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

How My Benzodiazepine Experience Impacted the Trust I Have in the Healthcare System
a doctor showing a patient something on the tablet
Photo by Nappy on Unsplash

How My Benzodiazepine Experience Impacted the Trust I Have in the Healthcare System

During my junior year of high school, I was prescribed my first benzodiazepine, called lorazepam, at 16 years of age. At the time, my parents and I did not understand the potential consequences of long-term use of benzos. Like so many other patients out there, we trusted that the healthcare system would not only provide treatment and correct guidance to move forward with my prescriptions, but I never realized they would be the force that would ruin my future and so many dreams I had for my young adulthood.

What followed was a years-long struggle with severe medication dependence and withdrawal that fundamentally changed my life for the worse.

Keep ReadingShow less
Constitution of the United State with the U.S. flag in the background.

The Framers designed a republic with the intention to manage factionalism through deliberate compromise and institutional guardrails, whereas 21st-century polarization often treats compromise as a moral failing.

Douglas Sacha, Getty Images

Our Framers on 21st Century Primaries and Polarization

The Framers would view 21st-century closed primaries and political polarization as the exact manifestation of "factionalism" they spent the 1787 Constitutional Convention trying to prevent. They would argue these systems force candidates to appeal to ideological extremes rather than the broad, moderate consensus required for stable governance.

The Danger of Factionalism: In Federalist No. 10, James Madison defined a "faction" as a group of citizens united by a passion or interest adverse to the rights of others. He argued that while factions are inevitable, their effects must be controlled. The Framers would recognize 21st-century hyper-polarization as the dominance of unyielding factions that prioritize absolute ideological purity over democratic compromise.

Keep ReadingShow less

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less