Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

First debate, part 2: Democracy reform by the numbers

Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris

Sen. Bernie Sanders was the first to bring up anything related to democracy reform. Sen. Kamala Harris was among the few to mention election interference and voting rights.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images News

Maybe the moderators couldn't agree on how to pronounce the word "gerrymandering" in pregame warmups. How else to explain no questions about yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on partisan mapmaking?

Also, is election security not a thing anymore?

Moderators once again overlooked anything related to democracy reform during day two of the first round of Democratic presidential primary debates — as they did on day one. Nonetheless, some of the candidates found ways to slip in their views on topics such as voting rights, money in politics and the cycle of corruption in Washington.

The Fulcrum goes inside the numbers from last night's debate.


17 and 15: Minutes and seconds until the first mention of anything related to democracy reform. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont led the way, rallying against big-money special interests.

"The issue is, who has the guts to take on Wall Street, to take on the fossil fuel industry, to take on the big-money interests who have unbelievable influence over the economic and political life of this country?"

5: "Reform" references. The word "reform" was used a handful of times during this debate, but not in reference to democracy reform. Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and California Rep. Eric Swalwell instead spoke about immigration and gun reform.

6: Digs at money in politics. Sanders and Gillibrand dominated the conversation around money in politics during Thursday's debate. While Sanders mostly talked about eliminating special interests, Gillibrand went more in depth by referencing her plan to root out corruption through publicly funded elections.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

1: Call for overturning Citizens United. Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet was the only candidate to call for invalidating the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling that allowed unlimited outside spending in elections.

3: Russian election interference mentions. California Sen. Kamala Harris, businessman Andrew Yang and Bennet all noted Russia's election interference as America's largest current threat.

3: Mentions of voting rights. Former Vice President Joe Biden and Harris both mentioned the Voting Rights Act, while Bennet spoke about the attack on voting rights in Shelby v. Holder.

1: Nod to gerrymandering. Bennet was alone on the debate stage in acknowledging the issue of gerrymandering in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling on two cases of partisan mapmaking earlier in the day.

"We need to end gerrymandering in Washington. We need to end political gerrymandering in Washington. The court today said they couldn't do anything about it."

3: Candidates who said nothing of democracy reform. Author Marianne Williamson, Hickenlooper and Swalwell chose not to talk about any democracy reform issues during Thursday night's debate.

Reform quotes of the night

Gillibrand: "The truth is, until you go to the root of the corruption, the money in politics, the fact that Washington is run by the special interests, you are never going to solve any of these problems."

Buttigieg: "We've got to fix our democracy before it's too late. Get that right, climate, immigration, taxes, and every other issue gets better."

Read More

A better direction for democracy reform

Denver election judge Eric Cobb carefully looks over ballots as counting continued on Nov. 6. Voters in Colorado rejected a ranked choice voting and open primaries measure.

Helen H. Richardson/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

A better direction for democracy reform

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

This is the conclusion of a two-part, post-election series addressing the questions of what happened, why, what does it mean and what did we learn? Read part one.

I think there is a better direction for reform than the ranked choice voting and open primary proposals that were defeated on Election Day: combining fusion voting for single-winner elections with party-list proportional representation for multi-winner elections. This straightforward solution addresses the core problems voters care about: lack of choices, gerrymandering, lack of competition, etc., with a single transformative sweep.

Keep ReadingShow less
To-party doom loop
Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America

Let’s make sense of the election results

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author of "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

Well, here are some of my takeaways from Election Day, and some other thoughts.

1. The two-party doom loop keeps getting doomier and loopier.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person voting in Denver

A proposal to institute ranked choice voting in Colorado was rejected by voters.

RJ Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

Despite setbacks, ranked choice voting will continue to grow

Mantell is director of communications for FairVote.

More than 3 million people across the nation voted for better elections through ranked choice voting on Election Day, as of current returns. Ranked choice voting is poised to win majority support in all five cities where it was on the ballot, most notably with an overwhelming win in Washington, D.C. – 73 percent to 27 percent.

Keep ReadingShow less
Electoral College map

It's possible Donald Trump and Kamala Harris could each get 269 electoral votes this year.

Electoral College rules are a problem. A worst-case tie may be ahead.

Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization. Keyssar is a Matthew W. Stirling Jr. professor of history and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. His work focuses on voting rights, electoral and political institutions, and the evolution of democracies.

It’s the worst-case presidential election scenario — a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. In our hyper-competitive political era, such a scenario, though still unlikely, is becoming increasingly plausible, and we need to grapple with its implications.

Recent swing-state polling suggests a slight advantage for Kamala Harris in the Rust Belt, while Donald Trump leads in the Sun Belt. If the final results mirror these trends, Harris wins with 270 electoral votes. But should Trump take the single elector from Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district — won by Joe Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2016 — then both candidates would be deadlocked at 269.

Keep ReadingShow less