Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Bids for open primaries falling short in both Florida and Alaska

Florida voter

While a majority of Florida voters supported moving to an open primary system, the total wasn't enough to grant approval.

Eva Marie Uzcategui/Getty Images

Ballot measures that would have opened primaries to all voters, and advanced the top vote-getters to the November ballot regardless of party, appear destined for defeat in both the biggest politically purple state and the physically biggest state.

While a solid majority of Floridians voted to allow every voter to participate in the often crucial nominating contests, the measure came up about 30,000 votes short of the three-fifths supermajority required. A similar proposal in Alaska was garnering only 43 support with four in five precincts reporting Wednesday.

Republican and Democratic leaders generally oppose open primaries, which would dilute their dominance over elections by taking away the guarantee one candidate from each would make the November ballot. Supporters maintain the overriding benefit for democracy is giving more of a voice to the huge blocks of voters (pluralities in some states) that don't align with the major parties — and to candidates who have broken free of the duopoly.


Both states are among the few that require voters to register with one of the two major parties if they want to vote in primaries. Most places allow some sort of crossover or independent participation. These are the details of the proposals:

Florida

While the proposal came up short, garnering 57 percent, proponents were heartened by the broad support it received from Republicans, Democrats and independents. More than 5.8 million people voted for the measure — more than who cast ballots for either President Trump, who carried the state, or former Vice President Joe Biden.

The measure's defeat means Florida's current primary system will stay intact, only allowing voters registered with a major party to participate. This system does not permit the state's 3.8 unaffiliated voters (30 percent of the electorate) to have a say in which candidates make it on the November ballot.

Open Primaries, the national group advocating for electoral reform, said although Florida was a heartbreaking loss, it remains committed to pushing for change next year and beyond. Their argument is that open primaries make the political system work better by rewarding candidates who appeal to the center instead of to the red or blue bases. Critics say that may be true, but often at the expense of Black and Latino candidates.

Alaska

The outcome of a sweeping democracy reform initiative had not yet been called since officials were still counting ballots in a fifth of the precincts. Results may take days to finalize, but the current margin of 23,000 votes will be tough to overcome.

The measure would open up congressional and state government primaries to all voters, regardless of party, starting in 2022. Many voters in Alaska aren't affiliated with either major party, so proponents of this expansion say it would ensure their voices are heard.

In addition to open primaries, the initiative would have also established ranked-choice voting for statewide races and bolstered transparency around political spending.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less