by moderates from the two states with RCV, Maine Rep. Jared Golden and Alaska Rep. Mary Peltola.

For advocates, that’s evidence of success. "It's proven to do exactly what needs to be done,” said former Rep. Jason Altmire, who became an advocate for electoral reform after losing a 2012 re-election bid. But Altmire, also a moderate Democrat, acknowledged that the two Democratic victories helped harden some GOP opposition. “Because of the places it's happened,” he said, “unfortunately, Republicans have been the ones that have lost out.” That points to a larger challenge for electoral reform advocates, which many openly acknowledge: Despite broad public support, the issue still skews liberal among elected officials and think tanks.

That dynamic — efforts to reform or circumvent the two-party system themselves getting polarized along partisan lines — leads back to Drutman’s case for a multi-party system. “Both parties have a monopoly on opposition to each other,” he said, noting most other democracies have multiple viable choices on the ballot. “In a system with multiple parties, there's a way for you as a voter to move to an adjacent party without going against your current identity.”

Breaking the two-party system may be the longest shot of any reform effort, at least in the short term. But the upheaval of the 2024 cycle has rewritten many Americans’ understanding of the possible — and advocates hope the country is near a turning point.

“Things that can't go on forever don't go on forever,” Drutman said. “It’s risky, strange, and dangerous to have a country so evenly divided for so long.”

_{What’d you think of this week’s newsletter? Hit us up at [email protected].}