Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Fighting back against authoritarianism

Fighting back against authoritarianism
Getty Images

Orekondy is an attorney originally from Australia and is the Coalitions Director at Rank the Vote. The views expressed here are his personal opinion.

Many of us in the democracy reform movement see a need to fight authoritarianism.


While this need is obvious, such a framing puts us at risk of merely fighting the symptoms and not curing the disease.

To find the solution to authoritarianism, we must understand its causes.

First, American democracy is not representative. It should surprise none of us that alternatives to democracy are being considered by a public starved of meaningful representation. The solution to this is clearly democracy reform, yet achieving this on a large scale requires much deeper levels of organizing than the pro-democracy movement has (yet) been able to muster.

Second, we need to recognize that this isn’t a uniquely American problem. Authoritarianism is experiencing a surge of popularity across the world. The cause of this likely has deep roots in globalization. Since the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher’s idea that there is no such thing as society, only collections of individuals, has seeped into every nation and economy, shredding what was left of community, atomizing us all and stripping us of our collective power.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

We are now a collection of 8 billion individuals, taught that the only path to self-worth, fulfillment, security, and happiness comes through our ability to clamber over one another up the economic ladder, and throw down anyone who gets in our way.

It should be no surprise that the planet has revolted against this philosophy of extreme individualism by asserting the most visceral forms of collective identity. Racism, sexism, fanaticism and fascism are being espoused more openly in public and exhibiting high levels of political organization. The authoritarian impulse is, at its heart, an expression of desire for community, and the adoption of whatever communities are immediately available.

To cure authoritarianism, we must meet the need for community. This is done most easily at the local level, as that is where individuals most often connect to each other and find shared values. It is on top of such communities that we will find the organizing power to win democracy reform.

As advocacy organizations, we need to begin facilitating connections between our people on a local level. While people form all sorts of groups on the local level, from sporting groups to your local Dungeons and Dragons group, the organizations with most potential for democracy defense are constituency groups (based on shared ethnicity, religion, political values, etc) and advocacy organizations (single or multi-issue groups).

The process of forging such local groups into a singular community would best be achieved by bridging organizations, which have a process for creating common ground amongst disparate and often conflicting groups. While bridging organizations have often focused on bringing together individuals with conflicting opinions, they would be well served to partner with civic organizations in their area as well and attempt to forge relationships between their members. Ideally, these conversations would result in concrete action plans, geared towards strengthening the local community and the defense of democracy.

Read More

The Fragile Ceasefire in Gaza

A view of destruction as Palestinians, who returned to the city following the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, struggle to survive among ruins of destroyed buildings during cold weather in Jabalia, Gaza on January 23, 2025.

Getty Images / Anadolu

The Fragile Ceasefire in Gaza

Ceasefire agreements are like modern constitutions. They are fragile, loaded with idealistic promises, and too easily ignored. Both are also crucial to the realization of long-term regional peace. Indeed, ceasefires prevent the violence that is frequently the fuel for instability, while constitutions provide the structure and the guardrails that are equally vital to regional harmony.

More than ever, we need both right now in the Middle East.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money Makes the World Go Round Roundtable

The Committee on House Administration meets on the 15th anniversary of the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United v. FEC.

Medill News Service / Samanta Habashy

Money Makes the World Go Round Roundtable

WASHINGTON – On the 15th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and one day after President Trump’s inauguration, House Democrats made one thing certain: money determines politics, not the other way around.

“One of the terrible things about Citizens United is people feel that they're powerless, that they have no hope,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Ma.).

Keep ReadingShow less
Half-Baked Alaska

A photo of multiple checked boxes.

Getty Images / Thanakorn Lappattaranan

Half-Baked Alaska

This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.

Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.

Keep ReadingShow less
Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

The United States Supreme Court.

Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

Keep ReadingShow less