Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Poll: Americans’ legislative wish list for new congress shows frustration with political systems

Poll: Americans’ legislative wish list for new congress shows frustration with political systems
Trevor Carpenter/Getty Images

Benjamin Clary is a Senior Research Analyst at APM Research Lab.

The McCourtney Institute for Democracy’s most recent Mood of the Nation Poll asked Americans what law they would choose, in their own words, if they could enact any law at the start of the new Congress. The results show that Americans are eager for political and electoral reform, especially instituting term limits.


Poll director Eric Plutzer, Ph.D., noted, “I think it says a lot that term limits and similar reforms are the first things that come to mind for so many people. Many Americans are prioritizing fixing the system over any particular policy that might contribute to security, freedom, equality or prosperity. That’s a symptom of deep frustration with government and how it has been functioning—or not—lately.”

Over one-quarter of Americans are eager for political or electoral reform

As part of the latest Mood of the Nation Poll, fielded in mid-November, respondents were asked what law they would enact if they had a magic wand that would make it the law of the United States automatically at the start of the new, 118th Congress. Responses were recorded verbatim and the APM Research Lab coded those responses into broader categories.

More than one-quarter of respondents (28%) gave an answer related to political or electoral reform. We combined political- and election-reform answers since both seek to change the mechanisms by which our government functions. Even when split into two separate categories, political reform remains the frontrunner with nearly one in five Americans (18.5%) wishing for some sort of political reform.

In addition to political or electoral reform, Americans also desired to enact laws pertaining to justice (9.5%), equal rights (8.5%), abortion (7.9%) and income or taxation (7.7%), among others.

Overhauling the political system and instituting term limits are most common suggestions for political or electoral reform

What exactly do Americans mean by political or electoral reform?

Among those who gave an answer that fell under political or electoral reform, 21% felt that some sort of change to our political system was needed to overcome dissatisfaction with America’s two-party system.

Some respondents expressed a desire to eliminate political parties or currently in use political labels, such as one 55-year-old white woman from Indiana, a Republican, who wished for “the abolishment of the party system.” While a handful of others, like this 35-year-old Black man from Pennsylvania, a Democrat, suggested that “making political representation proportional” would bring about necessary political reform.

Nineteen percent of those who gave an answer that fell under political or electoral reform wished to enact a law instituting term limits for those holding political office. Some respondents just said “term limits” without specifying a particular office, while others specified term limits for members of Congress. A few wished for legislation instituting term limits for Supreme Court justices, and a subset of respondents, like this 43-year-old white man from Florida, an independent, sought “Term limits for every political office.”

Those who wished to enact legislation instituting term limits came from across the political spectrum and a range of other demographic categories.

Finally, changing the laws around election finance was the third most popular type of suggestions related to political and election reform. Respondents frequently named the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC as a target of their proposed legislation. Other respondents, while not citing Citizens United, said that there should be a law that elections be only publicly financed.

Americans who would enact a law regarding political and election reform are by and large significantly more likely to identify as male, white and Republican, to have higher levels of educational attainment and higher family income. The largest of these differences are seen across gender, race and family income, as shown in the graph.

Abortion, equal rights and healthcare legislation favored by larger proportions of women, Black Americans and poorer Americans, respectively

Although smaller proportions of Americans overall said they would enact legislation related to abortion, equal rights or healthcare as compared to political reform, certain patterns emerge that reveal these issues are particularly salient among certain demographics, perhaps due to addressing more immediate needs than political system change.

Eight percent of Americans cited abortion as the focus of their legislative wishes. The vast majority of Americans who would enact an abortion law, four in five, said they would legalize abortion access on a national level, while one in five said they would outlaw abortion in any circumstance.

Women, in particular, were significantly more likely than men to say they would enact a law related to abortion (14% compared to 2%). Interestingly, all the men who gave an abortion answer were in favor of legalizing abortion.

The specific form the abortion answers took varied. At least seven respondents mentioned their desire to “codify Roe v. Wade.” Some respondents emphasized bodily autonomy at the root of their legal safeguarding of abortion access. Several people thought abortion should be legally accessible in all cases. Still, other respondents linked abortion to broader concerns around healthcare.

Those who wanted to institute a nationwide ban on abortions mostly kept it focused on that. But a 42-year-old woman from Texas, a Democrat, said she “would overturn Roe v. Wade and outlaw certain guns.” And another respondent emphasized “no abortions of any kind, ever, that we value ALL forms of life. That we never start to devalue life in infants, elderly, different people.”

There were also significant differences in frequency of response based on household income. As the level of family income increases, a somewhat higher proportion of Americans point to abortion policy as their law of choice. This is especially true for those with a family income of $100,000 or more.

Nearly 9% of Americans prioritized enacting legislation that would secure equal rights for marginalized groups. But there are significant differences among frequency of response when it comes to race and ethnicity, and political leaning.

One in five Black Americans said they would enact a law regarding equal rights, and just over one in 10 Latino Americans would do the same. Only 7% of white Americans, however, prioritized legislation pertaining to equal rights.

There is also a significant political difference when it comes to those suggesting a law regarding equal rights. Democrats (15%) were far more likely than either political independents (5%) or Republicans (2%) to say they would enact equal rights legislation. This difference between political leanings may also be influenced by race, since a higher proportion Republicans identify as white.

Many respondents said they would enact a law securing “equal rights for all.” Others sought to advance equal rights specifically as it came to racism, or gender equity, or marriage equality and other LGBTQ rights. One respondent specifically cited enacting the Equal Rights Amendment.

Comparatively speaking, healthcare legislation was among the less frequently cited categories, only 6% of Americans gave an answer related to healthcare. But there is a significant difference in frequency of response when analyzed by household income: those with a lower household income were more likely to say they would enact a law regarding healthcare access than those with a higher household income.

Twelve percent of Americans with an annual family income less than $30,000, double the overall rate, prioritized healthcare access. That proportion drops to 7% for those with a family income between $30,000 and $59,999, 4% for those with a family income between $60,000 and $99,999, and 2% for those with a family income over $100,000.

Among those with a household income less than $30,000 who would enact healthcare-related legislation, one said they would make it so “that we will never be forced to pay a mandate for health insurance again.” But all others advocated for some form of universal healthcare, such as: “Medicare for all!!”, “that all citizens have health insurance regardless of income”, and “comprehensive, single payer healthcare for everyone.”

PARTNER FOR THIS SURVEY

The McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State promotes scholarship and practical innovations that defend and advance democracy in the United States and abroad. Through teaching, research and public outreach, the Institute leverages the resources of Penn State and partners around the world to foster a model of deliberation, policymaking and responsiveness that is passionate, informed and civil.

This article originally appeared on APM Research Lab.

Read More

Could Trump’s campaign against the media come back to bite conservatives?

US President Donald Trump reacts next to Erika Kirk, widow of Charlie Kirk, after speaking at the public memorial service for right-wing activist Charlie Kirk at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, on September 21, 2025.

(Photo by Mandel NGAN / AFP) (Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images)

Could Trump’s campaign against the media come back to bite conservatives?

In the wake of Jimmy Kimmel’sapparently temporary— suspension from late-night TV, a (tragically small) number of prominent conservatives and Republicans have taken exception to the Trump administration’s comfort with “jawboning” critics into submission.

Sen. Ted Cruz condemned the administration’s “mafioso behavior.” He warned that “going down this road, there will come a time when a Democrat wins again — wins the White House … they will silence us.” Cruz added during his Friday podcast. “They will use this power, and they will use it ruthlessly. And that is dangerous.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A stethoscope lying on top of credit cards.

Enhanced health care tax credits expire at the end of 2025 unless Congress acts. Learn who benefits, what’s at risk, and how premiums could rise without them.

Getty Images, yavdat

Just the Facts: What Happens If Enhanced Health Care Tax Credits End in 2025

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, we 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.

There’s been a lot in the news lately about healthcare costs going up on Dec. 31 unless congress acts. What are the details?

The enhanced health care premium tax credits (ePTCs) are set to expire at the end of 2025 unless Congress acts to extend them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Bill Spotlight: No Social Media at School Act

Rep. Angie Craig’s No Social Media at School Act would ban TikTok, Instagram & Snapchat during K-12 school hours. See what’s in the bill.

Getty Images, Daniel de la Hoz

Congress Bill Spotlight: No Social Media at School Act

Gen Z’s worst nightmare: TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat couldn’t be used during school hours.

What the bill does

Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN2) introduced the No Social Media at School Act, which would require social media companies to use “geofencing” to block access to their products on K-12 school grounds during school hours.

Keep ReadingShow less
A portrait of John Adams.

John Adams warned that without virtue, republics collapse. Today, billionaire spending and unchecked wealth test whether America can place the common good above private gain.

John Adams Warned Us: A Republic Without Virtue Cannot Survive

John Adams understood a truth that feels even sharper today: a republic cannot endure without virtue. Writing to Mercy Otis Warren in April 1776, he warned that public Virtue cannot exist in a Nation without [private virtue], and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics.” For Adams, liberty would not be preserved by clever constitutions alone. It depended on citizens who could restrain their selfish impulses for the sake of the common good.

That insight has lost none of its force. Some people do restrain themselves. They accumulate enough to live well and then turn to service, family, or community. Others never stop. Given the chance, they gather wealth and power without limit. Left unchecked, selfishness concentrates material and social resources in the hands of a few, leaving many behind and eroding the sense of shared citizenship on which democracy depends.

Keep ReadingShow less