Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

A new case for electoral reform

A new case for electoral reform
Getty Images

Reinhold Ernst is a volunteer and state leader of Veterans For All Voters, recently renamed from Veterans for Political Innovation. This team exists to support pro-democracy reforms around the country.

Advocating for electoral reforms can be frustrating - some people just don't "get it," no matter how many hours you spend going through all the different benefits you seek to impress. It can feel almost as if they turn a blind eye and refuse to see how electoral systems are foundational to whether or not our nation can solve the problems it faces, or not. Tougher-than-expected conversations force advocates of anything, and certainly advocates of bold electoral reforms, to ponder how it might be possible to convince the seemingly inconvincible. Indeed, the time has come to clarify the whole case - not just a series of individual arguments - around electoral reforms like open primaries, ranked choice voting, redistricting, finance reform, term limits, and more.


It is not much of a secret that focusing on "why" is a great place to start - there's even a famous book or two about it. The good news is that electoral reforms have dozens of reasons for why they are great ideas and better than the status quo. But this reality is a double-edged sword. The bad news is that a firehose of reasons can be confusing, with the default approach being to run through dozens of polls and statistics to speak to one angle after another in hopes of eventually saying the right thing. That is rarely a recipe for success. A salesperson will never sell their goods or services on arguments about being cheaper or neater than the competitor, if the prospective customer doesn't see their problem in the first place. Selling the whole case for electoral reform is no different - arguments about "this solution is better than that one" aren't as compelling as "X Y Z problems are making your life worse." What is needed is a framework to guide conversations towards building consensus about what problems we face - nevermind the reforms and the nuance of how they work. Is there a single, compelling narrative to tie it all together?

Framework for Clarifying "the Why": What makes a country great?

1) Find a skeptic, and have an open, honest conversation about what makes a country (any country) great. Regardless of how you may feel about the former president's campaign slogan, it does force us to pause and ask these fundamental questions. What makes America the great and exceptional nation Reagan and Kennedy both saw? Is it GDP and how much we consume? No, that's not it. Is it having the strongest military? No, not that either, or else military dictatorships would be desirable. Get them thinking and talking. Their responses may surprise you and can be exactly the hints you need for knowing which reasons for change will be the most salient. Their responses will help distill the list of 100 reasons for reform down to the critical few that might change their mind - a tailored argument instead of a firehose.

2) Propose your own answer for what makes a country (any country) great. There's no perfect answer, but if you're looking for an answer of your own, then pick up a copy of the book Societal Foundations of National Competitiveness. The title is a mouthful, but simply put, it's about what qualities make a nation able to do great things and sustain a dynamic society. The research was funded by the U.S. military to better understand the "home front" and its impact on the nation's ability to remain the example that other nations should emulate. Their research highlights seven foundational ingredients for enduring excellence, with an honest assessment of where America is today....things aren't looking great.

  • National will: This is the belief that your country has the imagination to conceive great ambitions and the heart to make them reality. Today, three of four Americans believe the nation is unable to tackle the problems we face, and even futile to imagine, so why bother? More concerning, there is a generational divide with disbelief and disenchantment increasing as you look down the generations to today's youth. Only 18% of America's youth think our nation is able to do big, beautiful things with most faulting democracy as the prime reason for why we cannot.
    • Inflection Point: How do we reignite patriotism and belief that democracy can deliver?
  • Unified National Identity: This is the common thread that ties us all together. Today, partisan identities of Democrat or Republican are taking precedence over common identity, with both sides actively avoiding and despising the other. The decades-long trend is negative, so no one or two election cycles are at blame. Citizens distrust each other at levels not seen since the Civil War, and especially along party-lines.
    • Inflection Point: Party over country is increasingly real. How do we get back to "country first"?
  • Shared Opportunity: This is the ability to make one's life better and to help neighbors with the same - the American dream. Today, opportunity and equality are worsening across several socio-economic lines (race, wealth status, etc). Some trends are positive, but several decades-long trends are negative as certain parts of our society have been overlooked in too many ways, for too long. This is the blue-collar working class, and minority populations alike.
    • Inflection Point: How do we give those struggling to see “the American dream” greater voice into reforms that can help them?
  • An Active State: This is the age-old debate about big governance versus small - but where the purpose of government is clear, the state actually steps up to tackle problems. One example is about national-level infrastructure. The government has long recognized its role in establishing objectives and marshaling resources to meet them, for the benefit of all. No private institution should ever be expected or empowered to do the same since the point of infrastructure is about the greater good, not profits. Today, according to Pew, the top problems Americans worry about today are 1) inflation and overspending, 2) access and cost of health-care, 3) political gridlock, 4) drug and gun crimes.
    • Inflection Point: How likely do you think our nation is able to pass meaningful laws on America’s most-pressing issues? Why or why not?
  • Effective Institutions: This is the ability of government organizations to carry out their prescribed missions. Today, the U.S. is relatively high in world standing, but there are two huge caveats. First, the U.S. has seen a slight decline in effectiveness every year for 15 years now - not a good trend. The second exception is the three branches of government, and growing inability to execute basic functions. Congress is increasingly unable to perform its ability to execute basic functions like pass a budget (let alone a balanced one), hold the Executive branch accountable, or even elect its own leadership. This has led to off-loading authority to the president, bringing us slowly to the 'Era of the Imperial Presidency'. Meanwhile, trust in the Supreme Court has never been lower, at 28%.
    • Inflection Point: Why are our three basic institutions breaking down?
  • A Learning Society: This is partly about educational outcomes, but more about our ability to adapt to a changing world as new technologies are devised, geopolitical orders evolve, and more. Today, America's educational outcomes are nothing to be ashamed of or brag about. The real issue is what we learn and how we perceive the world. The immense and increasing flow of misinformation is able to create and leverage echo chambers, to put us into a doom-loop of distrust and dysfunction, leaving our nation increasingly incapable of adapting to the emergent problems our society faces. The relationship between the government and media is driving this country insane. What our society is learning is that both sides cast the other side as the enemy and at fault for all that is wrong - hardly the right lessons.
    • Inflection Point: Why are politicians incentivized to inflame passions by needing to take polarizing positions in order to win, instead of wanting to constructively engage those with opposing views?
  • Competitive Diversity & Pluralism: This is about the "establishment," and the ability or not for new groups of individuals to organize, build compelling platforms, and challenge the status quo in order to "do something about it" on the problems above. Today, data reveals the U.S. has little political diversity and pluralism, as electoral structures are effectively shutting out any new entrant to the duopoly, or any incentive for working across the aisle.
  • Inflection Point: The "establishment" is real, made possible by the processes that enable them to get them into office and stay there. How do we get a new system where every politician, in every election, can have real competition?

3) Nail down root causes. If all the above are experiencing unpleasant symptoms, ask them what are possible root problems that must be tackled if we are ever to make America great once again. Let them go beyond problems within our electoral system, as those are important too. But then bring focus to electoral processes as presenting several root causes - about finance, districting, primaries, the duopoly, and more. Spend as much time here as you need, otherwise you will have failed to establish "the why" and any discussion on reforms will be just as ineffective as before. The key is to know your audience and which of the seven foundations to emphasize. While conservative and liberal mindsets may generally agree these seven foundations are important, their prioritization will probably look different.

  • Through the conservative lens: Patriotism, dismantling the establishment, affecting the media, and revitalizing the middle class are some angles that may resonate greatly with conservative audiences. Lean into them, and make the connection to electoral reform.
  • Through the liberal lens: Shared opportunity, effective governance, and competitive diversity are angles that may resonate greatly with liberal audiences. Lean into them, and make the connection to electoral reform.

4) Bring it all together. Ask them what possible solutions exist to revitalize any and all of the above. Introduce the possibility of open primaries, ranked choice voting, ballot access and anything else you are passionate about as strategic-level ideas that can positively impact all of seven of these foundations. If they still resist these reforms, ask them point blank if they have any better ideas. Maybe you'll learn something, but you'll probably get deflective answers. The point is the status quo cannot sustain. It will be tempting to discuss how these reforms will work in a technical sense, but that is still less important than hammering why they're necessary - we can negotiate the details of how later.

We don't want to promise the framework above as a panacea that will convince every skeptic of all electoral reforms. However, we do hope it can bring some new structure for framing “the why” for those who simply are the most resistant to change. We at Veterans For All Voters wish you a wonderful holiday season, for however you choose to celebrate your traditions. And as you gather with family and friends, we challenge you to find one skeptic and engage them. Our nation will change, one conversation at a time. Good luck, and see you in 2024.


Read More

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
The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin
us a flag on pole
Photo by Saad Alfozan on Unsplash

The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin

Where is our nation headed — and why does it feel as if the country is spinning out of control under leaders who cannot, or will not, steady it?

Americans are watching a government that seems to have lost its balance. Decisions shift by the hour, explanations contradict one another, and the nation is left reacting to confusion rather than being guided by clarity. Leadership requires focus, discipline, and the courage to make deliberate, informed decisions — even when they are not politically convenient. Yet what we are witnessing instead is haphazard decision‑making, secrecy, and instability.

Keep ReadingShow less