Side-by-side analysis of what each approach would mean for your right to vote, the fairness of your district, and the integrity of your elections.
We're a policy platform with 50 researched positions on every major issue. This page compares voting rights approaches across parties — but there's much more to explore.
The United States ranks 31st out of 38 OECD nations in voter turnout. In 2022, only 46% of eligible voters cast a ballot in the midterm elections. An estimated 16 million eligible Americans were unable to vote in 2020 due to registration barriers, insufficient polling places, or ID requirements they could not meet. Meanwhile, gerrymandering has made roughly 90% of House seats non-competitive, meaning most Americans' votes in congressional elections are essentially meaningless. The foundation of democracy — free and fair elections — is under stress in America.
The three major approaches to voting rights differ fundamentally. Democrats focus on expanding access — automatic registration, early voting, restoring the Voting Rights Act, and opposing strict voter ID laws. Republicans focus on election security — voter ID requirements, purging voter rolls, limiting mail-in voting, and opposing federal oversight of state election laws. The Common Good Party proposes comprehensive election reform: automatic registration, free universal voter ID, independent redistricting commissions to end gerrymandering, ranked-choice voting, an Election Day holiday, restored voting rights for formerly incarcerated citizens, and public financing of campaigns.
This page breaks down each approach honestly — what it gets right, what it misses, and what it would actually mean for your ability to vote and the competitiveness of your elections. No spin, no talking points, just the policy.
How the three approaches stack up on the issues that matter most to your right to vote.
| Issue | Democrats | Republicans | Common Good |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voter ID | Oppose strict ID laws | Require photo ID to vote | Free universal voter ID for all |
| Automatic registration | Support nationwide | Oppose, favor opt-in only | Automatic at 18 + same-day option |
| Gerrymandering | Support independent commissions | State legislature control | Mandate independent commissions |
| Early / mail voting | Expand access broadly | Restrict, require excuses | 14+ days early, no-excuse mail |
| Felony voting | Restore after sentence served | State discretion, most oppose | Automatic restoration upon release |
| Election Day holiday | Support | Oppose | Federal holiday + expanded access |
| Ranked-choice voting | Some support, no party position | Generally oppose | Implement for all federal elections |
| Campaign finance | Overturn Citizens United | Protect free speech (unlimited spending) | Public financing + overturn Citizens United |
| Voting Rights Act | Restore preclearance (John Lewis Act) | Oppose federal oversight | Full restoration + expanded coverage |
| Electoral College | Some support reform | Preserve current system | National Popular Vote Compact |
Sources: Brennan Center for Justice, MIT Election Data + Science Lab, National Conference of State Legislatures, party platform documents. See the compact comparison view for a quick side-by-side summary.
The Democratic approach to voting rights centers on expanding access and protecting against discrimination. Key proposals include the For the People Act (H.R. 1), which would establish automatic voter registration nationwide, expand early and mail-in voting, restore the Voting Rights Act preclearance provisions gutted by the Supreme Court in 2013, create independent redistricting commissions, make Election Day a federal holiday, and establish public financing for congressional campaigns. Democrats also support the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would update the formula for determining which states need federal preclearance before changing voting laws.
Democrats are correct that voter suppression is a far greater threat to election integrity than voter fraud. Since the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013, states have closed over 1,800 polling places — disproportionately in communities of color. The For the People Act addresses real structural problems: automatic registration has been shown to increase registration rates by 90%+ in states that have adopted it. Independent redistricting commissions in California and Arizona have produced significantly more competitive districts. Public financing would reduce the influence of wealthy donors and corporate PACs.
Democrats have been unable to pass their flagship voting rights legislation despite controlling Congress and the White House, raising questions about political will versus political rhetoric. The party opposes voter ID laws rather than solving the underlying problem — that obtaining government ID is difficult for many Americans. Providing free, universal voter ID would address election integrity concerns while removing the burden on voters. Democrats have also been inconsistent on gerrymandering, supporting independent commissions nationally while defending Democratic gerrymanders in states like Maryland and New York. And the party has not embraced ranked-choice voting as an official position, despite strong evidence that it improves democratic outcomes.
For more on voting rights history and reform, see the full voting rights explainer.
The Republican approach to voting rights emphasizes election security and state control. Key proposals include requiring photo identification to vote, maintaining state legislature control over redistricting, limiting or eliminating no-excuse mail-in voting, regularly purging voter rolls to remove inactive registrations, opposing automatic voter registration, preserving the Electoral College, and opposing federal oversight of state election laws. Republicans frame these measures as necessary to prevent fraud and maintain confidence in elections.
Election integrity matters. Public confidence in elections is essential for a functioning democracy, and some voter ID provisions — when properly implemented with free ID — can be reasonable. Maintaining accurate voter rolls through regular maintenance is legitimate election administration. State flexibility in election administration can allow for innovation and experimentation. And concerns about the security of mail-in ballots, while largely unsubstantiated at scale, reflect a legitimate interest in secure elections.
The Republican approach addresses a problem that barely exists (voter fraud) while ignoring or exacerbating problems that demonstrably do (voter suppression, gerrymandering, uncompetitive elections). Strict voter ID laws without providing free identification effectively create a poll tax — which is unconstitutional. Aggressive voter roll purges have removed millions of eligible voters — Ohio purged over 40,000 voters just before the 2018 election. Opposing automatic registration and limiting early/mail voting reduces turnout, particularly among working-class voters who cannot take time off on Election Day.
Most critically, defending state legislature control of redistricting is defending gerrymandering. In states where Republicans control redistricting, they have drawn maps that give them 60-70% of seats with 50% of the vote. This is not democracy — it is a system designed to predetermine outcomes. Opposing the Electoral College reform ignores the fact that presidential campaigns currently ignore 40+ states entirely, meaning most Americans have no meaningful voice in choosing their president.
For a deeper analysis of gerrymandering and electoral reform, see our voting rights explainer.
The Common Good Party proposes comprehensive election reform designed to maximize both access and integrity. Automatic voter registration for every citizen at 18 with same-day registration as a backup. Free universal voter ID cards — solving the integrity question without burdening voters. Independent redistricting commissions mandated in every state to end gerrymandering. Ranked-choice voting for all federal elections to eliminate the spoiler effect and encourage coalition-building. Election Day as a federal holiday with at least 14 days of early voting and universal no-excuse mail-in voting. Automatic restoration of voting rights upon release from incarceration. Public financing of campaigns with small-dollar matching to reduce the influence of wealthy donors. Full restoration and expansion of the Voting Rights Act. Support for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Unlike the Democratic approach, the CGP plan doesn't just expand access — it fundamentally restructures how elections work through ranked-choice voting, independent redistricting, and public financing. It also solves the voter ID debate by providing free universal ID rather than fighting about it endlessly. Unlike the Republican approach, it treats voting as a right to be protected rather than a privilege to be restricted. The CGP plan is the only approach that addresses all dimensions of electoral dysfunction: access, integrity, competitiveness, representation, and the influence of money in politics.
Every element of the CGP plan has been proven to work somewhere. Automatic registration has increased registration rates by 90%+ in states that adopted it. Independent redistricting commissions in California produced districts that are 30% more competitive than the previous legislature-drawn maps. Ranked-choice voting in Alaska produced a more representative Congress member in its first use. Countries with election holidays, automatic registration, and proportional representation have voter turnout rates of 80-90% — compared to America's 60%.
Public financing of campaigns, used in New York City and several other jurisdictions, has dramatically increased the diversity of candidates and reduced the time elected officials spend fundraising (currently estimated at 50-70% of their time). Maine and Vermont allow incarcerated people to vote with zero negative effects. The solutions exist. They just require political will that neither major party has demonstrated.
Policy abstractions matter less than real impact. Here's what the Common Good voting rights plan would look like for real people in real situations.
Want to see how all CGP policies would affect your household finances? Run the numbers on healthcare, taxes, and more.
Open the Tax CalculatorCommon questions about how the three approaches compare on voting rights.
Have a question not answered here? Read the full voting rights explainer or visit our site-wide FAQ.
Dive deeper into voting rights policy with these pages.
Gerrymandered districts, suppressed votes, and unlimited dark money are not democracy. Read the full plan and see which approach actually puts power back in the hands of voters.
Paid for by The Common Good Party (thecommongoodparty.com) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.