Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Democrats rally to 3 more bold, long-shot ‘reform’ ideas

House passage of a sweeping and multifaceted election and ethics package looks to be only the beginning of Democrats' "democracy reformer" positioning efforts heading into the 2020 campaign.

In recent days, the burgeoning field of presidential contenders and a clutch of congressional progressives have professed support for remaking several basic aspects of the political system — in much bigger ways than any of the provisions of their much-ballyhooed bill, dubbed HR 1.


Republicans have promised to send the bill to oblivion in the Senate, deriding it as a partisan power grab in the guise of "good government." And now they're scoffing even more derisively at the latest round of big ideas from the left: expanding the Supreme Court, abolishing the Electoral College and lowering the voting age to 16.

Even some senior Democrats are leery of promoting these ideas, saying they give off the impression the party wants to rig the system to its favor because it's still so angry at President Trump's election.

To be sure, none of the new proposals have a chance of implementation soon.

Lowering the voting age, and presumably boosting the Democratic vote at least in the near term, would require a constitutional amendment. And that only happens with the support of two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate plus the backing of 38 states — almost always a multiyear process.

Adding seats to the Supreme Court, but not until the next (potentially Democratic) president could choose nominees to counter the conservative majority created with Trump's two justices, would be accomplished through legislation. But the president could veto such a bill, and overriding that would require large numbers of House and Senate Republicans to back the idea — not even a remote possibility.

Neutralizing the Electoral College, if not actually eliminating it, would be accomplished if enough states join what's called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. But that's a long way off, as well, so in theory Trump could win re-election with a version of his 2016 formula: winning states with 306 electoral votes (three-dozen more than the magic number) while still losing the popular vote (Hillary Clinton got 2.9 million more).

Under this compact, states commit to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the national popular vote — thereby assuring the popular vote winner becomes president. But the compact does not take effect until states with at least 270 electoral votes have signed on. And, so far, only 12 states and the District of Columbia — all of them reliably "blue" in recent national elections, and with a combined 181 electoral votes — have signed on. Only the most recent addition, Colorado, can be considered a swing state and even there voters went for the Democratic candidate in the last three elections. (Bills are pending in 15 other states, with 158 electoral votes, but few of them are given much shot at enactment before the 2020 election.)


Read More

Beware the moral panic over AI data centers

A person holds signs during a nationwide protest against AI data center expansion outside Peace Hall in New Port Richey, Florida on July 18, 2026.

(Thomas Simonetti/AFP via Getty Images/TNS)

Beware the moral panic over AI data centers

Don’t look now, but we seem to have a moral panic on our hands.

The term moral panic, at least as a social science concept, is relatively modern. It was coined by Stanley Cohen in the 1972 book “Folk Devils and Moral Panics.” Moral panics emerge when large numbers of people start to freak out about something that doesn’t warrant the freak out.

Keep ReadingShow less
Business owner hanging an open sign at a cafe

Black wealth is rising but the racial wealth gap is widening. From Douglass to Mays to today, the freedom struggle's unfinished business is ownership.

Luis Alvarez/Getty Images

Salute A True America 250: Black History Lessons on Power Everyone Needs Today

From Emmaus, Pennsylvania and Staten Island to Veterans of Foreign Wars posts in Kansas, Tennessee, N. Carolina and more, as well as the Ohio State Fair's butter cow theme (and deviled egg recipes), the celebration of America 250 continues throughout the rest of the sesquicentennial year.

Added to the recent Sail250 tall ship event culminating in Boston’s harbor attended by millions was part of the country’s s 1776 official birthdate of independence, but the persistent calls for Black freedom of the last two centuries are still ignored.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ross Perot

American businessman and politician Ross Perot, Annapolis, Maryland, 1992.

(Photo by Arnold Sachs/Consolidated News Pictures/Getty Images)

Perot 2.0

On February 20, 1992, Texas businessman Ross Perot appeared on Larry King Live and set in motion a significant challenge to the two-party status quo. I’m not asking to be drafted. But if the people want to register me in all 50 states, I’ll promise you this: between now and the conventions we’ll get both parties’ heads straight.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans responded. Volunteers put him on the ballot. By June he was leading in the polls. Even after dropping out of the race for a month (someone should write a book about why he did that), he received 20,000,000 votes.

Keep ReadingShow less
United States' Constitution and Declaration of Independence on a flag background

The Constitution didn't create American prosperity — geography, immigration, and historical luck did. Here's why that matters for reform debates.

miflippo/Getty Images

The Constitution Did Not Make America Rich

Americans are taught a reassuring story about their country’s success. The United States became prosperous, powerful, and free because the framers wrote an exceptional Constitution. The miracle of Philadelphia produced the miracle of America.

The story appears in classrooms, campaign speeches, judicial opinions, and serious scholarly works. Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James Robinson have argued that institutions securing property and constraining expropriation help separate rich nations from poor ones. But the popular American version takes that insight and turns it into something much stronger – and misguided: that our prosperity flowed from our particular constitutional design, and that altering it would put the wealth at risk.

Keep ReadingShow less