Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Harnessing the power of 'we the people' on Independence Day

Opinion

Flags in front of the Capitol
Bloomberg Creative/Getty Images

Spinelle is the communications specialist for the McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State and host of the podcasts “ When the People Decide ” and “ Democracy Works.”

Democracy does not have a singular definition, which is one of the things that makes it so interesting to me — and undoubtedly to many of you.

I don’t have a Ph.D. in political science, but I have done nearly hundreds of interviews with people about democracy in some form or another. During that time, I developed a working definition: Democracy is about the allocation of power among people. Yes, there are norms, institutions and processes. But power is at the heart of it all.

Ballot initiatives are one way for citizens in more than 20 states to harness that power. In my new podcast series, “ When the People Decide,” I explore how people have used the ballot initiative to bring issues they care deeply about directly to their fellow voters and push for political change on their own terms.


Citizen-led initiatives are not perfect. The process is cumbersome and confusing, and is often initiated or taken over by moneyed interests, leaving the public interest in the dust. But despite their flaws and shortcomings, I’m still bullish.

Initiatives offer the chance for regular people to break through the gridlock that plagues so much of politics and to deliver solutions. They can help us fix what’s broken in American democracy and create meaningful political reform

In the past decade, initiatives have been used to legalize marijuana, expand access to Medicaid, raise the minimum wage, restore voting rights, implement ranked-choice voting and open primaries, among many other reforms. Often, these wins come in places you wouldn’t expect — traditionally “red” states like Idaho, Oklahoma and Arkansas.

If organizations like the Fairness Project and the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center have anything to do with it, ballot initiatives will be an even bigger part of American democracy in the future. These organizations are helping citizens advance their ballot measure campaigns and working to defend the initiative process itself.

As you might imagine, state legislatures are not pleased when people go around them, especially when it’s to pass “progressive” issues. So, what do they do? They try to make it more difficult for citizens to use the initiative process by increasing signature requirements or changing the vote threshold from a simple majority to a supermajority.

This story is starting to receive national attention thanks to an investment from Democracy Docket in the Ballot Measure Rescue Campaign, and last month South Dakota voters rejected an effor t by the legislature to amend the state’s Constitution in a way that would limit the ballot initiative.

Not only do ballot measures lead to meaningful policy change and democracy reform, but they can also create new political coalitions among organizers and volunteers who come together to support a shared interest. I heard this sentiment over and over again from the people interviewed, from people working for LGBTQ rights in Cincinnati to ending closed adoptions in Oregon.

There’s a lot of talk these days about finding common ground in politics, but after reporting this series, I think that finding common cause is the real key to breaking through the gridlock.

It’s one thing to fire off an angry social media post about how the system is broken or politicians are corrupt. But it’s something else entirely to decide to do something about it. That’s what our founders did nearly 250 years ago, and that’s what modern-day organizers across the country continue to do, something well worth remembering as we celebrate Independence Day.

Ballot initiatives offer a way to move beyond the stasis that can sometimes bog down politics and lead to resentment and frustration. Again, let me be clear that they’re not perfect, but they do represent a path forward and a bit of optimism in a political landscape that can seem pretty gloomy at times.

There are so many more stories I could tell, and perhaps will, about what happens when people decide to take an active role in our democracy. If you have ideas for people or campaigns to feature, I would love to hear them!


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less