Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Senate Democrats launch non-starter bid to close Electoral College

Four Democratic senators have introduced a constitutional amendment that would abolish the Electoral College, an idea that's gaining traction among the party's progressives even though it has essentially no chance of happening.

Presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand of New York signed on to the proposal Tuesday along with party whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, top Judiciary Committee member Dianne Feinstein of California and Brian Schatz of Hawaii.


The Electoral College has been the focus of anger and frustration mainly on the political left and especially since President Trump won the presidency in 2016 by winning 306 electoral votes while losing the popular vote by 2.9 million ballots, a margin of 2 percentage points.

But a constitutional change would require two-third majorities in both the House and Senate and the support of 38 states — a non-starter given the nation's current political balance of power. Instead, most advocates of making the popular will dispositive in national campaigns are focused on the getting states to commit their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner.

So far states with 184 votes in the Electoral College have enacted laws committing themselves to the so-called National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which only would take effect after states combining for more than a dispositive 270 electoral votes have signed on. Legislatures in another five states, with 32 electoral votes combined, have a plausible chance of signing on in the next year. But all the states committed or moving toward the compact so far are reliably Democratic or leaning that way.


Read More

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding
person in red shirt wearing silver bracelet holding red and black metal tool
Photo by Wassim Chouak on Unsplash

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding

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

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looking at social media app icons on a phone

Gen Z is quietly leaving social media as algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll, and addictive platform design fuel anxiety, isolation, and mental health struggles.

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Gen Z Begs Legislators: Make Social Media Social Again

Lately, it seems like each time I reach out to an old acquaintance through social media, I’m met with a page that reads, “This account doesn’t exist anymore.”

Many Gen-Z’ers are quietly quitting the platforms we grew up on.

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less