Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Don’t confuse the symptom with the problem

Trump and Biden at the debate

Political parties should not get to decide whether primaries, or even debates, are held, writes Perls.

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Perls is founder and president of NM Open Elections and a former state representative in New Mexico.

It’s time to talk about how President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the presidential campaign is related to our broken political system. This failing system got us to the point where we had the two major party candidates rejected by 70 percent of the electorate, according to most polls.

Biden and former President Donald Trump are not the problem — they are a symptom of a much deeper problem that has led to a deeply dysfunctional political system full of destructive polarization and hyper-partisanship.


You can be a Biden supporter and believe he should have stuck with what many thought was his promise to be a one-term president. He should never have considered running for a second term, but there was a whole political industry of elitist insiders surrounding him – from political appointees and lobbyists to consultants and major funders — who had too much to lose if he stepped down.

Let’s review what happened during the primary season controlled by the so-called elites, the political parties and Biden’s campaign team (as well as Trump’s): nothing. And let’s be clear, the Republican Party is just as broken as the Democrat Party.

There were no meaningful primaries and debates. Many primaries were canceled by the parties. Neither Biden nor Trump agreed to debate other credible candidates, so we had no idea how fit either one was to carry on a rational, thoughtful policy conversation. And most Americans came away from the Biden-Trump debate with the impression that neither candidate was well qualified to lead our country for the next four years.

What if the political parties did not control primary elections in the United States? What if both Biden and Trump actually had to run a primary campaign, debate opponents and face the voters early? Primaries are public elections and should not be subject to cancellation by a private club (which is what political parties are).

This party-controlled primary issue is especially problematic because, as Gallup showed in June, for the first time a majority of voters do not identify with either party. When you hear a talking head or a politician say America is divided in half between Republicans and Democrats, a more accurate picture is that half are independent, a quarter are Republicans and a quarter are Democrats. Yet, there are next to zero independent elected officials nationally.

Why do we have more choices of cereal and ice cream than presidential candidates? Why do private clubs control who can vote in the first round of public elections or even if such elections are held? That is not democracy.

This is no way to run a country and the little people are watching, not just the elites. It is time to fundamentally change the way we elect, district and finance candidates running for everything from county commission to the presidency. This is yet another reminder that it is time for the nation to adopt open, nonpartisan primaries and ranked-choice voting, so that all voters have their voices heard all the time.


Read More

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less