Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Both parties are failing to put country over party – in totally different ways

Both parties are failing to put country over party – in totally different ways

Ross Sherman serves as Media Relations Manager with RepresentUs.

Democracy only works when our representatives put our country and the rule of law first. But with the midterms approaching, politicians are so focused on getting wins for their party that they're actually taking steps to weaken our elections.


Republican candidates are running on the lie that the 2020 election was stolen, and excommunicating party members who say otherwise. Meanwhile, Democrats are doubling down on a dangerous political strategy: Financially supporting election deniers in GOP primaries in the hopes they’ll be ‘weaker’ candidates in the general election. As a result, they’re pushing election deniers closer to power and closer to the mainstream. Democrats, including those on the January 6 Committee, should be unified in condemning this practice, but they’re not.

Why is all of this happening in the first place? Because our corrupt political system incentivizes this behavior. Short-term partisan gain clouds our politicians’ decisions and keeps them from doing the right thing. To preserve free elections for generations to come, Republicans should denounce all forms of election denial in their ranks, and Democrats should speak out against boosting election deniers. Without doing so, they not only risk their own credibility, but the credibility of our government as a whole.

Beyond the immediate term, we need to fix these perverse incentives. Republicans and Democrats need to band together to pass laws that fix the underlying flaws in our political system – rendering these tactics irrelevant.

Election denial is a feature of the 2022 primary elections

Many Republican leaders and candidates, including former President Donald Trump, continue to parrot the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. They also dismiss the severity of the January 6 capitol riot. With mountains of evidence confirming a free and fair election, they know it wasn’t stolen. We heard as much in testimony during the hearings from many close to the former president. But they continue to say so anyway in an attempt to rile up their supporters and win the next election.

Let me be clear: No one on the Democratic side is running on a platform of election denial. They have also correctly been warning the country about the threats our democracy faces, and were unified in supporting federal legislation to improve our elections early this year.

But because of the same short-term political incentives, Democrats are simultaneously hoodwinking voters by running political advertisements aiding the most extreme election denier candidates in GOP primaries across the country. While the goal of this strategy is to make the general election easier for their side to win, pushing an election denier closer to power is completely irresponsible – and could backfire.

Democrats have meddled in several races throughout the primary season, including running ads to boost insurrectionist Doug Mastriano’s chances in Pennsylvania’s gubernatorial primary. And while Democrats led the charge to impeach former President Trump for his conduct around January 6, now they've turned around and poured money into a campaign to defeat one of their only Republican allies in the impeachment vote – Michigan Rep. Peter Mejier – in favor of another election denier.

The January 6 Committee must be united against election denial

The January 6 hearings have been a great example of public officials putting country over party. Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger have shown tremendous courage by telling the truth about January 6 and former President Donald Trump’s culpability. As a result, they’ve faced vicious harassment. Rep. Cheney has barely made public appearances in her Wyoming primary because of credible death threats, and Rep. Kinzinger has shared voicemails he’s received threatening his wife and baby.

On the Democratic side, Rep. Stephanie Murphy condemned her party’s strategy of propping up dangerous candidates in Republican primaries. As she told Axios, “This is bigger than any one candidate or campaign. No one should be promoting election deniers and peddlers of the 'Big Lie.'"

In order to preserve the Committee’s credibility, Democrats should follow her lead and disavow this cynical strategy. It shouldn’t be hard to say that supporting election deniers is wrong.

It’s time for more Democrats and Republicans to put country over party

None of these partisan shenanigans would be happening if we had better elections. If we swapped out closed partisan primaries for open primaries, running on a platform of election denial would be a political nonstarter and meddling in another party’s elections wouldn’t even be an option. With open primaries, every candidate regardless of party appears on the same ballot, and every registered voter can participate.

Another simple way we can chip away at perverse partisan incentives is to adopt Ranked Choice Voting. In RCV elections, voters rank candidates in order of preference. Through an instant runoff system, the eventual winner is guaranteed to win a majority of votes, leading to more acceptable candidates across the political spectrum.

Americans know that our political system is broken. We’re sick of politicians putting their own self interest ahead of what’s best for our country. It’s time for more Democrats, Republicans and everyone in between to stand up for the truth, put country over party, and advance solutions to make our elections work for us, not them.


Read More

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. House Republicans

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Democrats Gerrymandered David Valadao’s District. Did It Backfire?

GOP US Rep. David Valadao has never won his seat in Congress on Republican votes alone because too few Republicans live in the district where he was raised, lives, and runs his family farm.

- YouTube youtu.be

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less