Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

A Political Reform Primer Worth Your Time

Voters looking for a solid introduction to the biggest drivers of dysfunction in Washington, and some of the most prominent proposals for making things better, have something new for their reading lists.

It's an easy-to-digest, 36-page report, rich in graphics, from a bipartisan panel of experts and former federal officials assembled by the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress.


Unlike so many other documents in the almost bottomless ocean of blue-ribbon studies, this one does not bite off more than most concerned citizens will be able to digest. Instead, the recommendations are tightly focused on taking partisan power politics out of the mapping of congressional districts and creating more genuine contests for House seats.

The panel, dubbed the Commission on Civility and Effective Governance, narrowed its scope after concluding there is more cross-partisan interest in curbing gerrymandering and the closed-loop primary election systems than in tackling two other core challenges to the functioning democracy: the burgeoning influence of money in politics and the "partisan echo chambers" of so much mainstream media.

The center's president, Glenn Nye, a former one-term Democratic congressman from Virginia, said the commission's work "is not fully comprehensive but serves as a good primer for the potential reform advocate who knows we need change but needs guidance understanding the links between gridlock in Washington and warped incentives coming from lack of real competition in election systems and districting."

The core recommendations are not outside-the-box: turning all political mapmaking over to non-partisan commissions, like those now in effect in nine states, and adopting either ranked-choice voting (as in Maine) or top-two finisher primaries (as in California) in an effort to push more candidates toward the ideological center. The report crisply explains how those ideas work and includes solid data to back the arguments.


Read More

Happy teacher asking girl with hand raised sitting in classroom at elementary school

Trump's education policies are reshaping public schools. Learn how Department of Education cuts, school boards, and local elections could shape children's futures.

Maskot / Getty Images

When It Comes to Our Children’s Education, Trump Gets An ‘F’

When grading a government, there should be no metric more telling than how the kids are doing. It may come as no surprise that they are not doing well–but if the kids are failing, it is because Trump has failed them. The United States has the highest child poverty rate of any wealthy nation, yet the president continues to systematically abandon children: stripping away vital affordability protections, dismantling public education infrastructure, and cutting Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. Plus, there’s the ongoing threat of gun violence in schools, the cruel realities facing migrant kids in detention centers, and now new threats to digital safety and youth mental health–an intersectional crisis that desperately requires federal attention while Trump is actively trying to prevent states from stepping up in the meantime. Each of these issues deserves its own op-ed, but today let’s talk about the silver bullet for addressing inequality and building a resilient, inclusive society: public education. Its days may be numbered, but you can help.

In a move characteristically devoid of compassion, President Trump signed an executive order to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), mandated that federal funding would be conditional on cutting all diversity, equity, or inclusion programs, and urged Congress to abolish the DOE outright. Following suit, Congress proposed and enacted budget cuts to reduce essential funding for programs supporting low-income students, students with disabilities, and otherwise vulnerable populations. The Supreme Court decision to allow mass layoffs at the Department of Education only worsens this crisis, reducing the department’s ability to assist schools during these challenging times. These combined federal actions will have far-reaching consequences for children and communities across the country. School’s out for summer? School might be out forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
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