The Most Neglected Intervention in Effective Altruism: Electoral Reform

Electoral reform doesn't get much play in the effective altruism space. The hesitation is understandable. It seems too abstract, too removed from saving lives or preventing suffering. 

But there's a compelling case that electoral reform — specifically, replacing partisan primaries and pick-one (ie. plurality) voting with top-four all-candidate primaries and approval voting in general elections — might be among the most impactful interventions available to the EA community right now, particularly for protecting the effectiveness of other cause areas. That claim remains somewhat speculative and depends on contestable empirical assumptions, but it deserves serious consideration.

EA has identified high-impact causes: AI safety, global health, animal welfare, pandemic prevention, climate action. You’ve built organizations. You’ve committed billions of dollars. You’re doing tremendous good.

But here’s something that has become crystal clear in 2025, particularly in the United States: all of these interventions operate within a political system that can be captured by a minority faction hostile to evidence-based policy. And that system has a design flaw we can fix.

The Rallying Cry Opportunity

Before diving into the mechanics, here's something the EA community needs to understand: electoral reform isn't just a policy goal. It could plausibly function as an organizing principle that mobilizes a substantial portion of Americans that are currently politically disengaged in the next 310 days.

The Addressable Population:

Research from Metropolitan Group (2025, 12 countries, 2,000+ U.S. respondents) reveals something striking:

• 58% of Americans are politically disengaged despite supporting democracy
• 60%+ want more political choices and believe the two-party system is broken
• Nearly half identify as independents, signaling openness to alternatives
• 36% didn't vote in the recent presidential election (tens of millions sitting out!)
• Critically: 50%+ of people who strongly prefer democracy over authoritarianism are in the disengaged category

These aren't apathetic people. They're rationally responding to a system that doesn't represent their interests. They feel:

• Forced into impossible binary choices
• Their vote doesn't matter under current rules
• Neither party speaks for their specific combination of values
• Voting third-party or independent is "wasting" their vote
• The system is broken but see no path to fix it

This represents tens of millions of Americans frustrated with the two-party system and potentially responsive to choice-expansion narratives. That’s a substantial, currently under-organized constituency.

The Strategic Hypothesis: Existing narrative research suggests that framing electoral reform as expanding voter choice — not helping one party — can resonate with disengaged but pro-democracy Americans. On this view, electoral reform could function as a rallying cry that unites frustrated voters across partisan lines.

This is a strategic hypothesis, but it rests on solid survey evidence about voter frustrations and experimental narrative work showing cross-partisan resonance for choice-expansion frames.

If the hypothesis holds, electoral reform serves two functions:

1. SHORT-TERM (310 days): Organizing Principle 

Electoral reform advocacy becomes the framework that builds winning coalitions NOW:

• Gives congressional candidates a concrete platform beyond partisan positions
• Shifts the national conversation from Trump's latest outrage to "how do we fix a broken system"
• Potentially unites disengaged voters, displaced conservatives, and frustrated progressives around a common cause
• Could activate people who sat out because the system felt rigged
• Transcends left/right framing—it's about a more functional democracy vs. authoritarianism

When candidates run on "I support approval voting and all-candidate primaries," they're no longer advocating for partisan positions. They're speaking to a much broader audience by championing voter choice. This transcends partisan identity in ways that traditional issue advocacy does not.

2. LONG-TERM: The Structural Fix 

Once the coalition wins and prevents unified authoritarian control beyond 2026, the same reform advocacy becomes the mechanism for implementing permanent structural change that prevents future extremist capture — something that will remain possible so long as the structural flaws in the electoral system remain unaddressed.

Why This Matters for EA:

Most EA interventions require either:

• Building organizations and waiting for impact (years to decades)
• Funding research and hoping for adoption (uncertain timeline)
• Creating demonstration projects and scaling gradually (slow growth)

Electoral reform advocacy offers something unique: an intervention that builds political power in the immediate future while creating infrastructure for all other EA priorities long-term.

It's both the emergency response AND the permanent fix.

The Mathematical Problem

In 2022, 28.4% of U.S. congressional primaries involved vote-splitting under plurality rules. That means in more than one in four races, multiple similar candidates divided their support in ways that could allow less broadly supported candidates to advance. While we can't prove each winner prevailed because of vote-splitting, the mechanism creates systematic opportunities for minority capture.

What that means? A candidate opposed by 65% or even 70% of voters can win a primary if that opposition is divided among multiple alternatives. In deeply partisan districts, that can mean an inevitable general election victory for an extremist candidate, even though only a fraction of party members share those views. 

This is the predictable result of two mechanical flaws:

First: Pick-one voting. When you can only choose one candidate, similar candidates split the vote. Imagine three candidates: one extremist with dedicated 35% support, and two moderates who each appeal to 32.5% of voters. The extremist wins, even though 65% of voters prefer either moderate to the extremist.

Second: Partisan primaries. These are low-turnout contests dominated by the most committed party activists. Moderate voters face a coordination problem: they can't coalesce around a single alternative to the extremist because they don't know which moderate has the best chance of winning.

The result? Systematic capture of political institutions by ideological minority factions.

And when bad actors understand these dynamics, it’s easy to exploit the flaws in our system via clone candidates and other underhanded tactics. 

What This Means for EA Priorities

If you fund AI safety research, you're betting that research will influence policy. But what if the political system selects representatives who dismiss AI safety concerns as "elite distraction"?

If you fund global health interventions, you're betting that U.S. government support for organizations like WHO and GAVI will continue. But what if the political system elevates politicians who see international health cooperation as a "globalist agenda"? 

If you fund animal welfare advocacy, you're betting that evidence-based regulations can be enacted. But what if the political system consistently selects representatives opposed by 70% of voters who happen to view animal welfare science as "woke extremism"?

If you fund pandemic preparedness, you're betting that governments will invest in prevention. But what if the political system produces representatives who defund those very preparedness programs on the grounds that they’re the "deep state"?

You see the pattern. We’ve already seen all of this happen, and hundreds of thousands of people have already died because of it (see: USAID defunding and the consequences thereof). 

Every EA cause area depends on a political environment capable of implementing evidence-based policy. And the current electoral system systematically produces the opposite.

The Counterfactual That Matters

So what’s the counterfactual?

Right now, most democracy funding goes to defensive interventions: voter registration, litigation against voting restrictions, election monitoring, get-out-the-vote campaigns. These are necessary. But they're treating symptoms.

Imagine if smallpox eradication efforts had focused entirely on treating individual smallpox cases rather than eliminating the virus itself. We'd still be treating smallpox today. Viktor Zhdanov's insight that we could eradicate the disease entirely changed everything. The WHO campaign he initiated didn't just treat millions of cases; it prevented billions of potential future cases.

Electoral reform is the democratic equivalent. Instead of just defending against the current threat; it addresses the mechanism producing that threat.

The Mathematical Solution

Here's the intervention:

Top-four all-candidate primaries: All candidates run together, regardless of party. All voters participate. Each voter selects on candidate, and the top four advance to the general election. This ensures diversity of thought in the general election and incentivizes broad appeal as a campaign strategy.

Approval voting in general elections: Instead of picking one candidate, voters approve as many of the four finalists as they want. The candidate with the most approvals wins. Approval voting prevents what we perceive today as “third-party” and independent candidates from serving as spoilers that help extremists ultimately win.

Full disclosure: Approval voting is not the only anti-plurality system. Proportional representation, Condorcet methods, and various ranked-choice systems could also address vote-splitting. Within EA, reasonable people disagree about optimal voting methods. 

This proposal prioritizes approval voting + top-four primaries because: - Real-world track record (Fargo, St. Louis, Alaska-variant) - Simple enough to explain and implement quickly - Already has organizational infrastructure (Center for Election Science) - Strong theoretical properties (greatly reduces vote-splitting without complexity) - Pragmatically achievable within 310-day timeline

This is a pragmatic, not uniquely correct, choice. The key insight is that any system that eliminates plurality voting and partisan primaries would be vastly better than the status quo. This particular combination has the best combination of theoretical soundness and practical tractability for rapid deployment.

The Neglectedness Calculation

Now let's apply the EA framework systematically:

Scale: How big is the problem?

Consider what's at stake: total U.S. charitable giving is currently on the order of $550-600 billion per year (Giving USA estimates about $557 billion in 2023), including hundreds of millions in EA-directed funding. Climate, global health, AI safety, animal welfare, pandemic prevention — they all depend on functional democratic governance.

If the U.S. continues to use a system that’s susceptible to extremist capture, the expected value loss across all these cause areas would be catastrophic. We're not talking about marginal reductions in effectiveness. We're talking about systematic destruction of the institutional infrastructure that enables evidence-based intervention.

But there's an additional scale dimension: Tens of millions of currently disengaged Americans who are frustrated with the two-party system represent potentially mobilizable political power. If electoral reform can function as an organizing principle that activates even a fraction of this constituency, it could shift electoral outcomes in 310 days. This makes possible immediate coalition-building capacity that could determine whether EA priorities can operate effectively starting in 2027.

Neglectedness: How much attention is this getting?

Structural electoral reform efforts appear to receive on the order of low single-digit millions of dollars per year in U.S. philanthropy—something like $5-10 million, or roughly 0.001-0.002% of total giving—based on internal field scans rather than comprehensive public data. This is an order-of-magnitude estimate.

Compare that to: 

- GiveWell-recommended charities: $300+ million annually 

- EA Infrastructure Fund: Millions in grants 

- Open Philanthropy AI safety work: Tens of millions

Electoral reform is receiving roughly 0.001% of total U.S. philanthropic giving, despite being the infrastructure layer enabling everything else.

In EA terms, this is more neglected than AI safety was in 2015. It's more neglected than wild animal welfare. It's more neglected than pandemic preparedness was in 2018.

Tractability: Can we actually solve this?

Yes, and on two timelines:

Immediate (310 days): Political Coalition Building Hypothesis

Survey evidence and narrative research suggest organizing potential:

What surveys show:

• Large shares of Americans frustrated with two-party system and wanting more choices
• 72% of Trump opposers haven't been asked to engage yet (ASO/Research Collaborative)
• Experimental narrative work shows cross-partisan resonance for choice-expansion frames
• Many people report they take political action only when in community with like-minded others

Strategic hypothesis: If electoral reform can be framed as a concrete, non-partisan organizing principle (expanding choice rather than helping one party), it could:

• Help candidates build coalitions across traditional divides
• Activate at least some fraction of disengaged voters
• Shift competitive races through turnout and persuasion effects

The 310-day window before 2026 midterms is sufficient to test this hypothesis by:

• Recruiting 50+ congressional candidates to run on electoral reform
• Mobilizing disengaged voters around choice liberation as organizing theme
• Building cross-partisan coalitions in 15-25 competitive districts
• Measuring whether this approach shifts enough races to prevent unified authoritarian control

This is unproven at scale, but the combination of survey frustration, demonstrated local success and cross-partisan validator willingness suggests it's worth attempting.

Long-term: Structural Implementation

We have proof of concept for the reforms themselves:

Fargo, North Dakota (2018): Adopted approval voting by a 63.5%-36.5% margin. Subsequent elections saw winners with much broader support shares than under the prior system. Post-election surveys by the Center for Election Science found that over 70% of voters found the method easy to use and over 60% liked it overall. Early evidence suggests positive outcomes, though large-scale peer-reviewed causal studies are still limited. Unfortunately, the North Dakota State Legislature banned it earlier this year. The reason: 

“When you have middle-of-the-road candidates that don’t take hard stances, they tend to be more tolerable to more people, and I believe this voting method is attempting to hire those people for the job,” said Republican Rep. Ben Koppelman, who sponsored the bill banning the system. “It doesn’t want any heavily principled people that might be polarizing to some.”

St. Louis, Missouri (2021): Implemented approval voting with similar patterns of broader winner support and positive voter feedback in early cycles.

Alaska (2020): Implemented top-four nonpartisan primaries with ranked-choice general election. The system appears to have been associated with the election of relatively moderate candidates in some high-profile races, including Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Rep. Mary Peltola. Some research finds mixed effects in down-ballot races, and causal analysis is still emerging, but early signals are promising.

These aren't theoretical models. They're working systems with measurable outcomes.

One plausible implementation pathway:

1. 2025-2026: Congressional firewall campaigns in 15-25 competitive districts
2. 2025-2027: State-level reform initiatives in 5-10 states
3. 2027-2030: National scaling based on demonstrated success

These are strategic proposals. But we have a particularly valuable window: 310 days until the 2026 midterms.

The Expected Value Calculation

First-year investment required: $125 million total

• $25M for congressional firewall campaigns
• $100M for state-level structural reforms

(These are strategic budget proposals.)

What this protects: $400+ billion in annual philanthropic outcomes across all cause areas, plus decades of institutional development in EA priorities.

Cost as percentage of what it protects: 0.03% of annual U.S. philanthropy protects 100% of cause-area effectiveness.

Important caveat: These numbers are not precise forecasts; they are stylized inputs to an expected-value calculation. The $400B "protected" figure is based on a heuristic fraction of U.S. philanthropy plausibly linked to policy and institutional health. Reasonable people might assign lower success probabilities or narrower estimates of what is "protected."

The claim here is that even under pessimistic assumptions, the order of magnitude of expected value compares favorably with many other large-scale EA interventions. Even if you lower the success probability to 5-10%, the implied expected impact per dollar still looks competitive with other large-ticket EA work such as frontier AI governance or global catastrophic biosecurity policy efforts.

Now let's think about probability. Even if you think there's only a 20% chance this intervention succeeds in preventing authoritarian consolidation, the expected value is still enormous. Because the downside of failure—systematic destruction of evidence-based policymaking capacity across all domains—is catastrophic.

Think about it this way: Would you pay $125 million for a 20% chance of protecting the entire EA ecosystem and $400 billion in annual philanthropic outcomes?

A poker player would take those pot odds all day long. 

The Opportunity Cost

What's the opportunity cost of not doing this?

If you fund a malaria intervention and it fails, you've lost the funding but other malaria interventions continue. If you fund an AI safety organization and it fails, other AI safety work continues. The ecosystem persists.

But if the political system produces unified authoritarian control hostile to evidence-based policy, every EA intervention simultaneously becomes less effective or impossible:

• AI safety research gets dismissed as academic distraction
• Global health funding gets cut as globalist agenda
• Animal welfare gets attacked as woke extremism
• Pandemic preparedness gets eliminated as deep state
• Climate action gets reversed as hoax
• Long-term planning becomes structurally impossible

This isn't just one cause area failing. It's the infrastructure enabling all cause areas failing simultaneously.

Now calculate the opportunity cost of not fixing the electoral system. You're accepting permanent reduced effectiveness across your entire portfolio.

The Time Sensitivity Factor

Timing matters uniquely here, though not in quite the way you might think.

If you miss optimal timing for a malaria intervention, you can run it later. If you miss optimal timing for an AI safety initiative, you can start later. The window stays open.

Electoral reform is different. While windows for reform open and close at different times in different states and municipalities, we have a particularly valuable window right now: 310 days until the 2026 midterms. If unified authoritarian control persists beyond 2026, we shift from offensive infrastructure investment to defensive crisis response for potentially a generation. The period of political plasticity — when multiple governance systems remain viable — narrows significantly.

This doesn't mean it's literally our only shot ever. But it does mean that the type of intervention available and its expected return changes dramatically depending on when you act.

In short: The iron couldn’t be hotter. It’s time to strike.

Why EA Hasn't Recognized This

There are three likely reasons the EA community has missed this:

First: It seems too political. But so does pandemic preparedness (requiring government action), AI safety regulation (requiring government action), and global health coordination (requiring government action).

More importantly, these reforms are not about helping Democrats and hurting Republicans. They are about helping voters of all ideological stripes escape a system that forces them to choose between a captured party and candidates they don't trust.

Approval voting and top-four primaries make it easier for genuinely conservative, non-authoritarian candidates to compete without splitting the vote. Conservative voters who care about limited government, rule of law, and constitutionalism are currently trapped: support a Trump-aligned candidate who doesn't represent their values, or vote for a Democrat whose policy positions they oppose. Electoral reform gives them a third option: Vote for an authentic conservative candidate without guaranteeing victory to the other side.

If effective altruism is serious about impartial welfare and long-term flourishing, it cannot be neutral between democratic institutions and authoritarian capture. Supporting reforms that restore genuine choice to conservative, moderate, and progressive voters alike is not "EA for Democrats"—it is EA for democracy. Authoritarianism structurally undermines evidence use, rights, and predictable institutions that all EA priorities depend upon.

Second: It seems intractable. But we have working examples in Fargo, St. Louis, and Alaska. We have clear implementation pathways. We have measurable success metrics. This is more tractable than ensuring AI alignment or preventing the next pandemic.

Third: It seems US-specific. But here's the argument: U.S. democratic collapse would be a global catastrophe for EA priorities. The U.S. is the lynchpin of international coordination on existential risks, global health funding, AI safety research, and climate action..

And critically: the goal is to upgrade the selection mechanism (plurality voting + partisan primaries), not to help Party X win. This maps directly onto EA's appetite for structural, mechanism-level fixes. We're not advocating for particular candidates or policies; we're advocating for a choice architecture that reduces the probability of extremist capture regardless of which party holds power.

This is admittedly a normative and strategic judgment rather than purely empirical fact, though it's widely shared among experts concerned with global public goods, existential risk governance, and international aid flows. But the basic logic holds: lose U.S. democratic function, and the global institutional infrastructure enabling most EA work degrades substantially.

The Honest Assessment

What we don't know:

• Exact probability of success in any given district or state
• Whether reforms will scale nationally within useful timeframe
• How quickly political culture adapts to new system
• Whether authoritarian forces find workarounds

Comparative expected value:

This is not the only systemic bet available to EA. AI governance, biosecurity policy, and global health infrastructure are alternative (and complementary) ways to protect long-term flourishing. However, electoral reform in the United States increases the odds that gains in other areas of interest to EA will be made.

A small fraction of EA resources (0.03% of total giving, or a few percent of democracy/meta funding) devoted to this structural fix could provide extremely high-leverage portfolio insurance. Unlike AI alignment or pandemic prevention, this intervention has a testable 310-day cycle where we can measure results and adapt. And the downside risk is bounded (failed political experiment) while the upside protects and/or unlocks hundreds of billions in EA-directed outcomes.

The expected value case is highly competitive with other large-ticket EA interventions, but this is a strategic judgment. Reasonable EAs could prioritize other systemic risks.

The 2026 cycle offers clear success metrics:

• Number of congressional candidates adopting electoral reform platforms (target: 50+)
• Shifts in competitive primary outcomes where reform-supporting candidates run
• Measurable mobilization of previously disengaged voters
• Cross-partisan coalition formation in target districts
• Electoral outcomes in 15-25 winnable districts
• Post-election surveys on reform message effectiveness

If the organizing hypothesis fails — if electoral reform doesn't function as an effective rallying cry — we learn that quickly and can redirect resources. If it works, we have proof of concept for scaling. 

What we know:

• Current system produces systematic opportunities for minoritarian capture (28.4% of primaries involved vote-splitting)
• System upgrades show promising early results in practice (Fargo, St. Louis, Alaska)
• All EA cause areas depend on functional democratic governance
• 2026 represents a particularly valuable window for intervention
• Neglectedness is extreme (order of magnitude: $5-10M annual funding)
• Scale of what's at stake is very large

When applying expected value reasoning to this, even with conservative probability estimates, the case is compelling.

What This Means for You

If you're an EA donor, particularly a major donor, you face a choice:

You can continue funding excellent direct interventions in your preferred cause areas while assuming the political environment remains stable enough for those interventions to work.

Or you can recognize that the political environment itself is degrading in ways that threaten your entire portfolio, and allocate a portion of your giving to protecting the infrastructure enabling everything else.

You're not choosing between helping one party or another. You're helping create a system where conservative voters can support authentic conservative candidates, where progressive voters can support progressive candidates, and where everyone escapes the forced binary that's producing worse outcomes across the board. This benefits everyone who believes in democratic governance—regardless of their policy preferences.

If you're an EA organization, particularly one working in spaces requiring government action (which is most of you), you face a similar choice. You can assume your evidence-based advocacy will find receptive policymakers, or you can recognize that the electoral system is systematically selecting against evidence-receptive policymakers and do something about it.

If you're thinking about your career, consider this: What would you do if you wanted to maximize your impact on ensuring EA priorities can actually be implemented over the next 50 years? Where's the bottleneck?

The bottleneck is governance infrastructure.

The Bottom Line

Put simply:

Problem: The combination of pick-one voting and partisan primaries creates systematic opportunities for extremist candidates to win despite broad opposition.

Solution: Top-four all-candidate primaries and general election approval voting substantially strengthen structural safeguards against minority rule by reducing vote-splitting and broadening incentives for cross-coalition appeal.

Evidence: Working systems in Fargo, St. Louis, and Alaska with promising early outcomes on voter satisfaction and representativeness, though large-scale causal research is still developing.

Scale: On many plausible models, reforms at U.S. national scale could materially affect hundreds of billions of dollars in philanthropy-linked outcomes and the institutional environment for all EA cause areas. Additionally, if electoral reform can function as an organizing principle, mobilizing even a fraction of the  tens of millions of currently disengaged Americans could produce immediate, measurable impact on 2026 electoral outcomes.

Neglectedness: On the order of low single-digit millions in annual funding today versus plausibly hundreds of millions needed for full implementation, implying extremely high marginal leverage.

Tractability: A particularly valuable ≈310-day window before the 2026 midterms offers dual tractability claims: (1) an untested but plausible hypothesis that electoral reform could mobilize substantial numbers of disengaged Americans as an organizing principle, and (2) longer-term structural reform pathways with demonstrated local success but still-emerging evidence at scale.

Expected value: Even under conservative assumptions about success probability (say, 5-10%) and the share of global impact at stake, the implied expected value per dollar looks highly competitive with other large-ticket EA interventions such as frontier AI governance or global catastrophic biosecurity policy work.

This is EA thinking applied to democracy itself. It's the upstream intervention everyone else is missing. And it unlocks everything else we want to accomplish.

The question isn't whether we can afford to fund this.

The question is whether we can afford not to.

To learn more about electoral reform as infrastructure for EA priorities, contact www.fortifydemocracy.com.

Timeline: 310 days to 2026 midterms.

Key Sources and References

Vote-Splitting and Primary Systems

• Center for Election Science. (2024). America (Mis)Represented: How Plurality Voting Undermines Majority Rule in U.S. Primaries (2022 Elections). Reportrepresented-report) | Full PDFRepresented-%202022%20Primaries%20Report%20(July%202024).pdf)
• Unite America Institute. (2021). The Primary Problem: How Partisan Primaries Promote Extremism. Report

Approval Voting Case Studies

• Center for Election Science. (2024). Success Stories: Fargo Before and After Approval Voting. Link
• Center for Election Science. (2025). "Fargo's First Approval Voting Election: Results and Voter Experience." Link
• Solutions Journalism Network. "Vote for everyone you like — Fargo tests approval voting." Link

Approval Voting Theory

• Center for Election Science. (2024). "How Approval Voting Empowers Voters." Link
• Peters, D., et al. (2025). "Axiomatic analysis of approval-based scoring rules." Journal of Economic Theory. Link

Alaska's Top-Four System

• Unite America Institute. (2023). Alaska's Election Model: How the Top-Four Nonpartisan Primary System Improves Participation, Competition, and Representation. Report
• Harvard Journal on Legislation. (2024). "The Alaska Model for Democracy in Elections." Article
• R Street Institute. (2023). Evaluating the Effects of the Top-Four System in Alaska. Policy Short No. 122. PDF
• Open Primaries. (2024). Electoral Innovation and the Alaska System: Partisanship and Representation. Report
• "Composition of the Electorate in Alaska's Top-four Nonpartisan Primary." (2023). Politics & Policy. Article

U.S. Charitable Giving Data

• Giving USA. (2024). Giving USA 2024: The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2023. Summary | Full Report
• Campbell & Company. (2024). "Giving USA: Total U.S. Charitable Giving Reached $557.16 Billion in 2023." Link

Political Engagement and Disengagement Research

• Metropolitan Group. (2025). Pro-democracy narrative research across 12 countries with 2,000+ U.S. respondents. Key findings: 58% of Americans politically disengaged despite supporting democracy; 60%+ want more political choices; cross-partisan values resonate at 88%+.
• Research Collaborative / ASO Communications. (2025). Deep Dive: Fomenting Resistance to the Trump Regime. Key findings: 72% of Trump opposers haven't been asked to engage; 27% take political action only in community with others; connectedness and like-minded peers critical for activation.

Strategic Planning Context

Note: The "310 days to 2026 midterms" figure represents the time from late December 2025 to November 3, 2026 (Election Day). Figures regarding funding estimates ($5-10M for electoral reform), strategic timelines (15-25 districts, 5-10 states), budget proposals ($125M), and mobilization claims ("tens of millions," coalition-building capacity) are based on internal strategic analysis by Fortify Democracy rather than published comprehensive data. These should be understood as order-of-magnitude estimates and proposed strategic frameworks, not demonstrated outcomes.

For further information about electoral reform as EA infrastructure, contact www.fortifydemocracy.com.