“Americans are more polarized than ever,” says Professor Sean Westwood of Dartmouth’s Polarization Lab. More than 40 percent of Americans believe a civil war is at least somewhat likely in the next decade. Trust in government to “do what is right” has hovered at record lows since 2011. Satisfaction with “the way democracy is working in this country” dropped to 28 percent in 2023, the lowest since Gallup began asking the question in 1984.

These trends have coincided with an era of remarkable change and experimentation in virtually every aspect of how Americans vote.

For example, prior to the 1970s, primary elections were a minor part of our system, especially for the president. The first “top two” primary did not emerge until 2008.

No-excuse absentee voting first appeared in California in 1978. Today, it is offered in 42 states. The first state to conduct all mail elections was Oregon in 1998. Today, eight states conduct elections entirely by mail.

Early in-person voting, offered for just one week, began in Texas in 1988. It was utilized in just 7 states as recently as 1996. Today, forty-seven states offer early voting, with ten providing at least 5 weeks of early voting.

No state used drop boxes before 2000. The first state to require a government-issued photo ID was Indiana in 2006.

Only after 1964 did we require legislative districts to be equally populated, hindering recognition of geographic, ethnic, and economic communities in the districting process. As late as 1991, no state had a non-partisan redistricting commission. Today, seven do, with efforts underway to adopt such bodies elsewhere.

Abandonment of our traditional “first past the post” system in favor of Ranked Choice Voting is the new rage amongst “good government” types. Meanwhile, eighteen states have signed a “national popular vote” compact intended to circumvent the 237-year old Electoral College. There are lobbies for paper ballots and other reforms.

Behind all this “reform” is the notion that if we could just perfect voting, we would cure what ails our political life—or at least assure that the popular will is accurately ascertained and translated into policy. But as far back as 1951, Nobel Prize winner Kenneth Arrow demonstrated that it is impossible to design an electoral system that fully and accurately captures the preferences of the electorate. “Arrow’s Theorem,” has never been successfully challenged.  Six years after Arrow, economist Anthony Downs demonstrated that most voters necessarily lack the incentives to become well-informed on issues and candidates. Efforts to solve our political problems through reform of voting procedures simply place a greater burden on voting than it can handle.

Though arguably the most important structural element of American government, voting is hardly its only or even dominant feature. Separation of powers, federalism, enumeration of limited powers, and bicameralism are crucial elements of the system. All have been allowed to atrophy. Indeed, changes to voting procedures and electoral practices are often promoted with the claim that they will overcome these other Constitutional features, creating a more “responsive” government, allowing slim majorities to run roughshod over the remainder.

Americans vote more than any other nation, yet voting is still something done, at most, once every few months. Our political and civic life doesn’t begin with voting: It ends with voting, after we have agreed on how to resolve our political disputes peacefully, and created a climate of tolerance for ideas, respect for differences of opinion, and compromise and consensus as virtues. Our commitment to “democracy” is demonstrated less by our voting than by Kiwanis, Junior League and other service clubs; by our civic engagement through churches, Little League, and non-partisan education, and by how we treat each other on-line and on a daily basis. When these foundations of democratic life decline, there is little that changes in voting procedures can do to fix the problem.

In fact, constant tinkering with the electoral system is harmful. Every change to voting and electoral rules has potential partisan consequences, and many are promoted with specifically partisan goals. Even sincere reform advocates rarely promote changes that appear to reduce their political power. Unsurprisingly then, reform has become a perpetual downward spiral: Each proposed change breeds more distrust and partisan rancor.

What ails our politics cannot be overcome by adjusting the rules for voting. The sooner we come to grips with that fact, the sooner we can begin reconstituting a healthier democracy.