Before you read this, know it is the product of many discussions with reformers, legislators and some of my own State history. This information is not popular,

Before you read this, know it is the product of many discussions with reformers, legislators and some of my own State history. This information is not popular, but it is solid. Rebuttals welcome and encouraged! Now for the rough news: Reform does not begin with the losers. They lost and that undermines their position and standing to demand change. While their incentive to reform is high, driven by the need to seek power, how just their arguments are is put into question by what the winners can always argue is a general failure to appeal to the people. Losers can take a case to the people however. When said case is seen as an overall gain, it has a solid chance to succeed. (True whether their intent is just and true or self serving, nefarious.) Winners will suggest the remedy for losers is to perform better in the next election and that will carry great weight and serve as a basis to undermine reform efforts seen to also undermine the legitimacy. Winners have a low incentive to reform as said reforms can put their currently successful path to power into jeopardy. They also understand legitimacy is core to their power and standing as legislators. If they question the process, they question their own legitimacy. On this point, democracy depends strongly on legitimacy. No one holding power wants the overall process legitimacy undermined. People consent to governance in democratic society. Legitimacy is the core holding things together. So, what is the path? Generally speaking, courts are reluctant to legislate process changes. From their POV, they can sort out an election that needs it and will do so under the current process. The courts can affirm a successful reform, but cannot generally initiate one. A better process is a political problem and the courts will make it clear new law / process originates from the politics, not the bench. (I am ignoring activist courts here and those arguments have merit, but none of that is truly germane to election reform.) This does not leave much! Reform comes from the winners, people currently holding power. Their power may be democratic. Prime example is they won their election. It may be a matter of process. Succession is a prime example. They end up in power because someone else fell out of power somehow. (This does put an additional emphasis on cultivating legitimacy into play, just saying.) It may be the result of conflict too. A coup, revolt sufficient to topple prior regime, you get the idea. In all cases, winners have legitimacy as a primary concern and will be extremely reluctant to put that into question. Reform arguments are more potent when existing power and legitimacy are considered and threats marginalized. Conclusion: Successful election reform happens when the winners can propose a solution that does not undermine legitimacy and presents a mutual benefit for themselves and those voters they hold power over. The people, depending on law in their state, can also propose election reform to be generally adopted. This is the primary path for losers reform efforts. It garners legitimacy and can also be used to augment campaigns. There are some successes! Maine abandoned first past the post voting. Oregon adopted vote by mail with good overall results. Other states, Colorado, Washington... have adopted it for similar reasons and have seen similar positive outcomes. Anyone interested in election reform would be wise to study past reform efforts that improved democracy. Notably, perception of reduction in democracy, trust, legitimacy are by far the dominant outcome for electronic elections. Successful arguments include: Better elections = better politics = better policy = better lives. Improved public involvement = reduction in fraud and fraud perception = greater trust = more legitimacy. On that point, reform efforts aimed at greater participation can also mean more successful GOTV. This can mean consent perception is higher, legitimacy higher, difficult policy easier to live with.