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.

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

An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less
Once Again, Politicians Are Choosing Their Voters. It’s Time for Voters To Choose Back.
A pile of political buttons sitting on top of a table

Once Again, Politicians Are Choosing Their Voters. It’s Time for Voters To Choose Back.

Once again, politicians are trying to choose their voters to guarantee their own victories before the first ballot is cast.

In the latest round of redistricting wars, Texas Republicans are attempting a rare mid-decade redistricting to boost their advantage ahead of the 2026 midterms, and Democratic governors in California and New York are signaling they’re ready to “fight fire with fire” with their own partisan gerrymanders.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stolen Land, Stolen Votes: Native Americans Defending the VRA Protects Us All – and We Should Support Them

Wilson Deschine sits at the "be my voice" voter registration stand at the Navajo Nation annual rodeo, in Window Rock.

Getty Images, David Howells

Stolen Land, Stolen Votes: Native Americans Defending the VRA Protects Us All – and We Should Support Them

On July 24, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a Circuit Court order in a far-reaching case that could affect the voting rights of all Americans. Native American tribes and individuals filed the case as part of their centuries-old fight for rights in their own land.

The underlying subject of the case confronts racial gerrymandering against America’s first inhabitants, where North Dakota’s 2021 redistricting reduced Native Americans’ chances of electing up to three state representatives to just one. The specific issue that the Supreme Court may consider, if it accepts hearing the case, is whether individuals and associations can seek justice under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). That is because the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, contradicting other courts, said that individuals do not have standing to bring Section 2 cases.

Keep ReadingShow less