FairVote recently hosted its first Twitter Space about ways to #DefendtheBlackVote. The discussion was moderated by FairVote's own Khalid Pitts. It featured guests Jessica Pierce, co-founder of Piece by Piece Strategies; Stefanie Brown James of The Collective PAC; advocate and activist Markus Batchelor; and Axios political reporter Alexi McCammond.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Veterans don’t want thanks — we want to keep serving
Nov 11, 2024
Purdy is the founder and CEO of The Chamberlain Network, an organization that empowers veterans to defend democracy in their communities. He served in the U.S. Army from 2004 to 2012.
Veterans Day is a time when our country pauses to recognize the extraordinary sacrifices made by those of us who wore the uniform. But for many veterans, this day brings mixed emotions. On the one hand, we’re grateful that our nation honors our service. On the other, many of us don't think we should receive any special recognition - we just did our duty. For us, service isn’t something in our past — it’s a calling that continues. Veterans don’t want thanks; we want to keep serving. And for many of us, that means protecting the very democracy we swore to defend.
For those of us in the post-9/11 generation, this commitment is especially strong. We volunteered, understanding the risks, knowing that deployment was likely. And now we’ve come home and our time in uniform has ended, we find that call to service endures. Today, that commitment lives on in a new mission: protecting democracy here at home, in the communities in which we live.
Veterans across the country are stepping up to lead efforts that strengthen our democratic institutions. Through organizations like The Chamberlain Network, we’re addressing some of the most urgent challenges facing our country: political polarization, the erosion of public trust and the rise of authoritarian impulses that threaten the rule of law. At The Chamberlain Network, we believe the best way to honor veterans is to support us as we protect the democratic ideals we served to uphold.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Veterans as Trusted Defenders of Democracy
Many of us have served in places where basic freedoms are rare, where people have little control over their own future. That experience gives us a profound respect for democracy and its freedoms — and a deep commitment to defend them here at home.
I remember this feeling vividly from my time in Iraq, where sectarian violence had torn the country apart. People we met often felt a deep sense of hopelessness. It was a difficult thing to witness, but it made me realize why democracy — the rule of law, free and fair elections, the peaceful resolution of conflict — is so precious and worth protecting.
In the United States, veterans are some of the most trusted voices in our communities. When we speak about civic engagement, building bridges and defending democratic principles, people listen. Our service has earned us credibility and trust, and we want to use that trust to inspire others to see democracy as something worth safeguarding.
Organizing Veterans to Lead Locally
At The Chamberlain Network, we are focused on organizing veterans to protect democracy where it matters most: in our own communities. Democracy doesn’t just live in Washington, D.C. — it lives in our neighborhoods, schools and local institutions. We can’t always control what happens at the national level, but we can make an impact where we live. By equipping veterans with the tools they need to engage locally, we are building a coalition of leaders who are ready to stand up for democratic values on the ground.
Veterans bring resilience, skills and a spirit of service to this work. With the right support, we can counter division, encourage participation and inspire our neighbors to engage in democracy. By empowering us to lead in our own towns and neighborhoods, The Chamberlain Network is creating a force for democracy that’s nimble, responsive and prepared to meet today’s challenges.
Veteran-Led Democracy Work Needs Support
This Veterans Day, honoring veterans means more than saying “thank you.” Many of us don’t seek gratitude — we seek purpose. We have a complicated relationship with this day because we don’t see service as something that ended when we took off the uniform. The work we do through organizations like The Chamberlain Network allows us to keep serving, to continue fulfilling the oath we took. But to make a real impact, this work requires resources.
For many veterans, service is woven into who we are — it’s a calling that persists, shaping our lives long after we take off the uniform. This Veterans Day is a reminder that our commitment to the country and to democracy endures. We don’t seek recognition or gratitude; we seek opportunities to keep making a difference. Supporting these efforts means empowering veterans to fulfill that drive — to continue serving and to strengthen the foundations of democracy we all depend on.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
We voted. Now what?
Nov 11, 2024
Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.
Whether your candidate won or lost, the campaign's intensity and the high stakes have likely left you feeling emotionally drained. It's natural to wonder what comes next and how to process the results in a way that promotes social cohesion and personal well-being.
As a nation, we've just demonstrated our remarkable resilience and commitment to democracy. Tens of millions of Americans from all walks of life, in various ways, made their voices heard. We've fulfilled our civic duty, and now that the votes are cast, it's essential to take a deep breath, reflect on the outcome, and think critically about how to move forward to strengthen our communities and uphold our shared values.
The first step in processing the election results is to acknowledge the validity of the outcome. In a democracy, sometimes our preferred candidate wins, and sometimes they do not. While it's natural to feel disappointed, frustrated or even fearful if our candidate loses, it's crucial to respect the electoral process and the will of the American people. Doing so means accepting the results and committing to a peaceful power transfer.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
At the same time, we must also recognize the genuine divisions that the campaign laid bare. Issues like the economy, health care, racial justice and our response to the historic dissolution of reproductive rights, with voters holding passionately different views. These disagreements are not insurmountable, but bridging them requires empathy, open-mindedness and an earnest effort to seek common ground. The outcome of this election will undoubtedly shape the country's direction for years to come. However, it's important to remember that our power as citizens doesn't end when we cast our ballots. We continue to advocate activism and hold elected leaders accountable.
How can we process the election results in a way that promotes social unity and personal well-being? Here are some practical strategies to consider:
- Practice self-care: Make time for activities that nourish your mind, body and spirit. Acts of self-care might include exercise, meditation, spending time with loved ones or engaging in a hobby you enjoy. It's okay to take a break from the news if it's feeling overwhelming.
- Seek out diverse perspectives: Rather than only interacting with those who share your views, make an effort to understand the experiences and opinions of others. This doesn't mean you have to agree, but listening with empathy can help build bridges.
- Get involved in your community: Look for ways to make a positive difference locally. This could involve volunteering, joining a community organization or attending city council or school board meetings. Change often happens from the ground up.
- Advocate for the issues you care about: Your voice still matters regardless of who holds office. If there are causes that stir your passion, your actions can make a difference. Contact your elected representatives, sign petitions, and participate in peaceful protests. Your advocacy can shape the future.
- Find the helpers: As Mr. Rogers famously advised, look for the people working to improve things. There are countless everyday heroes all around us striving to create positive change. Their stories can be a powerful balm for our spirits.
The days and weeks ahead may be challenging as our nation navigates the election aftermath. There will likely be celebrations, protests, legal challenges and calls for unity. Through it all, it's essential to remember that we are part of a larger community, and we are stronger together than we are divided.
To paraphrase former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 2016 concession speech, "We must accept this result and look to the future. We owe the president-elect an open mind and a chance to lead." Likewise, if our preferred candidate has won, we must extend the same grace to those who may be disappointed or fearful.
Dare to engage in civil discourse, listen to each other's perspectives and work towards a common understanding. The test of democracy is not how we act when we win, but how we respond when things don't go our way. By choosing empathy over anger, engagement over apathy and hope over despair, we can help build a more just, equitable and accessible nation for all its people. We voted. Now, let's come together and get to work.
Keep ReadingShow less
Let’s make sense of the election results
Nov 11, 2024
Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author of "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."
Well, here are some of my takeaways from Election Day, and some other thoughts.
1. The two-party doom loop keeps getting doomier and loopier.
This was an ugly campaign. The tone was very nasty. The threats and dehumanizations grew quite dark. This is the two-party doom loop in depressing motion: a vicious cycle of escalating rhetoric around continually high-stakes, narrowly decided elections. As parties become more polarized, they compromise less and demonize more. It only gets worse and worse.
This self-reinforcing logic cuts at the foundational core of the democratic bargain — mutual toleration and forbearance. I only see it getting worse under a second Trump administration, which promises to be even more combative and vindictive.
Authoritarian leaders benefit from polarizing conflict. The ruthless us-versus-them dynamic gives them power to fight “the enemy within.”
The conflict is only going to grow more intense. Doomier and loopier, I often find myself thinking. This election did not reveal any off-ramps.
This makes me sick. It is like being on the scariest roller coaster ever and not being able to get off.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
2. The anti-system vibes remain strong — and bad for incumbents.
Americans are in a sour mood and have been for a while. Overwhelming majorities report feeling dissatisfied with the way things are going in this country. For the last few years, the share of Americans feeling satisfied has hovered around 20 percent.
Such persistent dissatisfaction does not help incumbents. As I wrote earlier this year, no national political figure is viewed favorably. Incumbency, once an advantage in politics, is now a liability. Every election is now a “change” election.
This rumbling anti-incumbent dissatisfaction appears to be a global phenomenon, across democracies. We are in a kind of era of discontent. But this discontent seems especially pronounced in the United States. More than two-thirds of Americans think “the system” needs to change.
Harris at times tried to pitch her campaign as a “fresh start.” But ultimately she fell back on a campaign of continuity and defending the (distrusted) institutions. As the sitting vice president, she really had no other choice.
The big problem is that when voters are unhappy with the status quo, they only have one other choice. If that choice happens to be an authoritarian, then voters who just want “change” may wind up with fascism.
3. Complicated, incremental electoral reform is not a winning path out of the doom loop.
In six states plus the District of Columbia, voters had the option to open up their party primaries, adopt ranked choice voting or both, via ballot initiative. In one state, Alaska, voters were asked whether to preserve their reform.
Only Washington, D.C., voted in favor of open primaries and ranked-choice voting.
As an electoral reform nerd, this round-the-board rejection of primary and RCV reform was the biggest shock of the night. I had expected reform to pass in at least Oregon and Colorado, and possibly Nevada.
So what happened? Let me break it down.
In four states, the open primaries and rankedc hoice voting initiatives were yoked together into one initiative.
In Colorado, voters rejected Proposition 131, which would have moved the state to a top-four “all candidate” primary and a ranked choice voting election. (The vote was 55 percent no to 45 percent yes.)
In Nevada, voters rejected the same proposition (but with a top-five primary), by a similar margin (54 percent to 46 percent).
In Idaho, voters rejected their version of the measure even more overwhelmingly — 69 percent against, 31 percent in favor.
In Alaska, voters were deciding whether to keep their top-four-plus-ranked-choice-voting system, which they had approved narrowly in 2020 (when it was paired with a provision to eliminate dark money). The Alaska repeal effort appears to have narrowly succeeded, thus ending Alaska’s short-lived experiment with open primaries and RCV.
Only in my super-liberal home city of D.C. did an RCV and semi-open primaries initiative pass.
In other states, ranked choice voting and open primaries were on the ballot separately.
In Oregon, voters rejected a standalone ranked choice voting proposition (60 percent against, 40 precinct in favor). In Arizona, voters rejected Proposition 140, to create a single, all-candidate open primary by a similar margin (59 percent no to 41 percent yes).
In Montana, voters considered two separate initiatives: CI-126, to create a single open primary, like Arizona, and CI-127, to require a majority winner. Voters decisively opposed CI-127, but as of this writing, they have only narrowly opposed CI-126, which remains too close to call.
Finally, South Dakota decisively rejected a top-two primary reform (modeled on California and Washington), 68 percent against to 32 percent in support.
Frankly, I think voters made the right choices in all these places, even if they didn’t always do it for the right reasons.
To me, the open-primaries-plus-RCV combo (often billed as “fiinal four voting” or “final five voting”) only further weakens parties (by pushing parties further out of the business of nomination). My view has long been that we need to build healthier and stronger parties. And that starts with giving parties more control over their nominating process, rather than allowing any schmuck to claim the legitimating label. These reforms would have moved us further in the wrong direction.
This combination also adds confusion and complexity to elections (making life difficult for already over-taxed election administrators). And making elections “nonpartisan” increases campaign costs and makes money even more important. This benefits wealthy candidates and donors even more than the existing system. The United States already has the most “open” primaries of any democracy in the world. Only in the United States can you register (for free!) as a member of a party and get to choose that party’s nominee.
I think there is a better direction for reform: combining fusion voting for single-winner elections with party-list proportional representation for multi-winner elections. This straightforward solution addresses the core problems voters care about: lack of choices, gerrymandering, lack of competition, etc., with a single transformative sweep.
And yes, I understood the case many made behind the smaller changes: Get some wins, build momentum, get people comfortable with the idea of electoral reform.
Given these overwhelming losses, it’s time to reconsider that strategy and explore new options and approaches.
This will be the subject of Part 2 tomorrow.
This article was first published in Undercurrent Events.
Keep ReadingShow less
Despite setbacks, ranked choice voting will continue to grow
Nov 11, 2024
Mantell is director of communications for FairVote.
More than 3 million people across the nation voted for better elections through ranked choice voting on Election Day, as of current returns. Ranked choice voting is poised to win majority support in all five cities where it was on the ballot, most notably with an overwhelming win in Washington, D.C. – 73 percent to 27 percent.
For state ballot measures, the status quo won the day – with a ballot measure to implement RCV losing in Oregon, and ballot measures to implement open primaries and RCV falling in Colorado, Idaho and Nevada. A ballot measure to keep RCV in Alaska is neck-and-neck and may take several days to call, with absentee ballots continuing to arrive for 15 days.
“Ranked choice voting took a step forward on Election Day 2024, as voters in our nation’s capital and several cities said yes to better elections,” said my colleague, FairVote President and CEO Meredith Sumpter. “We celebrate the countless hours that local and state advocates have spent turning their frustration with today’s politics into real progress. Alaska and Maine also used ranked choice voting to elect the president and other key officials, and 10 cities across the nation held smooth and successful RCV elections.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Changing the status quo is never easy. Entrenched interests — including several state parties and an increasingly well-organized national opposition — pushed back hard on this year’s statewide ballot measures. But make no mistake: The future remains bright for ranked choice voting.
Ranked choice voting was used in only 10 cities and zero states in 2016, and has now grown to over 50 cities, counties and states that are home to nearly 17 million people.
We also see clear signs that voters like ranked choice voting once they get to use it — the Oregon ballot measure is performing best in counties in the state that already use ranked choice voting, and the Alaska ballot measure is outperforming the other statewide measures. We’ll continue to see ranked choice voting deliver in cities and the states where it’s used, and we also have to make a stronger case on how RCV benefits voters and elected officials alike.
The data is on our side, and the reform will continue to grow because it works — empowering voters, rewarding candidates who can deliver for the majority of their constituents, and making our democracy work better for the American people.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More