Two Reform Models — Campaign Financing & Ranked Choice Voting

Democracy Reform

Two reform models,
side by side: the money and the vote

Two separate, self-contained tools. Model A shows what small-donor matching does to campaign money, comparing today's system against two public-financing designs. Model B shows how a ranked-choice instant runoff resolves a crowded field. They're independent — different candidates, no shared data — so treat each on its own terms.

MODEL A

The money: small-donor matching

For each candidate, see three worlds at once — what they raise today, under a reform small-donor match (base grant + a steep match on the smallest gifts), and under the New York matching-funds design (no base grant, a flat 8-to-1 match, a lower bar to qualify).

The candidates in this model

Rename freely. These candidates belong to Model A only.

Program rules

Matching-fund rules — click to adjust
Scale
Reform model — base grant + tiered match
New York model — flat match, no base grant

Both matches are per contributor and count only resident small-dollar gifts. The number of small donors is estimated from each candidate's small-dollar total divided by the average gift. Existing donations stay in every scenario — the public match is layered on top only for candidates who qualify, so a candidate who doesn't qualify simply keeps today's total. (In practice, participating candidates also accept lower contribution limits, which this model doesn't simulate.)

What each candidate raised

These are starting figures — feel free to change any of them. Small-dollar donations are the grassroots gifts eligible for matching: the smaller contributions, roughly $150 or less each under the reform model (up to $175 under New York). Large / big-money donations are the bigger contributions above that threshold, which aren't matched in either public-financing model.

Candidate
Small donations
Large / big-money

Compare across candidates

See every candidate side by side. Pick one scenario for a stacked column showing where each candidate's money comes from, or choose All three for a head-to-head of the totals.

Each candidate in detail

Small donations Large donations Base grant Reform match New York match
MODEL B

The vote: an instant runoff

A different race, with its own candidates. Describe the electorate as blocs, rank the field, and watch the count resolve round by round — replacing a separate, low-turnout runoff with a single ranked ballot.

The candidates in this model

These candidates belong to Model B only and are unrelated to Model A.

Voter blocs

Each bloc is a share of voters with a shared ranking. Set the percentages (aim for 100% total) and rank up to five of the six candidates — FairVote's recommended ballot depth for a single-winner race. Leave a slot blank and that bloc's ballot can "exhaust" if all its picks are eliminated.

Bloc shares total: 0%

Model A compares today's private fundraising against two small-donor public-financing designs. The reform column reflects the 2024 Chicago Fair Elections small-donor matching proposal: a $50,000 base grant, a 12:1 match on the first $25 of each qualifying gift and 9:1 up to $150, capped at $150,000 in match, with qualification at 100+ donors / $17,500+ and a $500 participant donor limit. The New York column reflects the NYC Campaign Finance Board program (City Council scale): an 8:1 match on the first $175 from each city resident (max $1,400/donor), no base grant, a lower qualifying bar (75 district donors / $5,000), and a higher overall public-funds ceiling. Model B reflects single-winner ranked choice voting as advanced by FairVote Illinois and adopted in Evanston, Oak Park & Skokie: rank the field, drop the last-place candidate each round, transfer ballots to the next choice until someone clears a majority of continuing ballots. All figures are illustrative and fully editable.