Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The only major democracy in the world with …

Brett Kavanaugh

The confirmation of nominees to the Supreme Court, like Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, has become increasingly polarized because the justices serve life tenures — a feature rare in a major democracy.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Johnson is executive director of the Election Reformers Network.

This has been a summer of gut punches to the body politic.

A Supreme Court bloc cobbled together by minority-backed presidents and a norm-abusing Senate has trampled precedent and lurched to extremes on the most divisive issues of our time. A presidential election that should have been laid to rest by a 7 million vote lead and the rulings of dozens of courts stalks the country like the undead. Partisan zealot candidates for top state election jobs ignore the rule of law and threaten to subvert the will of voters.

A once-fringe legal theory could give even more power over elections to state legislatures, which often put party interests above democratic principles. And with redistricting now complete, the nation faces another decade of gerrymandered elections likely to further empower extremes. Underlying all these dysfunctions is a common theme: antiquated systems that make the United States an extreme outlier, far out of step with democratic norms.


The U.S. is the only major democracy with:

  • Life tenure for judges of the highest court — a key driver of the politicization of the Supreme Court.
  • Presidential voting distorted by an electoral college.
  • Openly partisan officials running elections.
  • Power over federal elections in the hands of state legislatures.
  • Redistricting controlled by the parties running for office.

The list goes on – and all these problems get worse as our political polarization intensifies.

Election Reformers Network was built on the premise that the U.S. can find a way out of dysfunction in part by understanding what is working better in other democracies. This is not to disregard the system’s many particularly American strengths — a robust ecosystem of civic organizations, for example, or the thousands of committed and hard-working election professionals across the country. But the comparative indicators cannot be ignored.

The founder of modern democracy, the United States ranks at the bottom of the developed world in voter confidence. And earlier this year, a leading democracy index downgraded us from “full democracy” to “flawed democracy.” The basic functions of governing seem beyond us — things like passing a national budget under regular procedures or even peacefully transferring power to the election winner.

Focusing on what we can learn from elsewhere is actually a profoundly optimistic stance. It takes as given that we are not inherently too divided to heal, that our problems stem largely from things the Founders could not help but get wrong because there were no functioning national democracies for them to learn from. And focusing on fixing our antiquated rules — as opposed to railing against our bad actors — is the only way to build support that is broad enough to accomplish change.

Of course, structural reform never comes easy, often taking many decades. But there are winnable near-term reforms, inspired by global best practices and tailored to U.S. circumstances, that we all can pursue.

ERN is advancing new policies to reduce the risks emerging from our traditional — and unique — partisan approach to election administration. These include ethics legislation to prohibit partisan favoritism by election officials and new models for selecting election officials that help ensure they’re professional experts not partisan politicians. These reforms can nip the incipient threat of partisan loyalists subverting elections from the inside and should appeal equally to people worried about voter fraud or voter suppression. They also can help protect election officials, who lately have been subject to threats and intimidation, by underlining their status as impartial public servants, above the partisan fray.

We also need to reduce the number of states where legislatures control redistricting, something once common in other democracies and now largely abolished. The mechanism to bring the U.S. in line with best practice is a uniquely American innovation – the citizen redistricting commission.

We’re launching new initiatives to reform canvass boards — another risky U.S.-only entity — from using the certification process to hijack elections, as some have lately tried to do. And we’re continuing to lay the groundwork to advance more transformative change when the time is right, including our own solution to the Electoral College and our support for multimember congressional districts, which columnist David Brooks calls “ One Reform to Save America.”

Encouragingly, we’re finding that people we speak to are increasingly interested in what works in other democracies. It turns out the world has had nearly 6,000 nation-years of democratic government, 96 percent of that amount in countries other than the United States. That’s a lot of experience we could be learning from. Australia gave us the secret ballot in the 19th century, and there are many more ideas we can customize to our unique context. In markets and technology, science and sports, Americans readily adapt what’s proven to work elsewhere.

Refusing to do so in democracy as well could consign us to a future of more of the gut punches that hit this summer.

Read More

Trump Shows That Loyalty Is All That Matters to Him

Guests in the audience await the arrival of U.S. Vice President Mike Pence during the Federalist Society's Executive Branch Review Conference at The Mayflower Hotel on April 25, 2023, in Washington, D.C.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images/TNS

Trump Shows That Loyalty Is All That Matters to Him

Last week, the Court of International Trade delivered a blow to Donald Trump’s global trade war. It found that the worldwide tariffs Trump unveiled on “Liberation Day” as well his earlier tariffs pretextually aimed at stopping fentanyl coming in from Mexico and Canada (as if) were beyond his authority. The three-judge panel was surely right about the Liberation Day tariffs and probably right about the fentanyl tariffs, but there’s a better case that, while bad policy, the fentanyl tariffs were not unlawful.

Please forgive a lengthy excerpt of Trump’s response on Truth Social, but it speaks volumes:

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats, Gavin Newsom Is Not Your Blueprint

California Governor Gavin Newsom (right) speaks as California Attorney general Rob Bonta looks on during a news conference at Gemperle Orchard on April 16, 2025, in Ceres, California.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images/TCA

Democrats, Gavin Newsom Is Not Your Blueprint

Few in American politics are as desperate as California Gov. Gavin Newsom is right now.

Newsom, long considered — by himself, anyway — a frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for president, has been positioning himself and repositioning himself to be next in line for years.

Keep ReadingShow less
Americans Want To Rein In Presidential Power

Protestors march during an anti-Trump "No Kings Day" demonstration in a city that has been the focus of protests against Trump's immigration raids on June 14, 2025 in downtown Los Angeles, California.

Getty Images, Jay L Clendenin

Americans Want To Rein In Presidential Power

President Trump has been attempting to expand presidential power more than any president in recent history, in large part by asserting powers that have been held by Congress, including federal funding and tariffs. Public opinion research has shown clearly and consistently that large majorities—often bipartisan—oppose expanding presidential powers and support giving Congress more power.

The Pew Research Center has asked for nearly a decade whether presidents should not have to “worry so much about Congress and the courts” or if giving presidents more power is “too risky.” Over seven in ten have consistently said that giving presidents more power would be too risky, including majorities of Democrats and Republicans, no matter which party is in power. In February 2025, 66% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats took this position.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why Congress Must Counteract Trump’s Dangerous Diplomacy

U.S. President Donald Trump (R) meets with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in the Oval Office at the White House on May 6, 2025 in Washington, DC. Carney, who was elected into office last week, is expected to meet with President Trump to discuss trade and the recent tariffs imposed on Canada.

Getty Images, Anna Moneymaker

Why Congress Must Counteract Trump’s Dangerous Diplomacy

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s May 31 speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue defense summit in Singapore was no ordinary one. He accused China of posing a “real” and “imminent” threat, leading China to accuse the United States of touting a “Cold War mentality.” Juxtapose this with King Charles’ May 27 speech opening the Canadian Parliament, which he was prompted to deliver in response to U.S. threats to annex Canada. Consistency has not been a hallmark of this administration, but the mixed messages are not just embarrassing—they’re dangerous.

Given Trump’s unpredictable tariffs and his threats to make Canada the 51st U.S. state, Canada can no longer rely on its continental neighbor as a trusted partner in trade and defense. Canadians are rallying around the hockey saying “elbows up” and preparing to defend themselves politically and economically. Trump’s words, which he doubled down on after the King’s speech, are destroying vital U.S. relationships and making the world—including the United States—less safe. Hegseth’s message to China rings hollow next to Trump’s refusal to treat territorial borders as subject to change only by consent, not coercion or conquest.

Keep ReadingShow less