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

artificial intelligence

Rather than blame AI for young Americans struggling to find work, we need to build: build new educational institutions, new retraining and upskilling programs, and, most importantly, new firms.

Surasak Suwanmake/Getty Images

Blame AI or Build With AI? Only One Approach Creates Jobs

We’re failing young Americans. Many of them are struggling to find work. Unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds topped 10.5% in August. Even among those who do find a job, many of them are settling for lower-paying roles. More than 50% of college grads are underemployed. To make matters worse, the path forward to a more stable, lucrative career is seemingly up in the air. High school grads in their twenties find jobs at nearly the same rate as those with four-year degrees.

We have two options: blame or build. The first involves blaming AI, as if this new technology is entirely to blame for the current economic malaise facing Gen Z. This course of action involves slowing or even stopping AI adoption. For example, there’s so-called robot taxes. The thinking goes that by placing financial penalties on firms that lean into AI, there will be more roles left to Gen Z and workers in general. Then there’s the idea of banning or limiting the use of AI in hiring and firing decisions. Applicants who have struggled to find work suggest that increased use of AI may be partially at fault. Others have called for providing workers with a greater say in whether and to what extent their firm uses AI. This may help firms find ways to integrate AI in a way that augments workers rather than replace them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

A visual representation of deep fake and disinformation concepts, featuring various related keywords in green on a dark background, symbolizing the spread of false information and the impact of artificial intelligence.

Getty Images

Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

At a moment when the country is grappling with the civic consequences of rapidly advancing technology, Parv Mehta stands out as one of the most forward‑thinking young leaders of his generation. Recognized as one of the 500 Gen Zers named to the 2025 Carnegie Young Leaders for Civic Preparedness cohort, Mehta represents the kind of grounded, community‑rooted innovator the program was designed to elevate.

A high school student from Washington state, Parv has emerged as a leading youth voice on the dangers of artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He recognized early that his generation would inherit a world where misinformation spreads faster than truth—and where young people are often the most vulnerable targets. Motivated by years of computer science classes and a growing awareness of AI’s risks, he launched a project to educate students across Washington about deepfake technology, media literacy, and digital safety.

Keep ReadingShow less
child holding smartphone

As Australia bans social media for kids under 16, U.S. parents face a harder truth: online safety isn’t an individual choice; it’s a collective responsibility.

Getty Images/Keiko Iwabuchi

Parents Must Quit Infighting to Keep Kids Safe Online

Last week, Australia’s social media ban for children under age 16 officially took effect. It remains to be seen how this law will shape families' behavior; however, it’s at least a stand against the tech takeover of childhood. Here in the U.S., however, we're in a different boat — a consensus on what's best for kids feels much harder to come by among both lawmakers and parents.

In order to make true progress on this issue, we must resist the fallacy of parental individualism – that what you choose for your own child is up to you alone. That it’s a personal, or family, decision to allow smartphones, or certain apps, or social media. But it’s not a personal decision. The choice you make for your family and your kids affects them and their friends, their friends' siblings, their classmates, and so on. If there is no general consensus around parenting decisions when it comes to tech, all kids are affected.

Keep ReadingShow less
Someone wrapping a gift.

As screens replace toys, childhood is being gamified. What this shift means for parents, play, development, and holiday gift-giving.

Getty Images, Oscar Wong

The Christmas When Toys Died: The Playtime Paradigm Shift Retailers Failed to See Coming

Something is changing this Christmas, and parents everywhere are feeling it. Bedrooms overflow with toys no one touches, while tablets steal the spotlight, pulling children as young as five into digital worlds that retailers are slow to recognize. The shift is quiet but unmistakable, and many parents are left wondering what toy purchases even make sense anymore.

Research shows that higher screen time correlates with significantly lower engagement in other play activities, mainly traditional, physical, unstructured play. It suggests screen-based play is displacing classic play with traditional toys. Families are experiencing in real time what experts increasingly describe as the rise of “gamified childhoods.”

Keep ReadingShow less