Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Democracy Madness continues: On to the Elections region!

Democracy, March Madness, basketball
vasosh/Getty Images

This month we kicked off our Democracy Madness competition with the Voting "region," which ranked-choice voting won by rolling over competing proposals for bettering democracy by altering voting rules. Now we're one to the second region: Elections.

The aim here is to have some good-natured competitive fun — and also learning what readers think are the best ideas for reforming our governing systems and putting voters back at the center of things.

By the end of our 64-idea tournament in a few weeks, you will have told us what you think would be the single most transformational change.


Similar to the NCAA's March Madness, not every "team" fits the regional description perfectly.

But most of these 16 contenders are related to structural aspects of local, state and federal elections. The top seed is both a popular cause and a long-shot to actually happen — eliminating the Electoral College in favor of electing presidents by simple popular vote. You'll also find a couple of alternative ways to weaken the Electoral College without having to amend the Constitution.

The No. 2 seed is using independent commissions to draw electoral districts. This way of combating partisan gerrymandering comes into the tournament on a roll, having just won a big court victory in Michigan and going before Virginia's voters this fall after approval by the General Assembly.

The third seed is making primaries open to all voters ( a big issue in Florida right now). In the No. 4 slot is giving third-party and independent candidates a real shot at being in the fall presidential debates.

First-round voting closes Wednesday night, with an Elite Eight round kicking off Thursday morning.

You can click the matchups, then each label, for more about the proposals. Click the Vote Now button to get started.




Read More

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

This question is not an exercise in double-talk. It is critical to understand the power that our Constitution grants exclusively to Congress, and the power that resides in the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 recognizes that distribution of power by saying that a President can only introduce military force into an existing or imminent hostility if Congress has declared war or specifically authorized the President to use military force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less