Skip to content
Project 2025
Donate to support
diverse voices
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
Cargo containers piled on each other.

The Facts on U.S.–Canada Tariffs Nearly One Year Into Trump’s Plan

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

An illustration of two hands controlling a small person attached to strings.

Parallels and Patterns: George Orwell’s 1984, Hitler’s Nazi, and Trump 2.0

A better presidential primary for 2024

Opinion

President Biden in Iowa

One step in improving the primary process, writes Richie, is changing the primary calendar so Iowa (which President Biden visited April 12) isn't always at the front of the calendar.

Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)
Rob Richie
By Rob RichieApr 29, 2022
Rob Richie
See More Writings by author

Rob Richie is president and CEO of FairVote.

No election in the United States is as important as our elections for president. Yet if the last two cycles have told us anything, it’s that how we nominate presidents is broken and deeply unrepresentative – a process as much about dumb luck as it is about candidate quality or ability to unify voters. But we may be about to see a change.

The Democratic Party would be a trailblazer if it follows through on its new plan to have states apply to be among the early primary states, with selection based on clear criteria. That would break up the monopoly of the same states – including the largely racially and ethnically homogeneous Iowa and New Hampshire – voting first again and again.

According to Ballotpedia, leading Democratic contenders Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren each spent about one out of every three days on the 2020 campaign trail in just four states – Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. The geographic accident of coming from a state next to New Hampshire has boosted candidates like Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, Bernie Sanders, Paul Tsongas and Mitt Romney.

The Democratic Party’s change is only a first step to how we should reimagine presidential nominations, and we should go further. To make the voices of more Americans matter, a truly fair process should end with nearly all states having an equal vote.

After early state contests winnow the field, the remaining states should hold a de facto “national primary.” This would give far more voters a real voice in the process.

With a national primary, parties could also avoid the lurking threat of a “brokered convention” if no candidate earns a majority of delegates. Instead, the national primary would put that decision in voters’ hands. And by scheduling congressional primaries for the same day, states could also ensure that a high-turnout, representative electorate decides their congressional nominations.

Beyond the exaggerated impact of quirky geography and lack of a national primary, there’s another big, easily correctable problem with our current nominating process: limiting voters to one choice no matter how large the field. That limitation has profound implications, particularly with the recent explosion in early and mail voting.

In 2020, more than 3 million Democrats cast their presidential primary vote for candidates who had withdrawn from the race. These voters may have excitedly mailed in a ballot for Pete Buttigieg or Amy Klobuchar, only to have those candidates drop out – after the ballot was returned but before the official primary date. In Washington state, about one in four voters “wasted” their vote this way; the same proportion of Washington Republicans also suffered this fate in 2016.

That’s the most obvious reason why both parties should fully embrace ranked-choice voting. With a ranked-choice primary ballot, voters earn the option to rank candidates in order of preference: first, second and so on. If voters’ first choice is still in the race, their ballots will count for that candidate. Otherwise, those ballots will count for their next-ranked candidate.

With their different presidential primary rules, each party has other reasons to turn to ranked-choice voting. For Democrats, candidates must earn 15 percent support within a state to earn delegates. Votes for candidates under 15 percent don’t count when it’s time to divvy up delegates; ranked-choice voting would simply allow a voter’s ballot to count for their next-ranked candidate who is viable.

On the Republican side, the most basic reason is at play: majority rule. Republicans use a winner-take-all system for their presidential primaries: Whoever gets the most votes in a state wins all the delegates. But in crowded fields like 2008, 2012 or 2016, a candidate can win an early state with an extremely low portion of the vote, like 25 percent.

That winning candidate might only appeal to a narrow slice of the party; after all, the vast majority voted for someone else. That candidate could ride all-important “momentum” to frontrunner status, and end up not just a weak state winner – but a weak nominee.

With ranked-choice voting, Republicans could ensure a majority winner in every primary contest – and a strong, representative candidate as party standard-bearer. If no candidate has a majority of first-choice support in a state, the last-place candidate would be eliminated. Voters who ranked them “No. 1” would instead have their ballot count for their next-ranked choice. This process would continue until there’s a majority winner.

As state and national parties consider how to improve their presidential primaries, there are already promising developments to look to. In 2020, early Democratic voters in Nevada and all Democratic voters in Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas and Wyoming cast ranked-choice ballots in their party-run presidential contests. While millions of votes were wasted elsewhere, in these states, fully 90 percent of voters helped one of the active candidates earn delegates. Ranked-choice voting is also used in Maine’s and Alaska’s federal elections, and in over 50 cities nationwide.

With Democrats eyeballing the calendar and more states moving to ranked-choice voting, we have a real opportunity to make presidential primaries fairer and better for all. Let’s seize the chance.


Latest news

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem
Environment

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”
Ethics & Leadership

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift
Elections

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift

Read More

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026