Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The problem with politics isn’t what you think. Nor is the solution.

Katherine Gehl and Richard Barton

Katherine Gehl and Richard Barton

In 2009, a small group of individuals observed disturbing changes in the way information is communicated in the United States. They were troubled about the effects of an ever-intensifying polarization on public policy issues. They saw how polarized positions divided friends, families, colleagues, and neighbors, and realized that partisan informational silos were a threat to democracy.

In response, the group launched Network for Responsible Public Policy to provide the stories that would educate, inform, foster civic engagement and generate a sense of shared purpose. More than a decade later, NFRPP continues to build bridges founded on trustworthy information and community.

Recently NRPP hosted a video to educate citizens on what is at the root cause of our political dysfunction (an anti-competitive system) and the solutions.


The webinar was moderated by Kevin Johnson, executive director of Election Reformers Network, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to modernizing U.S. democratic institutions threatened by polarization.

Participating in the discussion were Katherine Gehl and Richard Barton.

Gehl is the founder of The Institute for Political Innovation, a nonpartisan nonprofit founded in 2020 to catalyze modern political change in America, and co-author of “The Politics Industry: How Political Innovation Can Break Partisan Gridlock and Save Our Democracy.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Barton is a professor of public administration and international affairs at Syracuse University. His research focuses on election systems, legislative institutions and American political economy. His peer-reviewed publications include “A Primary Threat: How Ideological Primary Challengers Exacerbate Polarization in Bill Sponsorship” and “Upending the New Deal Regulatory Regime: Democratic Party Position Change on Financial Regulation.”

Watch this insightful video to learn about:

  • How the existing electoral systems deliberately contribute to gridlock and dysfunction.
  • Why competition is crucial in holding elected officials accountable for delivering results.
  • How proposed solutions differ.
  • The promising governing results that are already being seen.

The Problem With Politics Isn’t What You Think It Is. And Neither Is the Solution.www.youtube.com

Read More

One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting

A roll of "voted" stickers.

Pexels, Element5 Digital

One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting

The analysis and parsing of learned lessons from the 2024 elections will continue for a long time. What did the campaigns do right and wrong? What policies will emerge from the new arrangements of power? What do the parties need to do for the future?

An equally important question is what lessons are there for our democratic structures and processes. One positive lesson is that voting itself was almost universally smooth and effective; we should applaud the election officials who made that happen. But, many elements of the 2024 elections are deeply challenging, from the increasingly outsized role of billionaires in the process to the onslaught of misinformation and disinformation.

Keep ReadingShow less
MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

A check mark and hands.

Photo by Allison Saeng on Unsplash. Unsplash+ License obtained by the author.

MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

Originally published by Independent Voter News.

Today, I am proud to share an exciting milestone in my journey as an advocate for democracy and electoral reform.

Keep ReadingShow less
Half-Baked Alaska

A photo of multiple checked boxes.

Getty Images / Thanakorn Lappattaranan

Half-Baked Alaska

This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.

Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.

Keep ReadingShow less
Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

The United States Supreme Court.

Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

Keep ReadingShow less