Ranked Choice Voting MD Exec. Dir. Michelle Whittaker on our bipartisan redistricting reality.

Michelle Whittaker, Executive Director of Ranked Choice Voting MD did an exceptional job of detailing redistricting in the most objective manner to date.

Ranked Choice Voting MD Exec. Dir. Michelle Whittaker.

Watch Politics Done Right T.V. here.

Podcasts (Video — Audio)

---

Summary

Michelle Whittaker, Executive Director of Ranked Choice Voting Maryland and board chair of Represent Women, spoke at Netroots Nation 2025 about the urgent need for proportional representation and election reform. She argued that both major parties abuse gerrymandering for political gain, and real democracy requires structural changes like ranked choice voting to ensure representation for all, especially independents, renters, women, and communities of color.

• Proportional representation ensures fairer outcomes by giving voice to renters, women, racial minorities, and working-class voters often left out.
• Gerrymandering is bipartisan, with both Democrats and Republicans manipulating maps to entrench power.
• Independents are rising, yet remain sidelined under the rigid two-party system and closed primaries.
• Voting Rights Act gutted, making it harder to fight discriminatory practices masked as “neutral” redistricting.
• Democracy defense is urgent, requiring immediate resistance to voter suppression and long-term reforms like ranked choice voting.

In short, Whittaker stressed that saving democracy requires more than short-term partisan gamesmanship. It demands a people-powered electoral system that stops privileging politicians and entrenched elites, and instead guarantees every community a seat at the table.

---

Premium Content (Complimentary)

Michelle Whittaker’s intervention at Netroots Nation 2025 underscores a hard but necessary truth: America’s democracy is structurally broken, and both major parties bear responsibility. Speaking as both a progressive Democrat and the Executive Director of Ranked Choice Voting Maryland, Whittaker affirmed what many grassroots organizers already know—gerrymandering is not a one-party sin, but a bipartisan weapon used to silence voters and fortify political machines.

In Texas, Republicans have perfected racial and partisan gerrymandering to diminish the political power of communities of color. In states like Maryland, Democrats have carved districts in ways that effectively exclude Republicans from meaningful representation. Both practices distort democracy by predetermining outcomes, nullifying votes, and leaving independents—the fastest-growing bloc of voters—without real power. Whittaker made clear that while Republican gerrymandering often carries the added intent of suppressing communities of color, Democrats cannot be absolved when they mimic these same undemocratic tools.

Her call for proportional representation and ranked choice voting points toward a structural solution that breaks out of the false binary of two-party politics. Ranked choice voting, already in use in states like Maine and Alaska, allows voters to rank candidates by preference rather than being forced into a “lesser evil” choice. Proportional representation goes further, ensuring legislative seats are distributed according to the share of votes different political groups receive. This system would open the door for independents, Greens, Libertarians, and new progressive coalitions to win representation without being crushed by winner-take-all rules.

The deeper moral question Whittaker wrestled with—the temptation to justify Democratic gerrymandering as a defense against Republican extremism—remains central to progressive strategy. Progressives often face the accusation of “fighting too fair,” of refusing to stoop to the dirty tactics used by the right. But Whittaker rejects the false choice between unprincipled power grabs and political surrender. She insists on a third path: defending democracy aggressively, but with reforms that expand, rather than contract, representation. This is not naive idealism. It is recognition that shortcuts erode the very legitimacy progressives hope to build.

Her metaphor of immediate triage versus long-term healing captures the dual struggle of democracy today. Yes, progressives must fight suppression efforts in the courts and legislatures to stop the bleeding. But they must also invest in preventative reforms—ranked choice voting, independent redistricting commissions, proportional representation—that prevent future breakdowns. Without those systemic changes, short-term victories will be pyrrhic, and voters will remain trapped in a democracy that does not reflect their will.

The stakes are existential. With the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act and Republican legislatures escalating suppression tactics, the fight for democracy cannot be reactive alone. It must be visionary. Independent commissions and proportional representation, already practiced successfully in democracies like New Zealand and Germany, offer a blueprint for America. Studies consistently show that these systems lead to higher voter turnout, more diverse legislatures, and stronger protections for marginalized communities (FairVote, Brennan Center).

Whittaker’s work through Represent Women and Ranked Choice Voting Maryland is part of that movement. By demanding gender parity, racial equity, and voter-centered systems, she is connecting electoral reform to the broader struggle for social justice. Democracy is not just a procedural question—it is about whether working families, women, renters, and historically excluded groups have real political power.

The progressive takeaway from her remarks is clear: America cannot defend democracy by copying the tactics of those who seek to destroy it. The path forward is bold reform that puts people first, dismantles the entrenched two-party duopoly, and guarantees that every voter counts. Anything less leaves the door open for continued disenfranchisement, political polarization, and rule by the few at the expense of the many. Whittaker does understand that in existential times, short-term measures outside the scope of one’s ideological intent may be necessary.