Democracy for All 2021 Action is a national campaign committed to building power for the people and making our government work for all of us. Our diverse coalition includes labor unions, think tanks, racial justice, environmental, reproductive health, and community organizations that represent millions of Americans. We are working toward implementing deep reforms in 2021 to unrig our political system once and for all.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More

Trump’s 10-to-1 rule aims to cut red tape, but fewer regulations can mean weaker food safety, Head Start services, and checks on presidential power.
Wu Xiaoling/Xinhua via Getty Images
Trump’s 10-to-1 Rule Gives the Presidency Too Much Power
Oct 21, 2026
We only think about the plumbing in our homes when something goes wrong. The same is true for government bureaucracy. Rules, procedures, and bureaucrats operate largely out of sight, making sure food is safe, Social Security checks arrive, workplaces are safe, and children with disabilities receive the services promised to them by law. Yes, there is plenty of red tape in government, just as an old house can accumulate pipes that no longer serve much purpose. But ripping out pipes simply because there are too many of them is not much of a plumbing strategy. Yet the Trump administration has made the number of federal regulations it eliminates a measure of success. That raises a more important question: When does cutting bureaucracy stop making government more efficient and start making it less capable?
1. The Case for Cutting Red Tape
Critics, including Trump, have a point when they say Washington has too many regulations. Rules, like weeds, accumulate over time. With each passing year, some become outdated, others duplicate existing requirements, and for still others, costs start to exceed benefits they once provided. Businesses, state and local governments, and ordinary citizens can spend an enormous amount of time trying to comply with them.
Trump claims that eliminating these rules is a major goal of the administration. Trump's 10-to-1 policy requires federal agencies to eliminate at least ten regulations for every new one they issue. The administration boasts it has already surpassed that goal. This is evidence, according to Trump, that the government is becoming more efficient.
Few would argue with getting rid of rules that no longer serve a useful purpose. Indeed, some should have disappeared years ago. But fewer rules don't automatically mean better government. Food safety rules, environmental regulations, and protections for workers exist because there were things government needed to protect. Getting rid of the rule doesn't get rid of the problem it was intended to address.
2. Rules Make Government Work
Consider Head Start. The program provides important services to children with disabilities. Federal rules govern how children are screened, how they are referred for additional help, how parents are involved, and how Head Start works with other agencies. These may sound like bureaucratic details. But they are also how good intentions get translated into actual services for a child.
Now Trump wants to get rid of many of these requirements, and he frames it as giving local programs more freedom. On the surface, that sounds reasonable. Why should Washington tell every Head Start program exactly how to do its job? The problem is what happens next. Without common requirements, services that children receive in one community may be radically different from those available in another. A right isn't worth very much if whether you receive it depends on your ZIP code.
Environmental regulations present a similar problem. Business owners have complained about their cost for decades, and some of those complaints are justified. But these rules weren't created to make things more expensive for businesses. They were intended to keep pollution out of the air and water. Common sense dictates getting rid of regulations that don't work. But eliminating the rule doesn't eliminate the pollution that gave rise to it in the first place.
Food safety provides another example. This summer, thousands of people became sick in a Cyclospora outbreak linked to Mexican iceberg lettuce. Hundreds were hospitalized, and two people died. We can't say that deep cuts at the FDA caused the outbreak. But those cuts have led FDA staffing to fall and foreign food inspections have declined. Given how much of our food comes from outside the United States, that's something worth worrying about.
Most of us don't think much about food inspectors until thousands of people get sick. Then suddenly the bureaucrats don't seem quite so unnecessary.
3. A Weaker Bureaucracy Can Mean a Stronger President
Something else is going on here. Trump isn't simply getting rid of regulations; he is bringing more of the federal government under his control in the process. White House oversight has been extended to independent agencies, while civil service rules have been changed for some federal workers involved in policymaking. The administration says this makes bureaucrats more accountable to an elected president and hence, indirectly, the people. It also gives the president more control over the workforce who carry out the law.
The Framers would have understood the problem. They distrusted concentrated power, no matter who exercised it. That is why the Constitution divides power among Congress, the president, and the courts and then gives each branch ways to check the others' overreach. Madison wrote about this in Federalist 47. Putting legislative, executive, and judicial power in the same hands, he said, was the “very definition of tyranny.”
This can make American government maddeningly inefficient. That's not an accident. The Framers were willing to sacrifice some efficiency to make it harder for one person or institution to dominate the government. If the Framers lived today, they might say the system's inefficiency was a feature, not a bug.
Trump is attempting to move us in the other direction. Giving a president more control over federal agencies and career officials makes it easier to carry out his agenda. For Trump's supporters, that's part of the appeal. They elected him to change Washington and don't want unelected bureaucrats getting in his way.
But there is a price. A president who faces fewer restraints has more freedom to act on his own. That may work fine when you agree with the person in the White House. It looks rather different when you don't. Fewer checks and balances also mean fewer opportunities to catch mistakes before they become policy.
This is where deregulation becomes about something larger than red tape. Concentrating power in the presidency doesn't by itself make a government authoritarian. But it removes some of the obstacles that make authoritarian government harder. And once presidential power expands, it rarely goes back to what it was before. That is how the threat of authoritarianism grows.
Robert Cropf is a professor emeritus of political science at Saint Louis University.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended

white dome building near body of water during daytime
Photo by José Matute on Unsplash
We The People
Oct 20, 2026
On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln concluded the Gettysburg Address with a vision of democracy that has endured for more than a century:
“That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
More than 160 years later, the United States must confront a difficult question: Does our government meet its own standard for a democracy?
"Of the People"
A government “of the people” must be a governing body that reflects the population it serves in both composition and lived reality. But even beyond race and gender, Congress is operating from entirely different realities than the people it represents. One member of Congress is over the age of 90, born before the first lobotomy was ever performed in America. Nineteen members are over 80, graduating high school before the Civil Rights Act passed (1964), before the Supreme Court struck down sex-based discrimination (1971), and before the moon landing (1969). In other words, nearly 20 people writing federal law today came of age before many of the rights and protections we now consider baseline ever existed.
Nearly 100 members are in their seventies, already adults before the internet was invented (1990), before the first Black Miss America (1983), and before the wave of national conversations that followed Columbine (1999). Another 137 members are in their sixties, born during the last lobotomy operation in America, and shaped politically long before the first woman became Speaker of the House or before same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide. Meanwhile, there are only 37 members in their thirties and just one person under 30.
Beyond fixed demographics, members of Congress are also overwhelmingly affluent compared to the average American. As of 2021, the median net worth of a congressmember was $1.28 million. with roughly 1 in 10 members holding enough wealth to place them in the top 1 percent, In the Senate alone, at least 73 percent of members are millionaires in a country where only about 7 percent of people are. Additionally, the wealth of Congresspeople continues to increase. Even during the height of COVID, while millions of Americans worried about losing their jobs, members of Congress were making over $150 million in stock trades.
And running for office has become prohibitively expensive in ways that push most people out before they ever begin. In 2024 alone, House candidacies cost nearly $1.9 billion, Senate candidacies another $1.6 billion, and presidential campaigns cost over $2.6 billion. Individual congressional races can cost anywhere from hundreds of thousands of dollars to well over $10 million, demanding money and access to wealthy donor networks, as well as the ability to campaign full time without financial insecurity. For many candidates, fundraising itself becomes a full-time job. Representative Maxwell Frost had to quit his full-time job, work 10 to 12 hours a day on his campaign, max out his credit cards, and drive for Uber just to get by during his campaign. After winning, his credit was so damaged that he struggled to rent an apartment.
While wealth doesn’t negate the capacity for empathy or effective leadership, it does shape perspective. When pathways to office are only accessible to those with certain financial means, the range of lived experiences represented in government narrows accordingly. If a system no longer allows for the rise of ordinary leaders, it forces a reconsideration of what representation truly means. A democracy that cannot produce leaders from ordinary life has ceased to be governed by ordinary people.
"By the People"
A government is not democratic simply because elections occur, but because citizens possess meaningful power over their outcomes.
For much of the twentieth century, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 served as one of the most effective tools for preventing racial discrimination in voting. That is, until 2013, when Shelby County v. Holder struck down the coverage formula determining which jurisdictions were required to obtain federal approval before changing their voting laws. Within hours of the ruling, Texas announced it would implement a strict voter identification law that had previously been blocked because the state failed to demonstrate it wouldn’t harm Black and Latino voters. Mississippi and Alabama quickly implemented voter ID requirements of their own, while North Carolina enacted what a federal court later described as a voter suppression law targeting African Americans with "almost surgical precision," reducing early voting capacity, eliminating same-day registration, and imposing new identification requirements. Between 2012 and 2018, counties formerly subject to federal oversight closed at least 1,688 polling places.
Furthermore, modern gerrymandering has allowed politicians to manipulate representation before voters ever enter the booth. Traditionally, states redrew congressional maps once every ten years, but since the summer of 2025, 10 states have changed their congressional maps mid-decade, a rate the National Conference of State Legislatures describes having not seen since the 1800s.
And once again, these limitations are further compounded by the increasing centrality of money in American elections. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the Supreme Court ruled corporations, unions, and other organizations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money on independent political advocacy. In the last presidential election before Citizens United, outside groups spent roughly $574 million on federal elections. By 2024, outside spending reached nearly $4.5 billion, while Super PAC spending exploded from $62.6 million in 2010 to more than $4.1 billion. This money is concentrated among a tiny group of wealthy donors, where the share of federal election spending coming from the top 100 donors rose from just 1.5 percent before Citizens United to roughly 14 to 16 percent.
Democracy does not disappear all at once. It wears away piece by piece with every barrier to voting, every manipulated district, and every dollar that buys greater political influence that shifts power away from citizens and toward those already positioned to wield it. Leaving a democracy that preserves the ritual of elections while steadily hollowing out their meaning.
"For the People"
Of the three principles, “for the people” is arguably the most essential. Even if representation is imperfect, access to office is uneven, and participation in elections is constrained, a democracy might still claim legitimacy if those in power act in accordance with the needs and expressed will of the people. However, Congress only aligns with the public opinion on major issues only 55% of the time.
Importantly, the dying bills are those affecting people’s livelihoods and bills Americans have supported with vigor. Pew Research found that 62% of Americans supported raising the federal minimum wage to $15. Navigator Research found that 76% of Americans want Congress to create a national paid family and medical leave program. APM Research Lab found that 86% of Americans supported universal background checks for firearm sales. KFF found that only 82% of Americans wanted Congress to increase Medicaid spending, or keep spending the same. Nearly four years after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade (1973), Pew Research found that 60% of Americans still said abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Despite this, these proposals have repeatedly struggled to become federal law. Meanwhile, tax policies disproportionately benefitting higher-income households, reductions in social spending, and efforts to weaken programs like Medicaid continue to receive serious consideration.
The people are not confused about what they need. They are asking for safer communities, livable wages, paid time off to care for their families, affordable health care, and basic control over their own bodies. But we are met with a governing system that can hear the public clearly and still chooses to act in their own best interest.
American democracy has never been fully realized. From its founding, America has struggled to live up to the very principles it proclaims. And yet, the defining story of American democracy has never been perfection, but expansion through constitutional amendments and social movements.
The truth is that every generation inherits two Americas: the nation that exists and the nation it claims to be. The distance between those two is the measure of our democracy, and our democratic legitimacy is determined by whether we are deepening the divide or caring enough to turn around and close the gap.
The phrase “of the people, by the people, for the people” is a measure by which democratic systems should be evaluated, and when necessary, challenged. When a government fails to meet that standard, we must hold them accountable. Democracies collapse when citizens mistake democratic symbols for democratic substance, therefore our responsibility cannot also be symbolic. It means practical actions and voting with the seriousness of a people who understand that public officials work for the public. They are not above being challenged, called out, organized against, or voted out. Because a true democracy does not ask the people to endure leaders who fail them. It gives the people the power to replace them.
Ashley Staggers serves as Director of the Fostering Youth Success Alliance (FYSA) at Children's Aid, where she leads statewide policy, advocacy, youth engagement, and partnership efforts to improve outcomes for young people with foster care experience.
Keep ReadingShow less
A Third Force
Oct 20, 2026
In my last essay, I described how a nationwide deliberation campaign could produce a People’s Proposal: a common-ground agenda for renewing our system of self-governance, sourced directly from the American people. But a proposal, however broadly the people support it, is not self-enacting. Someone has to carry it into state and national legislatures, onto referendums, and, for the deepest reforms, into the Constitution itself. Who carries the People’s Proposal matters as much as what it contains. If one party shoves reforms through over the other’s objection, it will become simply another round in the toxic partisan boxing match that has left Americans exhausted and bruised.
Thanks for reading Democracy Renewal Group! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work.
What the People’s Proposal needs is a Third Force, a transpartisan movement – rather than a single party – made up of Americans across the political landscape who want the rules of our democratic republic repaired, updated, and improved and who are willing to build the power required to make that happen.
I want to be clear that, by transpartisan, I do not mean a mushy middle that compromises until proposals become meaningless. I mean a powerful force composed of conservatives, progressives, and independents who disagree a great deal yet share the conviction that our system of self-governance needs to be renewed. They transcend their differences to find creative solutions for improving the system even while continuing to debate policy differences. Fix the system now, and argue about the specifics of tax policy later. Transpartisans bring an open mind to the table and judge ideas against their shared principles, regardless of who contributes the proposal. Some of the most valuable transpartisans are people who have broken with their own side on principle, because their commitment to our country’s shared democratic values runs deeper than their allegiance to a party.
A significant percentage of the movement’s constituent base — already forming — is the citizens taking part in a nationwide deliberation campaign. In Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina this year, deliberative forums organized by coalitions of leaders from both parties are gathering residents’ priorities, and representative citizens’ assemblies are turning them into nuanced proposals for state lawmakers. Those leaders are committed to carrying the state’s proposal forward together. The widespread civic participation in these deliberative processes provides a supermajority popular mandate no party can claim, and the political leaders give the base a pathway to enact their proposal into law. The same dynamic will continue as new states join the process and as the Great American Deliberation expands to the national level.
Are We Talking About a New Political Party?
Skeptics will say third parties have never succeeded in the United States, and history supports them to a degree. In our winner-take-all system, new parties face tremendous obstacles and tend to fade away.
Only once has a new party replaced a major one in the U.S. The Whigs held Northern and Southern voters together by keeping slavery off the table, until the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 made that silence impossible and the party fractured. As it broke apart, the Whigs’ antislavery wing — including Abraham Lincoln, William Seward, and eventually Thaddeus Stevens — joined with Free Soilers and antislavery Democrats to build the new Republican Party, which won the presidency in 1860. Other Whigs drifted to the anti-immigrant American Party (commonly nicknamed the Know-Nothings), and a remnant formed the short-lived Constitutional Union Party.1 The antislavery coalition is what endured – and led the Second Founding following the Civil War.
Even though most third parties eventually fade, their ideas often do not. Richard Hofstadter compared third parties to bees, which sting and then die. The two major parties have repeatedly absorbed third-party causes to win back their voters.2 The People’s (Populist) Party is a clear case: it carried several states in 1892 and fused with the Democrats behind William Jennings Bryan in 1896 before it faded. Yet, much of its platform, from the graduated income tax to the direct election of senators, later became law. The party faded away, but its agenda won.3
Consider Ross Perot, who ran for president as an independent in 1992 and won nearly 20 percent of the popular vote — the strongest independent showing since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912.7 He forced the federal deficit into national discourse, which contributed to the balancing of the federal budget in 1998. Following Perot’s campaign, the major parties then worked together to close the openings that had allowed a political outsider to gather that much momentum.
Party realignment happens when a new or critical issue cuts across the old formations and splits both of them. We are living through such a moment now. Working-class voters have moved right, college-educated voters have moved left,4 and a record 45 percent of Americans now call themselves independents.5 The issue cutting across the old lines today is a widely shared sense that our system of self-governance no longer functions as intended. Distrust of Washington crosses party lines: only 17 percent of Americans trust the federal government to do what is right always or most of the time.6 Americans who disagree about nearly everything else agree by large majorities on many of the repairs the system needs. A movement organized around those proposals to renew American democracy can draw from both major coalitions at once, as the Republicans did in the 1850s and the Populists did in the 1890s.
Thankfully, we don’t need a new political party. What we need is a transpartisan coalition that can work together to renew our social contract and reform our system of self-governance. Despite the structural challenges to a Third Force, an independent political movement is rising again today. At the Independent National Convention last week, the message was clear: small third parties and nonpartisan reformers now have — this year, for the first time — a slate of credible congressional candidates willing to carry the political water on common ground reforms. Those candidates were chosen against rigorous criteria that include moral integrity. Among them are veterans who frame their candidacies as a continuation of their oath to the Constitution and an effort to break through roadblocks to new ways of governing.
If the major parties could join forces to keep new voices out of the political system, a transpartisan movement could unite small parties, disaffected Republicans and Democrats, independents, and reformers to fix the system.
Why It Has to Be Transpartisan
The poet Rumi, according to a well-known rendering, once wrote: “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I’ll meet you there.”8 The Third Force invites Americans to meet in a field beyond partisanship. If the democracy renewal movement is to succeed, it will be filled with committed Americans who can rise above party to act together during a critical moment in our country’s history. Cross-partisan civility — for example, disagreeing better and lowering the temperature — is necessary but not sufficient. What this moment demands is transpartisan leadership and action: people who not only argue more respectfully but actually stand and build together across our many divides. Why is that?
First, only a transpartisan coalition can break the vicious cycle we are in. Our politics is trapped in a doom loop:9 each side wins power, uses it to advance its program and constrain the other, and provokes a backlash that repeats the pattern. A change to the basic terms of our social contract — especially if it is to be written into the Constitution — would need to draw its legitimacy from having been made together by all Americans and for all Americans. A coalition that visibly spans our many divides would reframe the nature of the fight; it would bring together the power of all people who want to fix the system against those who profit from leaving it broken. And make no mistake: both major parties benefit from the status quo.
Second, only a transpartisan coalition can win a supermajority. Much of the People’s Proposal can be enacted through ordinary legislation and ballot measures in the states as well as in Washington. But the deepest common-ground reforms, those that must be entrenched against reversal, require the supermajorities that constitutional change demands: two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states. By design, there is no partisan road to those numbers. That is how the Framers intended it to work.
Third, the very cultivation of the coalition would contribute to the healing our country desperately needs. I have argued in a previous essay that a Fourth Founding has two halves: a change in how we treat one another and a change in the rules we live by. A transpartisan political coalition as the visible tip of the democracy renewal movement would model in our institutions what the deliberations build at the grassroots: an understanding that people who disagree can still share a country and a purpose. When leaders stand together across the divide, they can give ordinary citizens permission to do the same.
Where the Third Force Gathers
If that is the coalition we need, where will it come from and where will it gather? Four places look promising.
Among voters. The ongoing political realignment has left millions of Americans without a comfortable political home. Many independents lean toward one party, but many are uneasy associating with both parties, which they see as feeding our toxic politics through divisive and undemocratic approaches. Some voters inside each of the major parties are uneasy with the extremes on their own side: 45 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents want their party to move toward the center, up 11 points since 2021, and about a quarter of Republicans want the same for theirs.10 These voters need not abandon their convictions. Voters, candidates, and elected officials may come to call themselves Transpartisan Democrats and Transpartisan Republicans. What they need is a movement that will create the space for them to join forces around shared interests.
In Congress. There are multiple strategies for bringing members of Congress together in common cause. The Problem Solvers Caucus brings Democrats and Republicans together in equal numbers, while each member continues to caucus with their own party. An Independent Fulcrum Caucus would ask more: its members would stop caucusing with either party and organize their votes around democratic renewal, in chambers so narrowly divided that a small bloc can decide who holds the gavel and which bills reach the floor. This latter idea was discussed at the recent Independent National Convention as a place to seed the Third Force inside Congress, with an open invitation to members of both parties who are dissatisfied with business as usual.
The sacrifice of not caucusing with either of the two main parties is real. Committee seats are nominated and approved through the party caucuses, and members who walk away would have to negotiate new arrangements. But committee seats mean little in a Congress whose committee system barely functions as intended. The core work of a member — writing legislation, questioning witnesses, and representing constituents — remains. By joining forces for democratic renewal, the members of an Independent Fulcrum Caucus would gain leverage, since a bloc that belongs to neither side is the one both sides must bargain with. A public pledge and a shared code of conduct would hold members to their commitment and enable voters to hold them accountable.
Among governors. As chair of the National Governors Association (NGA) in 2023–24, Utah’s Spencer Cox, a Republican, launched “Disagree Better” to model healthy disagreement among elected officials. Governors of both parties joined in, most prominently Maryland Democrat Wes Moore, and the effort has continued as an independent nonprofit; the NGA and Dignity.Us have since launched a Center for Dignity in Politics to help governors lead across disagreement.11 A transpartisan bloc of governors committed to democratic renewal could model collaboration across divides and pursue structural reforms in their own states relatively independent of federal government politics.
Among former officeholders. Former Presidents and cabinet secretaries, former governors, and former members of Congress share an asset active politicians lack: no one suspects them of angling for the next election. On January 3, 2021, all 10 living former secretaries of defense, appointed by presidents of both parties, published a joint warning that the military has no role in settling election disputes; their oath, they reminded the country, was sworn to the Constitution and not “to an individual or a party.”12 Assembled in advance, a circle of such figures could convene the Third Force and vouch for its good faith, as well as provide powerful leadership for the common ground People’s Proposal which will emerge from the Great American Deliberation.
In Ordinary Times and in Emergencies
A Third Force matters in ordinary politics, where it can carry the People’s Proposal into law. It will matter even more if our politics fractures faster than reform can work its way through the current system. When the Carnegie Endowment studied four countries that recently reversed serious democratic backsliding — Brazil, Poland, Senegal, and Zambia — it found two factors common to all of them: a resilient civil society and an opposition that built broad coalitions reaching well beyond its traditional supporters.13
Brazil is a vivid case. To defeat an incumbent widely seen as a threat to democracy in 2022, the left’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva assembled an alliance running from the far left to the center-right and chose as his running mate Geraldo Alckmin, a center-right rival he had faced in a previous presidential race. It was, in effect, a cross-partisan ticket assembled to save democracy. That kind of shared leadership grows from relationships and trust built beforehand, and every alliance forged now strengthens our capacity to come through an emergency with our system of self-governance intact and to build a more inclusive, participatory, and responsive system of self-governance in its wake. My next essay will take up the transitional mechanisms a democratic emergency would call for.
Nothing about our system of self-governance is set in stone. The roles and responsibilities of our political parties, the way Congress is structured, and the way we choose presidents are structures Americans built, and Americans can build differently. In a realignment, perhaps the U.S. could even see a presidential ticket that crosses the partisan divide — a candidate for president from one party and a candidate for vice president from the other, running together on a platform of democratic renewal. In addition to modern-day Brazil, there are examples of this in our own history. Lincoln did something like it in 1864, when Republicans and War Democrats formed the National Union Party and he ran with Andrew Johnson, a War Democrat, as his running mate. What may seem impossible in the abstract has repeatedly proved achievable when the stakes were the survival of a country’s democratic system.
The Third Force is less a blueprint than an invitation. The democratic renewal movement’s coalitions and approaches will need to be co-created by the people who build them, in the same spirit that our Founders embraced 250 years ago. To fix our system will take all of us – or at least a supermajority. Data about our shared values and common ground suggests that is possible. Beyond that, we have a strong foundation to build on as we continue to form a more perfect union. Won’t you join us?
This article was originally published by the Democracy Renewal Group, and republished here with the author’s permission.
Danielle M. Reiff is a retired American diplomat, peacebuilder, and writer.
Keep ReadingShow less

New surveys of nearly 20,000 battleground voters find bipartisan majorities say Congress ignores the public, and that more public influence would help.
Philip Yabut/Getty Images
Americans Say the People Can Lead Congress to Common Ground; It Appears They Are Right
Oct 20, 2026
New surveys in battleground states and districts across the country, as well as nationwide, find that Americans—both Republicans and Democrats—believe Congress does what most Americans would do less than half the time.
They also found that majorities agree that if Congress were to be more influenced by the people, it would be more likely to find common ground. In fact, surveys show that majorities of Republicans and Democrats agree on what to do about many issues that Congress is stuck on.
These findings come from surveys conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) to nearly 20,000 adults in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive congressional districts, from May 27th to June 25th, as part of its Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series. A national survey was also conducted from March 11-19 with 1,200 respondents.
Americans were asked to estimate what percentage of the time elected federal officials make the same decisions as the majority of Americans. Bipartisan majorities in every battleground surveyed and nationally say less than 50%. On average across the battlegrounds, the estimate is just 35%, with little difference between Democrats and Republicans (35% and 38%, respectively).
As research has shown, Americans are correct: Congress is out of step with public opinion on many policy issues. In particular, Congress is not passing laws that are supported by large majorities of Americans.
While Americans do not think that Congress should follow public opinion robotically, they think the people should have substantial influence. Presented with a scenario in which the majority of a Congressperson’s constituents agree on what should be done about a policy issue, and asked how much influence that opinion should have on a 0-10 scale, the mean response was not 10. But it was a robust 7.6.
Perhaps most significantly, over eight in ten say that if the people had more influence, Congress would be more likely to find common ground. In other words, they believe polarization in Congress is not a mirror of the people; polarization comes from the top, not the bottom.
But is the public right?
Surveys by PPC and others have consistently found that the public is correct. Across dozens of issues on which Congress has been unable to reach agreement, bipartisan majorities in the public actually converge. This is true nationally, and in PPC’s current study in the battlegrounds, which has found dozens of policies in numerous areas supported by clear majorities of Republicans and Democrats.
And Americans want their voice to be heard. Asked how often news pieces about a policy issue should include relevant public opinion data (when there is reliable data), over two-thirds of both Democrats and Republicans in every battleground say always or most of the time. Over six in ten say that if Congress is about to vote on a law, it is very or extremely important for news outlets to report on whether a majority of Americans favor or oppose that law.
The public’s desire to be heard is not new. The findings have remained the same, no matter which party is in power. And there are good reasons to believe that if the public’s views were more prominent in the public discourse – in Congress and the new media – this would have a stabilizing and unifying effect on our politics.
Dr. Steven Kull is Director and Evan Charles Lewitus is Associate Director of the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
















