Want better government? Then let’s change how we run our elections in Montana.

We’re political scientists, not partisans. We study electoral systems and voter behavior. But it doesn’t take a doctoral degree to know that something is wrong with our politics. Instead of forging compromise and rewarding problem-solvers, our system is increasing the division between us and leaving voters with a slew of unappealing choices.

Democracy requires choice. In a functioning electoral system, candidates compete for your vote and you choose the person who best represents your values. But this isn’t working in Montana. Take our primary system -- most party primaries in Montana are not competitive. Over the past five election cycles, state legislative races featuring an incumbent saw no challenger more than 80% of the time on average.

Uncompetitive elections allow incumbents to cater to the most extreme elements within their respective parties with little consequence. Not only are many primary elections bereft of challengers, roughly 70% of Montana state legislators faced no major party competition in November general elections over the past decade. That’s great news for politicians, but it’s terrible for voters who have no recourse to hold their elected representative accountable.

To honor the cherished independence of Montanans, we’d like to suggest a better way of choosing our leaders: first, get rid of partisan primaries. Let’s have every candidate run on the same ballot in the primary and allow every eligible voter, regardless of party, vote to nominate candidates. Instead of just two candidates advancing to the November general election, the top four finishers should.

By creating a top-four primary system, we can inject competition into primary elections, attract more voter participation, and prevent the “mischiefs of faction” that can create majority tyrannies that take their marching orders from donors and their special interest lobbyists. .

A top four primary system would also force legislators to pay attention to a wider array of voices and views at every stage of the electoral process. As Austin Ramirez, co-founder of Democracy Found puts it, “I think you could very well implement this election system and not change a single person that we send to Washington … but dramatically change how they behave. This isn’t about sending different people to Washington necessarily; it’s about getting an election system that rewards behavior aligned with their constituents.”

Another problem with our current system is that candidates often win with less than a majority of the vote—which is precisely what happened in the 2017 special election sending Republican Greg Gianforte to the U.S. House and the 2006 election sending Democrat Jon Tester to the U.S. Senate. To address this let’s give voters the option of ranking the four candidates: first choice, second choice, third choice, etc. The candidate with the most support wins.

Ranked choice voting (RCV) is an election system wherein voters rank-order any number of candidates by preference. This system significantly raises the likelihood that a candidate with a broad base of support will win due to the “instant-runoff” feature of RCV. This process eliminates the lowest vote-getter and counts the second and third choice votes until a candidate gets a majority. This makes each vote matter more -- even if your top candidate is eliminated, your vote will be shifted to your second preference, and so forth, ensuring a more optimal aggregate outcome than simple majority rule.

This system incentivizes candidates to appeal to a broader swath of the electorate – not just their party’s loyal base – as each candidate isn’t just competing for each voters’ first choice votes, they’re also competing for the second and third choice votes. Overall, RCV is a promising alternative to plurality winner systems – most notably, RCV eliminates the “spoiler effect” that independents and third parties are likely to play in competitive districts within plurality systems. It’s a reform that’s good for voters while preventing the shenanigans both parties have played to manipulate the presence of third-party candidates on the ballot to gain an edge in the November elections.

We anticipate that our recommendations may induce anxiety among Montana politicians. Concerns that these reforms may benefit one of the major parties or other may be especially common. These concerns would be better founded if only one of Montana’s status quo institutions was replaced. For example, doing away with non-partisan primaries may benefit Democrats, whereas only instituting RCV may benefit Republicans. Replacing both partisan primaries and the plurality winner system in Montana would not clearly advantage either party, but would be a boon for the democratic health of the Last, Best Place.

David C.W. Parker is a professor of political science at Montana State University. Kal Munis is a sixth-generation Montanan and an assistant professor of political science at Utah Valley University.