Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Stop Fighting, Start Fixing: This Is How We Rebuild Democracy

Opinion

Louisiana election
Wait – the election isn’t over yet!
E4C

Twenty-five years ago, a political scientist noticed something changing in American bowling alleys and predicted something close to our current fraught and polarized moment.

In his best-selling book Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam documented how Americans were no longer connecting with each other in common places or in pursuit of common aims. Instead of bowling on a team, we did so in isolation. Putnam warned that a likely consequence of this growing isolation and withdrawal from genuine ties with neighbors would be a rise in undemocratic, and even authoritarian, politics.


Our nation’s problems, of course, are far more serious than the decline of bowling teams, or coffee shops in which everyone wears headphones and stares into a phone. Yet when we stop talking to one another in routine social settings, it’s easy to lose trust in our fellow citizens and faith in our common institutions – especially when we live in news bubbles designed to generate outrage rather than informed citizens.

With our divisions escalating into tragedy in Minneapolis and elsewhere, it’s time to remind each other that our constitutional self‑government is tied to a shared duty to secure one another’s rights and to respect one another. This is especially important where disagreements run deepest. The social contract binding our country is not the domination of some people by others. It is a mutual pledge that each of us will help guarantee what all of us retain – that my freedom is bound up with yours. That my disrespect of your rights and dignity imperils my own.

We're living through a test of that proposition. Our constitutional system has weathered civil war and economic collapse, but it's straining under the erosion of civic culture and democratic responsibility that makes self-government possible. The Constitution distributes power, protects rights, establishes procedures. But it can't make us care whether our neighbor can freely exercise the right to vote, or compel us to recognize the dignity of someone who voted differently. Those obligations belong to us.

The framers designed a republic that would channel faction and ambition into productive tension. But the machinery only works if we accept the legitimacy of the process and the rights and dignity of everyone. When we view fellow citizens as enemies to be vanquished, the constitutional order begins to buckle. When our elected leaders stop serving the interests of the general public in favor of a partisan few, our democracy becomes unproductive and, at times, counterproductive to voters.

When this moment subsides, and Americans turn their attention to repairing what has been broken, we will need much more than bowling teams. We will need a renewal of civic responsibility and practices in which we reach out to others – including those different from ourselves, but equally worthy of respect. Some have turned toward this work: The Disagree Better Initiative, for example, seeks to channel controversial topics into real conversation. Other groups have sought to bring red and blue America together. A new documentary based on Putnam’s work, “Join Or Die,” puts our choice in stark relief.

We will also need an electoral system that encourages us to talk to one another again. Today’s politicians, safe in their gerrymandered districts, chosen largely in closed, plurality primaries with a small percentage of the vote, have no reason to talk – or listen – to anyone beyond their partisan base. They have every reason to ignore or antagonize everyone else. That’s no way to choose our leaders. And to no surprise, it hasn’t resulted in progress or leadership, let alone problem-solving.

We have options. Ranked choice voting, which requires a candidate to earn over 50% of the vote to win, empowers voters to express their full range of preferences. It rewards candidates who can appeal to voters beyond a narrow partisan base, and incentivizes leaders to deliver for a majority of their voters rather than be beholden to that base. A more proportional U.S. House would end gerrymandering and encourage coalition-building among elected leaders.

These reforms won’t solve everything that ails us. But systems shape behavior, and our current system disempowers voters and is shaped for combat. If we're serious about renewing our commitment to constitutional government in our 250th year, we need not all become bowlers. (Though we should take off the headphones more often.)

But we should commit to speaking to one another – and to a politics where mutual respect and responsibility are an advantage rather than a weakness.

Meredith Sumpter is the president and CEO of FairVote, a nonpartisan organization seeking better elections.


Read More

Nevada pro-democracy groups condemn SAVE Act

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., speaks at a press event about free and fair elections. A recent study from MIT ranked Nevada second in the nation for quality of election administration, based on measures of accessibility and security.

(Battle Born Progress)

Nevada pro-democracy groups condemn SAVE Act

President Donald Trump has made passing the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act a top priority before the midterms but supporters of safe and fair elections in the Silver State said it would be a disaster for democracy.

The bill, which purports to combat noncitizen voting, would make it much harder to register to vote. It passed the U.S. House but is stalled in the Senate.

Keep ReadingShow less
How A 2022 Law Changed Election Certification: Assessing the Electoral Count Reform Act

A sign that reads: Voting

E4C

How A 2022 Law Changed Election Certification: Assessing the Electoral Count Reform Act

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • The Electoral Count Reform (ECRA) of 2022 modernizes the 1887 Electoral Count Act, which governed how Congress counts Electoral College votes. The original Act has been widely criticized as vague and susceptible to exploitation.
  • The ECRA clarifies that the Vice President’s role is ceremonial, raises the objection threshold to 20 percent of both chambers, and designates governors as responsible for submitting elector certificates.
  • Supporters argue that the bipartisan reform prevents future election disputes and protects democratic stability, while critics contend that it was rushed, doesn’t address deeper election integrity issues, and raises concerns about federalism.
  • The Act reflects bipartisan cooperation but continues debates about federalism and the balance of power between states and Congress.

The Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act (ECRA) was introduced by Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) in July 2022 and signed into law by President Joe Biden in December 2022. It is a reform to the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (ECA), a law that governs how Congress counts the Electoral College votes for president every four years. The Act is also a response to President Donald Trump’s efforts to dispute the 2020 presidential election results, which revealed several gaps in the law that could be exploited by a presidential candidate.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Bipartisan War on Independent Voters
A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

The Bipartisan War on Independent Voters

The Washington Post editorial board penned a bold piece (Bill Cassidy and America’s Increasingly Broken Primary System) in the wake of President Trump’s successful vendetta against the Louisiana Senator. They could have taken the easy route and pointed a finger at the Republicans. Instead, they took issue with both parties and their insatiable appetite to control the rules of the game and punish anyone who steps out of line.

In a media landscape dominated by partisan propaganda, it’s refreshing to read an opinion piece that encourages readers to actually look at what’s happening.

Keep ReadingShow less
Oregon Pioneered Vote-by-Mail. Its Ballot Access Laws Are Still in the Covered Wagon Era.
white printer paper on white table

Oregon Pioneered Vote-by-Mail. Its Ballot Access Laws Are Still in the Covered Wagon Era.

Oregon's primary election was on May 19. Neither of the two major-party candidates in Oregon's 6th Congressional District faced a primary opponent. They'll automatically advance to November's general election ballot, without a single voter really needing to weigh in, without collecting a single petition signature, and without knocking on a single door. The Democratic incumbent represents a party that accounts for 29.75 percent of registered voters in this district. The Republican nominee represents a party with 24.78 percent of the vote. Together, the two parties represent a minority of OR-6's electorate, and both of their candidates are already on the November ballot.

I represent the largest voting bloc in this district. Nearly 40 percent of OR-6's registered voters are unaffiliated, more than either party. These voters have never had a candidate who answers only to them—not to party bosses, party lines, or special interests. I am trying to be that candidate. And I am still on the porch, clipboard in hand, collecting the 5,500 hand-signed paper petitions I will need just to guarantee that my name appears beside theirs in November.

Keep ReadingShow less