Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The media needs to pay more attention to democracy reform

Opinion

Mary Peltola

Mary Peltola's win in Alaska shows the benefit of reforms. If only the media paid more attention, writes Bowe.

Ash Adams for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Bowe writes about politics in the digital age for Democracy Through the Looking Glass.

A closer look at the 2022 midterm results offers solid evidence that democratic reform efforts are a moderating political force, in a time when both the media pundits and the electorate are exhausted by the pugilistic style of politics today. This creates a powerful narrative that election reforms can fix the pain voters are feeling about hyper-partisanship today. But will the media even care?


First, the fate of the 10 Republican House members who voted to impeach Donald Trump after the events of Jan. 6, 2021, makes an interesting case study comparing the outcome between a partisan primary election system and a nonpartisan primary system. Seven of those lawmakers campaigned within a partisan primary system. The other three ran in nonpartisan primaries – advocated by democracy reformers – where the top two finishers in a single nonpartisan primary advanced to the general election.

All seven GOP House members representing places with partisan primaries will not be returning in January. Four retired (instead of facing certain defeat) and three lost — two annihilated — in their primaries. But two of the three who ran in nonpartisan “jungle” primaries were reelected, and the third fell just 68 votes short of the second-place finish needed to advance to the general election.

The data is clear. Depending on how the election rules are designed, results can have a more or less polarizing outcome. These 10 members showed a great deal of political independence — country over party — but only three were rewarded for demonstrating independence over blind partisan loyalty.

Then there is what happened in Alaska, with a new system of four candidates advancing from a nonpartisan primary to the general election — and using ranked-choice voting to determine which candidate has a majority of voter support. Again, the results gravitated toward the middle rather than the extreme.

In Alaska’s general election for Senate, moderate Republican incumbent Lisa Murkowski initially finished less than 1 point ahead of conservative GOP challenger Kelly Tshibaka (43.4 percent to 42.6 percent), but well short of the required 50 percent majority under RCV rules. In the final RCV tabulation — after the ranked votes from the two eliminated candidates were redistributed — Murkowski won with 54 percent. The moderate Murkowski captured 90 percent of the ranked vote from the two eliminated candidates, the bulk of which came from voters who initially voted for the Democratic candidate.

In Alaska’s House race, the dynamics were different, but the moderate outcome was the same. Most impressive, the dynamics of this House election were tested twice, less than four months apart, and achieved the same results.

Moderate GOP scion Nick Begich ran against GOP conservative icon Sarah Palin and moderate Democrat Mary Peltola in August to fill the remaining term of the late Rep. Don Young, and again in November. In both elections, Peltola won the initial vote, but fell short of a majority, with Palin finishing second and Begich third. After the ballots for Begich were redistributed to voters’ second choices, Peltola had more than the necessary majority of votes required to win.

Voters backing a Democratic candidate helped elect a moderate Republican to the Senate, and voters supporting a Republican candidate helped elect a moderate Democrat to the House.

So, the good news is the reform community has demonstrated how relatively minor reforms in election rules can elect more consensus-oriented politicians and can alleviate the political fatigue from which we all suffer. But, like the proverbial tree falling in the forest, if the media doesn’t give saturated coverage to the success of these reforms, did they even happen?

Historically, major media coverage of reform issues and successes has been nearly non-existent. This creates a major hurdle that must be cleared before reform advocates can win the hearts and minds of Americans and make major strides to achieve reform.

The challenge for democracy reform advocates is how to capture the attention (and imagination) of the mainstream media so they will tell these stories about how voters — when given the opportunity — will vote for moderation over extremism.

It certainly is a story worth telling.


Read More

Close up of a person on their phone at night.

From “Patriot Games” to The Hunger Games, how spectacle, social media, and political culture risk normalizing violence and eroding empathy.

Getty Images, Westend61

The Capitol Is Counting on Us to Laugh

When the Trump administration announced the Patriot Games, many people laughed. Selecting two children per state for a nationally televised sports competition looked too much like Suzanne Collins’ Hunger Games to take seriously. But that instinct, to laugh rather than look closer, is one the Capitol is counting on. It has always been easier to normalize violence when it arrives dressed as entertainment or patriotism.

Here’s what I mean: The Hunger Games starts with the reaping, the moment when a Capitol official selects two children, one boy and one girl, to fight to the death against tributes from every other district. The games were created as an annual reminder of a failed rebellion, to remind the districts that dissent has consequences. At first, many Capitol residents saw the games as a just punishment. But sentiments shifted as the spectacle grew—when citizens could bet on winners, when a death march transformed into a beauty pageant, when murder became a pathway to celebrity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Technology and Presidential Election

Anthropic’s Mythos AI raises alarms about surveillance, deepfakes, and democracy. Why urgent AI regulation is needed as U.S. policy struggles to keep pace.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

How the Latest in AI Threatens Democracy

On April 24, America got a wake-up call from Anthropic, one of the nation’s leading artificial intelligence companies. It announced a new AI tool, called Mythos, that can identify flaws in computer networks and software systems that, as Politico puts it, “Even the brightest human minds have been unable to identify.”

A machine smarter than the “brightest human minds” sounds like a line from a dystopian science fiction movie. And if that weren’t scary enough, we now have a government populated by people who seem oblivious to the risks AI poses to democracy and humanity itself.

Keep ReadingShow less
Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate
the letters are made up of different colors

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key takeaways

  • The U.S. has no national AI liability law. Instead, a patchwork of state laws has emerged which has resulted in legal protections being dependent on where an individual resides.
  • It’s often unclear who is legally responsible when AI causes harm. This gap leaves many people with no clear path to seek help.
  • In March 2026, the White House and Congress introduced major proposals to establish a federal standard, but there is significant disagreement about whether that standard should prioritize protecting innovation or protecting people harmed by AI systems.

Background: A Patchwork of State Laws

Without a national AI law, states have been filling in the gaps on their own. The result is an uneven landscape where a person’s legal protections depend entirely on which state they live in.

Keep ReadingShow less
Teenager admiring electronic hobby robot.

Explore how China is overtaking the U.S. in the global innovation race, from electric vehicles to advanced research, and why America’s fragmented science policy, talent loss, and weak industrial strategy threaten its technological leadership.

Getty Images, Willie B. Thomas

America’s Greatest Geopolitical Blind Spot

The global hierarchy of innovation is undergoing a structural shift that Washington is dangerously slow to acknowledge. For decades, the prevailing narrative in the United States was that China was merely the "world’s factory"—a nation capable of mass-producing Western designs but inherently lacking the creative spark to invent its own. This assumption has been shattered. Today, Beijing is no longer playing catch-up; in sectors ranging from electric vehicles and next-generation nuclear power to hypersonic missiles, China is setting the pace.

The central challenge is that China has mastered the entire innovation ecosystem, while the United States has allowed its own to fracture. Innovation is not just about a "eureka" moment in a laboratory; it is a relay race that begins with basic scientific research, moves through the training of specialized talent, and ends with the large-scale commercialization of "hard tech." China is currently winning every leg of that race.

Keep ReadingShow less