The Two-Party Trap in the Granite State: Why New Hampshire Needs Electoral Reform
By Granite State Report
New Hampshire is famed for its civic traditions: the town meeting, the “retail politics” style of campaigning, and its first-in-the-nation presidential primary. Yet beneath that worthy veneer lies a political system too dependent on a duopoly—two dominant parties monopolizing power. That duopoly distorts representation, depresses competition, and makes the state less responsive to citizens. It’s time New Hampshire rethinks its expectations about party dominance. In this article I explain the problem, show how the duopoly plays out locally, and offer a reform agenda tailored to the Granite State.
Why the Two-Party Structure Is Problematic (Especially at the State Level)
Even before zooming into New Hampshire, let’s review the conceptual drawbacks of a system dominated by two parties. Many of these are well documented in political science:
- Suppression of voices & ideological diversity In “winner-takes-all” or plurality systems, minor parties struggle to survive (Duverger’s law). Voters anticipate that a vote for a third party is “wasted,” so many avoid it. Dominant parties effectively gatekeep which issues gain traction.
- Polarization and rigid party discipline With few options, politics becomes binary: you’re either “with us” or “against us.” Nuance, compromise, and cross-ideological coalitions get marginalized.
- Lack of electoral accountability in “safe” districts Many districts become effectively guaranteed to one party via demographics or map design, so incumbents feel safe. Their main competition comes in primaries, pushing them to cater more to extremes than to persuadable voters.
- Entrenched incumbency and status quo bias Because winning is hard for challengers, the existing power structure resists change. Innovative policy proposals and new voices struggle to gain traction.
- Voter alienation, frustration, and cynicism When choices feel limited, many voters disengage—or vote for the “lesser evil”—which reinforces the duopoly. Over time this breeds cynicism about whether the system really offers genuine representation.
These are not theoretical abstractions. In New Hampshire, we see many of these dynamics in action.
How the Duopoly Distorts New Hampshire Politics
The Granite State has its own flavor of the two-party trap. Here are key manifestations and recent episodes:
Legislature, districting, and map control
- The state legislature (the General Court) retains primary control over redistricting, subject to gubernatorial veto.
- In 2022, the legislature passed new state Senate and Executive Council maps during unified Republican control—despite prior bipartisan calls for reform.
- In earlier sessions, bills to create an independent or advisory redistricting commission (e.g. HB 1665) passed in the legislature but were vetoed by the governor.
- Scholars using ensemble methods recently analyzed New Hampshire’s districts and found that enacted maps systematically favor one party beyond what many neutral maps would predict.
- Although NH’s constitution prohibits “partisan or political discrimination” in drawing districts and favors compactness and contiguity, these constitutional guardrails have not prevented subtle partisan leverage in boundary design.
These structural map advantages allow one party to convert modest electoral advantages into outsized seat majorities—with less effort from incumbents.
Safe seats, primary pressure, and internal polarization
Because many NH legislative districts are noncompetitive in general elections, the real threat to incumbents comes from within their own party during primaries. That encourages them to appeal to base voters, not the center. It also makes legislators less flexible, less willing to cross party lines, and more ideologically extreme.
Efforts toward ranked-choice voting and local reforms
There is growing support in NH for ranked-choice voting (RCV).
- In House Bill HB 600 (2025), nine representatives (bipartisan) proposed giving municipalities the option to use RCV in their local elections.
- HB 600 is framed as an enabling bill: it does not mandate RCV statewide or for all elections, but allows towns and cities to opt in if they choose.
- NH Ranked Choice Voting, an advocacy group, promotes this opt-in route: start small, prove the advantages, build trust.
- Legislature has considered other proposals: one (HB 1264) would let RCV be used in party primaries and municipal contests; another (HB 1482) would extend RCV to all state and federal offices by 2027.
- The NH civic organization Citizens Count summarizes these proposals and notes that all three efforts failed to pass in recent legislative sessions.
- Some municipalities already require runoffs when no candidate gets half the vote. Proponents argue that switching to RCV could eliminate the time, cost, and complexity of runoffs.
These modest steps point toward reform, but as of now, RCV remains optional and limited to municipal settings if HB 600 becomes law.
Voter registration and ballot access
In 2024, NH passed HB 1569, tightening voter registration rules by requiring proof of citizenship (e.g. birth certificate or naturalization documents) and reducing reliance on affidavit systems. Critics argue this may suppress turnout among people who lack ready access to such documentation.
(This is a more recent development and may need further updating as challenges or modifications emerge.)
Ballot access for independent or third-party candidates remains challenging under existing state law; petition thresholds, filing deadlines, and party recognition rules tend to favor the established duopolies.
A Reform Agenda for New Hampshire: Toward a More Open, Responsive System
Given the shared pathologies of two-party dominance and New Hampshire’s particular institutional landscape, here is a reform blueprint—both bold and pragmatic—for Granite State advocacy.
1. Expand ranked-choice voting (RCV) via opt-in pilots
- Pass HB 600 (or a strengthened version) so that municipalities may adopt RCV in local elections. Use early innings in small towns to test procedures, ballot design, voter education, and counting.
- Simultaneously, push for state-level RCV adoption in primaries or statewide general elections via bills like HB 1264 or HB 1482.
- Consider a constitutional amendment (such as CACR 22) to entrench RCV more firmly in NH’s electoral system.
- Accompany these legal steps with strong voter education campaigns: how to rank candidates, why RCV helps reduce the “spoiler” problem, and build trust in the system.
RCV doesn’t automatically equal proportionality, but it softens binary constraints, encourages honest ranking, and reduces strategic voting.
2. Convert multi-member districts to proportional systems
- NH already uses multi-member electoral districts for its House in many places (electing more than one representative). But those districts use plurality (block) voting, which lets majorities sweep all seats.
- Reconfigure those districts to use Single Transferable Vote (STV) or another ranked-proportional method. In STV, voters rank candidates; seats are allocated proportionally via vote transfers.
- Because NH’s House is large (400 members), selective districts could be piloted under STV while others remain under the old system, enabling comparative evaluation.
This would allow minority or third-party voices to win representation where they have support without being crushed by majority dominance.
3. Institute an independent (or semi-independent) redistricting commission
- Pass legislation to create a commission to design congressional, legislative, and executive-council maps, rather than leaving control to the legislature.
- The commission should follow binding criteria: compactness, contiguity, respect for town/county lines, competitiveness, and prohibition on using past election data to deliberately favor parties.
- Make the commission binding—not just advisory—and limit legislative override power.
- Include citizen members, nonpartisan experts, and built-in transparency (public hearings, open data).
- A similar reform (HB 706) passed the House in 2019, though not fully enacted.
- Because current committees already draw maps and hold hearings, reform might be framed as replacing or improving the same structure rather than starting from scratch.
An impartial commission is the best structural bulwark against partisan map distortion.
4. Loosen barriers to ballot access and encourage fusion voting
- Lower petitioning and signature thresholds for independent and third-party candidacies for legislative, executive, and gubernatorial offices.
- Permit fusion voting (co-endorsement) so a candidate can appear on multiple party lines, enabling smaller parties to retain distinct identities while supporting viable candidates.
- Ensure equal debate access, inclusion in official voter guides, and minimum media exposure for non-major-party candidates.
- Reform party recognition rules (for primaries) so that parties do not have to meet unrealistically high vote thresholds just to stay eligible.
These changes reduce the duopoly’s chokehold on candidate pipelines.
5. Reform primaries and timing
- Move the state primary earlier (e.g. from September to June) so there is more breathing room and public engagement between primary and general elections.
- Adopt nonpartisan blanket primaries or top-N primaries (all candidates on a single primary ballot; top two or more advance irrespective of party). This shrinks gatekeeping power of parties.
- For presidential primaries, consider decoupling NH’s “first-in-the-nation” status from binding party rules to allow more structural experimentation without sacrificing prominence.
6. Modernize voter registration, reduce document barriers, invest in local capacity
- While careful about election integrity, reconsider strict proof-of-citizenship mandates. Preserve backup systems (e.g. affidavits) with checks.
- Roll out automatic voter registration (e.g. at DMV interactions) and pre-registration for 16–17 year olds.
- Develop an online registration portal and unify registration infrastructure across municipalities (especially in rural towns).
- Provide state grants or assistance to town clerks and municipal offices to upgrade their systems, training, and ballot counting infrastructure.
These steps help reduce structural friction that favors incumbents and entrenched parties.
7. Public financing, matching funds, and caps
- Introduce small-donor matching funds (e.g. 4:1 matching) for state legislative, executive council, and gubernatorial races to reduce dependence on large donors and party machines.
- Establish seed funding grants for new/independent candidates who meet minimal qualifications.
- Cap total campaign expenditures proportionally to office scale, or enforce “fair voting” access provisions (e.g. access to media time, free mailings) to reduce the cost advantage of entrenched parties.
8. Civic deliberation, participatory processes, and institutional hybrids
- Expand the use of citizens’ assemblies, deliberative polling, and issue commissions in NH, especially on matters like climate, housing, or education. Give them formal channels into legislative processes.
- Use participatory budgeting at municipal and county levels; connect those process outputs to state policy debates.
- Encourage coalition governance rather than single-party rule; promote cultural norms where cross-party alliances on issue coalitions are respected rather than suppressed.
These reforms don’t assume parties vanish; rather, they rewire the incentives so parties work with, not over, citizens and ideas.
What Change Might Look Like in 2026: A Thought Experiment
Imagine the 2026 election cycle in this reformed NH:
- Some towns opt into RCV in municipal races. Voter turnout nudges up as citizens feel freer to vote sincerely (less strategic concern).
- In selected state House multi-member districts, STV is used. Third-party and independent candidates gain seats (even 1 or 2 in districts where they’ve historically polled 10–15%).
- The redistricting commission unveils maps drawn with transparent criteria. Competitive districts increase. Many incumbents face real contests.
- Primary and general election ballots look quite different: more candidates, more ranking, less binary polarization. Campaigns are more cross-ideological, more appeal-broad, with fewer negative attacks.
- More challengers run, particularly in districts that were formerly “safe.” Incumbent advantage shrinks.
- Voters see that the system can flex—to new voices, new ideas, and more responsive representation.
This is not utopia—but it’s a plausible shift from zero-sum duopoly toward a more dynamic, open democratic ecosystem.
Challenges, Risks & Strategic Imperatives
No reform is cost-free or riskless. Here are the main obstacles and how reformers should navigate them:
- Resistance from entrenched parties: The two major parties benefit from the status quo and will resist changes that dilute their power. Reforms must build broad civic coalitions, including disaffected factions of existing parties.
- Institutional inertia: Many local officials, municipal clerks, and town governments are underresourced and burdened. Reforms must provide technical, financial, and educational support—not just impose new rules.
- Voter distrust or confusion: Transitioning to RCV or STV can raise concerns (“Is my vote wasted? Is it rigged?”). Strong, transparent public education and phased rollouts are essential.
- Legal and constitutional constraints: Some electoral rules are embedded in the RSA (state statutes) or constitution. Reforms may require amendments, supermajorities, or ballot referenda.
- Complexity and administrative cost: More sophisticated counting, audits, rankings, and data infrastructure impose cost. The state must invest in modern, secure systems.
- Risk of fragmented governance: Too many small parties could lead to fractious assemblies. Careful threshold design, coalition norms, or moderated proportional systems help mitigate that.
The reform agenda must pace itself. Pilot projects, “sunset” clauses (trial periods), and ongoing evaluation help avoid overreach. The key is directional change, not perfection from Day One.
Call to Action for Granite State Reformers
- Support HB 600 and similar bills—even in their modest form—as building blocks.
- Engage municipalities about opting in and running pilot RCV elections. Showcase early successes.
- Organize cross-ideological coalitions: third-party groups, independents, moderate Republicans or Democrats, civic associations, media.
- Educate voters early and often—through town halls, sample ballots, civic classes, and media partnerships—so new systems don’t feel alien.
- Hold mapmakers and elected officials accountable—push for independent commissions, open hearings, and transparent criteria.
- Document and publicize pilot outcomes—how did turnout change? How many new voices got seats? Use data to argue for expansion.
- Maintain focus on implementation capacity—invest in local clerks, training, secure counting machines, software, auditing.
