Katherine Gehl, founder of The Institute for Political Innovation, joins the Unbiased Podcast to explain Final Five voting. Gehl also discusses why party primaries are a major cause of our political dysfunction. With ranked choice voting making gaining popularity and making its way into elections, Gehl offers a fantastic overview of how the system works and why it would solve several US election issues.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
MoMo Productions/Getty Images
Youth are the change we need now
Nov 06, 2024
Wright is a youth leader at NM CAFe.
Politicians often proclaim that “youth are the future,” but they don’t listen to our voices or consider our opinions when making policies that will shape the future. The reality, however, is we don’t need to wait for young people to become changemakers — we already are changemakers. We are actively shaping the world through activism, raising our voices and organizing — and it’s time for politicians to take us seriously.
As a young person, I know that we are already challenging the status quo and reshaping the organizing sphere. I have witnessed the success of including young people in organizing from a young age when, at 16, I started working on disability accessibility in my home state of New Mexico. This led to furthering policy that helped support students with dyslexia, which I also have. Organizing around disability accessibility led to the state funding more money for testing for youth with disabilities.
Including youth voices in organizing is essential to adapting our current landscape to the needs and aspirations of those entering the space — something often overlooked in discussions about necessary steps toward building an inclusive economy that centers working people and families and treats those people with dignity.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Organizers face many challenges, but I want to focus on solutions. Transformational change in organizing must begin with a genuine interest and commitment to creating a long-lasting impact. Increasing diversity within organizing is a crucial first step. This goes beyond checking boxes across race, faith or gender; it means building a bigger table that includes young people.
Gen Z is unapologetically authentic and consistently shows up for our communities. The necessity to adapt is an important quality that youth leaders bring to the ever-changing field of organizing. We are digital natives, adept at using technology to amplify our voices and connect with others globally. Being fluent in this rapidly changing landscape allows us to organize quickly, spread awareness and mobilize support in ways previous generations could only dream of.
Intergenerational organizing, like the program Faith in Action and NM CAFe are building through Rising Youth, provides a home for youth who are interested in creating social and political change but aren’t typically in communities that allow space for them to get fully engaged.
Youth organizing spaces shift the current sphere of thinking to focus on issues that have often gone overlooked and under-prioritized. By listening to and empowering young voices, we can change the narrative to one that represents future leaders.
Youth have become boisterous champions of environmental justice, gun reform, LGBTQ+ rights and racial equity. In New Mexico, youth led the successful effort to be part of building the world we want to see, through working on immigration reform, mental health initiatives and creating a national platform for youth to be connected and empowered through organizing
Young people are demanding their voices be heard and will mobilize to ensure the issues that matter most to them aren’t swept under the rug. Young voters' political and social opinions are pivotal in driving change in this country. We are becoming more civically engaged than the country has seen in the last few decades.
Elected officials and candidates are joining platforms like TikTok and X to reach young voters because they want to build a base of young supporters. However, we don’t just want to be reached through social media; we want to be included and have a voice in the issues that impact us daily.
It is crucial that we continue to support and amplify youth-led initiatives, ensuring that young leaders have the resources, platforms and opportunities that we need to succeed. This means investing in youth programs, fostering intergenerational collaboration and creating spaces where young voices are not only heard but valued. The future is shaped by our actions today, and with youth leading the charge, we can create a more just, inclusive and vibrant world for all.
By listening to and empowering young voices, we can create a better future now. Our generation is ready to lead, and the time for change is today, not in the distant future. It's time for society to recognize and embrace the potential of the next generation as the driving force for positive change.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Sen. John Ossof and Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer rank as 'builders' for their ability to work on significant issues that resonate beyond their districts.
A new kind of political scoreboard: The Builders Power Rankings
Nov 05, 2024
Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Fantasy football coaches take in their weekly scoreboard every Tuesday and analyze what went right and wrong over the weekend. They determine where the weaknesses are on their team and plan to adjust the lineup so that next week the scoreboard is more favorable. This Tuesday, while focusing on one of the country's most divisive presidential elections in history, Americans are also electing representatives from Congress down to village board. We have studied the facts, made our choices, and set our lineups. The decisions may have been easier if we'd had a scoreboard that ranked our lawmakers in a way that gave us insight into what adjustments to make.The Builders Movement is helping with that. They have developed a new scoreboard that has the potential to reshape how we view our lawmakers: the Builders Power Rankings. Their weekly rundown ranks elected officials on their ability to bridge divides and constructively engage in bipartisan efforts. The Builders Power Rankings focus on legislative behavior, collaboration, and the tone of public discourse, aiming to identify and acknowledge those who are "builders" in an era marked by divisiveness.
The rankings split lawmakers across the political spectrum into "Builders" and "Dividers." It's not enough for the Builders to avoid inflammatory language or support occasional bipartisan initiatives. Lawmakers are judged on their consistency in prioritizing policy and people over party lines. Conversely, the Dividers list names those who frequently engage in partisanship, employing divisive rhetoric or obstructive behavior, regardless of their ideological stance.
The scores are generated using AI-powered data analysis in partnership with the Polarization Research Lab, a non-profit initiative of Dartmouth, Stanford, and UPenn. This analysis is followed by a discussion among cross-partisan analysts and commentators about specific comments and how they might affect their status as builders or dividers. This step indicates that the rankings account for necessary distinctions between passionate advocacy and outright divisiveness.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
In the month leading up to the election, 250,000 Americans logged onto the ranking site, helping equip them with information on their representatives they need to make a choice that supports candidates that are willing to build toward positive governance rather than contributing to the political disarray.
Building Across the Aisle: Who’s Leading? Who's Failing to Bridge the Gap?
The Builders Power Rankings reveal some leaders that don't always grab the media spotlight but are headlining cross-partisan cooperation. Figures like Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-OR) and Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) consistently appear in the top five builders, praised for their ability to work on significant issues that resonate beyond their districts.
Chavez-DeRemer, for instance, focuses on border policies without resorting to divisive, fear-mongering tactics — a rarity in today's political climate. Ossoff, similarly, leverages his platform to address agricultural disaster relief, a pressing need in Georgia following recent hurricanes. His proactive approach to garnering support from both sides has set a bar for constructive bipartisanship.
Interestingly, many of the Builders represent purple states or districts, where their re-election prospects depend on appealing to a broader range of voters. This geographical diversity suggests that some lawmakers feel inherent accountability to moderate their rhetoric and policy, especially in regions that do not lean heavily towards a single party. Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) frequently engage with issues that resonate with constituents across political divides, finding solutions that appeal to both conservative and liberal sensibilities.
Garry Kasparov, Founder and Chairman of Renew Democracy Initiative and Builders Power Rankings panelist, pointed out: "The fact is that we're having this conversation two weeks before one of the hottest elections in US history. It definitely affects all the statements and behavior of various actors. And it's very natural that the Builders come from the districts where they have to compete for independence or even just having hoped to get some votes from the other side. While those we call Dividers, they come from the safe seats."
Figures like Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Rep. Lance Gooden (R-TX), and Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL) made appearances on the dividers list every week in October, spotlighting the tendency of some lawmakers to prioritize party allegiance and viral vitriol over constructive debate. Each week, the rankings shed light on representatives who engage in inflammatory speech or obstructive actions, which, although effective in rallying their bases, may ultimately damage the cohesion of the legislative process.
The Builders Power Rankings also consider context, such as campaign season pressures. Rep. Colin Allred (D-TX) made the Builders list the week of October 22nd despite criticism for heated exchanges with his opponent for Senate, incumbent Ted Cruz (R-TX), in a debate. He made the list in part for the signing of his bipartisan Building Chips in America Act, which he co-led with three Republicans, into law. One panelist, Joe Lonsdale, disagreed with Allred's ranking as a Builder that week, with fellow panelist Kimberly Atkins Stohr defending the ranking, distinguishing between bipartisan governance and the words used in a policy debate.
Different and Shifting Incentives
One consistent finding with the Builders Power Rankings is that the elected officials who rank as Builders are far less recognizable to the broader public than their Divider counterparts. This phenomenon speaks to a more significant issue: Divisive figures often attract more media coverage, amplifying their influence. Despite their constructive contributions, lawmakers who remain policy-focused and avoid sensationalism are less likely to make headlines. Consequently, while the Builders work on solutions to pressing issues like health care, disaster relief, and economic reform, the Dividers capture public attention with controversial statements that stoke partisan fires.
The rankings invite the public to reconsider the media's role in shaping political reputations. The Builders Power Rankings suggest that it is time for voters and journalists to place more value on the quiet but impactful work behind the spotlight, where positive change often occurs.
There is a new opportunity for elected representatives to engage with these rankings and make the discussion on social media more than viral negativity. Already, Rep. Brandon Williams (R-NY) re-tweeted his #2 builders spot as a badge of honor, and Rep. Jim Moylan (R-GU) shared his #3 builders spot to his Instagram stories; we can hope that more lawmakers are willing to do what it takes to be able to show off these credentials when they are earned.
Earning a top-5 builders ranking is not something a lawmaker has to be consistently perfect to earn. A weekly analysis is a fluid measurement that allows for representatives to have good and bad weeks but always have another chance the next week to engage with colleagues more positively.
Beyond the Rankings: A Call to Action
The Builders Power Rankings provide more than just a snapshot of weekly behavior; they offer a roadmap for effective governance in a polarized environment. The data analysis is just a starting point - and the panel discussions on the details of the stories that the data represents are a chance to bring the positive stories into the spotlight. We can all take it further and use the rankings report and analysis to start our conversations on what we find unacceptable and worth elevating regarding our representation.
By highlighting figures who prioritize policy over party, the Builders Movement gives voters an alternative lens through which to view their representatives, encouraging a shift in public expectation. In this model, it is not enough for a politician to "hold the line" for their party — they must also work to build bridges, understanding that effective governance often requires difficult, sometimes unpopular, compromises.
The rankings are our scoreboard for setting our lineup for this election cycle and for the future. Let's set a lineup to serve us best and keep the conversation going.
Keep ReadingShow less
Election workers process mail-in ballots in the ballot duplicating room run by the office of the supervisor of elections in Orange County, Fla., in October 2020.
Paul Hennessy/NurPhoto via Getty Images
How do election officials verify voters and their ballots?
Nov 05, 2024
Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
As Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has continued to slam early voting and voting by mail at his rallies, a neighbor — a retired math teacher — asked me how we know that only registered voters are voting and people aren’t voting more than once.
It was barely after 7 a.m. and I was heading to a seasonal job at my county election headquarters. There, I was part of a team that was processing returned mail ballots and alternatively in a call center answering voters’ questions and concerns.
In both of those settings I was privy to the behind-the-scenes machinery, computer systems, information and procedures that track individual voters and their ballots. The data and systems that I saw and used could be in any suburban county in America.
I’m in California, where voters can register online, submit paper applications or do so while visiting government agencies — such as the motor vehicle department. California mails every voter a hand-marked paper ballot (most states require a voter to apply for one) and, like most states, still has early and Election Day in-person vote centers and polling places.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Legal Voters
Trump and many Republicans have claimed that voter rolls are filled with ineligible voters and said Democrats use these bloated lists to fabricate voters and cast reams of illegal votes. Let me tell you why those assertions are almost entirely false.
The partisans making these charges probably don’t know how much information election officials have about every voter, how and when they vote, their voting histories. Similarly, they probably don't know how much data is generated and used to track every ballot — while protecting the secrecy of the voter’s choices on those ballots.
Impersonating voters is not as easy as some partisans would have you believe. When people register, they typically fill out an application with their name, residential address, mailing address, email, phone number, date and place of birth, driver’s license or state ID card number, Social Security number, language and political party preference. They also attest to being an American citizen and sign the form under penalty of perjury.
This information is just the starting line of the data that election officials use and generate to verify and track legal voters. The registration database also notes if a person temporarily lives overseas. They generate internal ID numbers for voters and compile histories of when, where and how people voted in each election (by mail, in-person, etc.). They also collect and compile signatures from each time people vote or update their registration information (if they move, marry and change names, etc.).
When election officials answer the phones, the first thing they do is look up a voter’s registration information and status. They can see if everything is up to date or if something is missing. They can see where that person’s ballot is in the process. But election workers cannot change or alter any of that information. Only voters can do that.
Simply stated, impersonating another voter or fabricating registrations is not easily done. That’s why so-called voter fraud is extremely rare. Those who make rare efforts to do so almost always get caught, because officials have many ways to spot if something is awry.
Legal Ballots
Just as registration data is complicated, so too is the information trail that surrounds ballots. Here, it is important to distinguish between ballots — which come in envelopes in the mail or inside folders at voting sites – from the votes on those ballots.
Election officials have many protocols to ensure that only registered voters get a ballot and that ballots, especially those that are mailed out and returned, are vetted. They anticipate setting aside some messily marked return envelopes for closer looks before they can be opened, and the ballot is removed and put in batches to be counted.
This process starts with signatures. At polling places and on ballot return envelopes, voters must sign in or sign their return envelope. Those signatures are scanned and go into each voter’s electronic file. With mail ballots, officials then sit before computers and compare the latest signature to what’s in the voter’s file. There are guidelines and if something does not appear right, the ballot is set aside for further review.
A typical election operation has machines that sort and sift hundreds of mail ballot envelopes at a time — and repeatedly do this as signatures are vetted. Just as the voter registration system has lots of hidden identifiers in its data, the ballot inventory system has its own identifiers. Return envelopes have barcodes and QR codes that identify the voter, their precinct the ballot number and more — all apart from the signature.
The system also tracks when ballots are sent out, when they are returned, if they have been reported lost, if they are resent,and any problem that might arise. Election officials sitting at computers in county headquarters see all of this.
Their system records and reports every imaginable problem. A voter’s or ballot’s status may be pending (usually meaning address information is missing something). A return envelope signature may be missing. A voter may be recently deceased.
The records have other details. The system notes how a ballot was returned. It could be at the election office, at a drop box, at an early voting center, by mail or fax (for overseas voters) or at an Election Day polling site. It notes if a person tried to vote twice and prevents a person from voting more than once. (Often, a voter will mail their absentee ballot but get antsy and go to a polling place to vote. In this case, the system tracks which ballot was received and which was canceled.)
These are just some of the details and data that officials see and routinely work with. Like many things in life, there’s more going on than meets the eye. Because voting and voting information is private, much of what I’m describing is not exposed to the public.
Observers, of course, can watch what election officials are doing. In most cases, election workers are parsing the range of information I described to ensure that every legal voter gets a ballot in their hand and returns so it will be counted. And when a problem arises, it can be traced, found, fixed and annotated — every step of the way.
Keep ReadingShow less
LeoPatrizi/Getty Images
Spread the word: Americans do not want political violence
Nov 05, 2024
Coan is the co-founder and executive director of More Like US.
When it comes to political polling, a couple of percentage points in either direction can easily change our thinking about potential outcomes.
But I want to address the other extreme: polling showing gaps of roughly 40 or 50 percentage points.
Americans dramatically overestimate the share of people in the other political party who support politically motivated violence. Data from the Polarization Research Lab shows that Americans on average think 40 percent to 50 percent of those in the other political party support politically motivated violence, but the real figures are in the low single digits.
It is vital during and after the election to make it clear to the public that the vast, vast majority of Americans do not support political violence. Otherwise, many fellow Americans can seem like potential violent threats, when in reality they overwhelmingly would not support such actions. It is vital to frequently repeat these statements throughout civil society, a step the organization I run, More Like US, will take during and after the election.
For those who want to get into the details, the Polarization Research Lab surveys roughly 1,000 Americans each week, asking a series of questions about support for increasingly intense and highly specific situations concerning cross-partisan violent actions. For a couple of these questions (on assault and murder), Americans are also asked about their perceptions of the share of those in the other party they think would support such actions.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The results are stark and essentially symmetrical, with Republicans and Democrats equally misperceiving each other. According to the data, only 3 percent to 4 percent of both Republicans and Democrats would support cross-partisan assault, yet Americans in each party think roughly half of those in the other party would support this. (The question asked is specific about someone convicted of throwing rocks at peaceful protestors from the other party, resulting in a man with a head wound but no serious injuries.)
The gaps are broadly similar for politically motivated murder, with 1 percent to 2 percent of those in each party actually supporting such actions, but those in each party think about 40 percent of those in the other party would support it. (In this case, the question asked is specific about someone convicted of stabbing a prominent member of the other party to death.) Results have been stable for two years of asking these questions weekly.
Some who are familiar with other data are probably aware of other figures that suggest greater support for political violence. However, those questions tend to be much more general. Once specifics are added, actual support for violence plunges.
Correcting misperceptions ideally happens before violence breaks out. As the Polarization Research Lab data shows, the vast majority of Americans do not support random acts of political violence. Concerningly, Americans are much more supportive of actions defending themselves, if those in the other political party first initiate cross-party violence. Luckily, that research also shows correcting inaccurate violence perceptions of those in the other party can reduce support for political violence itself.
If violence has already broken out, research among Israelis and Palestinians promisingly shows, correcting misperceptions of violence during a violent outbreak is still helpful.
Clearly any amount of support for violence is troubling, but it is much better to have a situation in which a small fringe of a few percent of Americans support it, rather than roughly half of Americans. And compared with the few percent who may express support, even fewer will ever seriously think of committing an act themselves. For the few who are violent, thankfully there are groups such as the Prevention Practitioners Network to keep Americans safe.
I encourage you and your organizations to broadcast this message. It can be as simple as saying very few Americans support political violence. It is possible to share existing resources, such as a video from All We Share and Common Ground USA highlighting political violence misperceptions and the 99.99 percent of Americans who do not choose violence. Over Zero has a media guide series about how journalists should cover political violence, essentially boiling down to providing context, highlighting the right actors (victims and problem-solvers) while not platforming perpetrators, and being specific with up-to-date information. Though time is running out to create new content, More in Common has great advice to show a “journey of persuasion,” in this case, telling the story of people going on a “journey” from thinking many on the other side support political violence, to ultimately realizing that few actually do.
America can have a peaceful transition of power. Let’s not let distorted perceptions of each other get in the way.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More