John Anderson was head of its national advisory board and in 1992 published a New York Times commentary advocating for IRV in presidential elections.

[24] Louis Jacobson, a writer for Roll Call, argued that any group supporting the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be perceived as liberal-leaning because of Democratic frustration with the Electoral College after the 2000 US presidential election.

[25] FairVote co-founder Rob Richie claimed the group "is definitely not a Democratic stalking horse",[26] arguing that the former head of their national advisory board had been a Republican in the 1970s (prior to his 1980 run as an independent and his later support for Ralph Nader's campaign).

[29] In 2002, FairVote backed a San Francisco ballot initiative amending Section 13.102 of the city charter to allow IRV in local elections.

[49] In addition to Monopoly Politics and Dubious Democracy, after the 2010 midterm elections FairVote released data on the effect of third-party and spoiler candidates.

[50] Finally, FairVote created Representation 2020, a project that hopes to achieve parity in the numbers of men and women serving in elected office.

[53] Cases in which it has been involved include: Sanchez v. City of Modesto (2007) dealt with the constitutionality of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA).

"[56] Supporting the CVRA, FairVote viewed the law requiring courts to "fashion effective remedies to cure vote dilution affecting smaller and dispersed minority populations.

[54] In December 2006, the United States Department of Justice alleged that Port Chester's at-large system of electing its board of trustees violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The US government claimed that the at-large electoral system denied the Hispanic population "an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.

[60] FairVote argued that "cumulative and choice voting avoid the necessity for deliberately drawing districts along racial lines" and that a winner-take-all system would not allow the Hispanic minority population to gain representation.

[71] Juan Jauregui, the plaintiff, filed a complaint in April 2012 alleging that Palmdale's at-large method of electing members to its City Council resulted in vote dilution for Latino and African American residents.

[72] The lawsuit claimed that Palmdale's at-large method denied minority residents effective political participation and thus violated the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA).

[75] FairVote argued that fair representation voting, unlike at-large systems, enhanced minority groups to elect at least one candidate of their choice.