Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Fair play on the ice and in elections

Hockey players

The Las Vegas Golden Knights have been taking advantage of a salary cap loophole to get the upper hand in they playoffs.

Icon Sportswire/Getty Images

Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

A connection between the National Hockey League and American democracy may seem fairly weak. But with the Stanley Cup playoffs underway, I've been thinking about a similarity between the two.


In the NHL, a particular controversy arises around the use of the salary cap loophole during the playoffs. Teams are limited in their total player salaries to a strict ceiling but can exceed this cap to cover a player put on long-term injured reserve. While the team must comply with the cap once the player returns during the regular season, the cap restrictions vanish during the playoffs. This creates an opportunity for strategic manipulation: A key player injured in the regular season can be sidelined until the playoffs, allowing the team to bolster its roster temporarily and reintroduce the player just in time for the playoffs.

For example, this season, the Vegas Golden Knights leveraged this rule, bringing back their team captain in the playoffs after a long-term injury absence during which they added significant talent. This tactic isn't new; multiple teams have used the loophole. The focus is so clearly on the Golden Knights because this is the third year they've done it — with the same player. While technically within the rules, such strategies have stirred debates about fairness and the spirit of competition for years.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Although there have been some discussions about reforms, there are challenges. Proposals to close the loophole, such as maintaining the salary cap during playoffs or restricting playoff eligibility based on status at the end of the season, face pushback. And that is where this begins to feel familiar.

American democracy is frequently manipulated through gerrymandering, lobbying and the disproportionate influence of money in politics. While technically permitted, the use of these practices in our electoral processes sways outcomes and prompts calls for reform. We propose solutions to the problem but receive pushback. Familiarity comes into play when considering the way — and the times — we collectively respond to the calls for reforms.

In a tribal environment, exemplified by the culture surrounding sports teams, we really want our team to win. We can justify the use of creative workarounds when they benefit our end goals. Everyone complains about this loophole until it benefits their team — then, they're only too happy to point out how other teams do the same thing. Full disclosure requires me to point out that as a Chicago Blackhawks fan, I didn't complain about the rule when my team used the loophole in 2015. But I was ruminating enough this year that it inspired this entire thought process. We can see a similar phenomenon in our electoral politics when our chosen team does or does not benefit from a particular advantage.

At the core, both hockey fans and citizens crave a fair contest. Closing the NHL's salary cap loophole would ensure teams compete based on skill, strategy and teamwork rather than financial maneuvering. Similarly, fortifying laws around campaign finance, lobbying and voting processes is crucial to restoring and maintaining the integrity of our political system.

Yet, the stakes in these two fields are vastly different. While the integrity of sports leagues affects entertainment and regional pride, the consequences of democratic manipulation ripple through society, affecting governance, public trust and the fabric of our civic life.

Engaging in this dialogue is essential, not just for the love of hockey or politics, but for the love of fairness and integrity. We must center the discussion about reforms around what we need to do for the entire system to function more effectively — not just when it benefits our team.

Read More

Voter registration

In April 2025, the SAVE Act has been reintroduced in the 119th Congress and passed the House, with a much stronger chance of becoming law given the current political landscape.

SDI Productions

The SAVE Act: Addressing a Non-Existent Problem at the Cost of Voter Access?

In July 2024, I wrote about the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act when it was first introduced in Congress. And Sarah and I discussed it in an episode of Beyond the Bill Number which you can still listen to. Now, in April 2025, the SAVE Act has been reintroduced in the 119th Congress and passed the House, with a much stronger chance of becoming law given the current political landscape. It's time to revisit this legislation and examine its implications for American voters.

Read the IssueVoter analysis of the bill here for further insight and commentary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Independent Voters Gain Ground As New Mexico Opens Primaries
person in blue denim jeans and white sneakers standing on gray concrete floor
Photo by Phil Scroggs on Unsplash

Independent Voters Gain Ground As New Mexico Opens Primaries

With the stroke of a pen, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham enfranchised almost 350,000 independent voters recently by signing a bill for open primaries. Just a few years ago, bills to open the primaries were languishing in the state legislature, as they have historically across the country. But as more and more voters leave both parties and declare their independence, the political system is buckling. And as independents begin to organize and speak out, it’s going to continue to buckle in their direction.

In 2004, there were 120,000 independent voters in New Mexico. A little over 10 years later, when the first open primary bill was introduced, that number had more than doubled. That bill never even got a hearing. But today the number of independents in New Mexico and across the country is too big to ignore. Independents are the largest group of voters in ten states and the second-largest in most others. That’s putting tremendous pressure on a system that wasn’t designed with them in mind.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Voter Here" sign outside of a polling location.

"Voter Here" sign outside of a polling location.

Getty Images, Grace Cary

Stopping the Descent Toward Banana Republic Elections

President Trump’s election-related executive order begins by pointing out practices in Canada, Sweden, Brazil, and elsewhere that outperform the U.S. But it is Trump’s order itself that really demonstrates how far we’ve fallen behind. In none of the countries mentioned, or any other major democracy in the world, would the head of government change election rules by decree, as Trump has tried to do.

Trump is the leader of a political party that will fight for control of Congress in 2026, an election sure to be close, and important to his presidency. The leader of one side in such a competition has no business unilaterally changing its rules—that’s why executive decrees changing elections only happen in tinpot dictatorships, not democracies.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Vote" pin.
Getty Images, William Whitehurst

Most Americans’ Votes Don’t Matter in Deciding Elections

New research from the Unite America Institute confirms a stark reality: Most ballots cast in American elections don’t matter in deciding the outcome. In 2024, just 14% of eligible voters cast a meaningful vote that actually influenced the outcome of a U.S. House race. For state house races, on average across all 50 states, just 13% cast meaningful votes.

“Too many Americans have no real say in their democracy,” said Unite America Executive Director Nick Troiano. “Every voter deserves a ballot that not only counts, but that truly matters. We should demand better than ‘elections in name only.’”

Keep ReadingShow less