Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Innovative feedback tools strengthen bonds between voters and officials

Many showing data to a group of people

Rep. Jamie Raskin (right) discusses Ukraine policy with some of his constituents.

Voice of the People

Thomas is vice president of Voice of the People and director of Voice of the People Action. Kull is program director of the Program for Public Consultation.

The question of whether to continue aid for Ukraine was the focus of an innovative town hall with Rep. Jamie Raskin this month. The discussion was prompted by a new survey of Maryland’s 8th district that found majorities of both Democrats and Republicans support the U.S. continuing to provide military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Majorities also support encouraging Ukraine to engage in peace negotiations.


The survey results were released and discussed at a public consultation forum hosted by Voice of the People in Silver Spring, Md. Raskin and a subset of the respondents who took the survey discussed the topic and survey findings. This public consultation process is designed to give the public a more effective voice in their government’s policy-making. This is the third public consultation conducted with Raskin’s participation.

“I was impressed by how commanding the majorities were for both military and humanitarian assistance to people in Ukraine. It seemed like when people had all the facts and thought it through, they were strongly supportive. I had been operating on that assumption, but I wasn’t really sure. And now I really feel like I am where the bulk of where my constituents are,” Raskin said. “When you are a member of Congress you hear from a lot of people on a whole range of issues. So you are hearing from the most galvanized, mobilized, activated constituencies, but you don’t really have a clear sense of whether that is a representative cross-section of where people are when they think it through. I believe in the wisdom of big crowds of people.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The survey of a representative sample of 604 district residents was conducted by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation. The U.S. continuing to provide military aid to Ukraine, including equipment, training, and intelligence, was favored by a bipartisan majority of 64 percent. A majority of Republicans were in favor (58 percent), as were Democrats (68 percent).

The U.S. continuing to provide humanitarian aid to Ukraine for food, shelter, health care, and infrastructure was even more popular with 77 percent in favor. Seven in 10 Republicans (69 percent ) and eight in 10 Democrats (81 percent) were in favor.

At the forum, constituent Mona Galpin explained her point of view: “For the most part we are sending old planes, old tanks, old ammunition. Things that are out of date anyway. If Ukraine can have it and use it before it expires, it gives us manufacturing jobs here to build new planes and technology. I also think that humanitarian aid is very important. These Ukrainians didn’t ask for this. Russia just came in shooting. I try to visualize if it were happening here. What if Mexico decided to take Texas?”

In the lively discussion, local resident April Stafford was concerned about the fiscal implications: “The basic man on the street sees all this money going out to other countries, and we aren’t thinking about GDPs of this country or whatever. We’re seeing we have lost revenue at home, and we are throwing it to other countries. People think of their families first.”

The decision of whether to continue providing military aid was not an easy one for residents. Each of the arguments for and against were found convincing by a bipartisan majority. Survey respondents were given the opportunity to share their thoughts. One respondent who favored aid stated: "The possibility of this war leading to a direct U.S.-Russia confrontation with a possible nuclear threat is quite real. However, further empowering Putin's expansionist authoritarianism is a more proximate danger and must be curtailed before the former scenario is more likely."

Respondents were asked whether “the US should or should not encourage Ukraine to enter into negotiations with Russia, whether or not Russia first commits to withdraw from all of Ukraine.” A majority of respondents (60 percent) said the United States should encourage negotiations, including a small majority of Democrats (55 percent), and over eight in 10 Republicans (82 percent).

Most respondents sympathized with both sides of this debate over whether to encourage Ukraine to enter negotiations, with each pro and con argument found convincing by a bipartisan majority. One respondent who favored the proposal said they did so because "Ukraine will not be able to play the long game in war against Russia." Another, who opposed negotiations, said: "This is a hard one, because we don't want a forever war."

The 604 people who participated in the online survey went through a process called a “policymaking simulation.” Respondents are provided a briefing, presented with pro and con arguments, and then asked to register their policy views. The content is reviewed by experts on each side of the issue to ensure accuracy. Policymaking simulations are developed by the Program for Public Consultation.

Every public consultation we host focuses on a policy topic, such as the Ukraine War. Citizens are briefed beforehand and come to the forum equipped to have an informed, policy-focused civil dialogue with their representatives.

Read More

US Capitol

Each branch of government needs to get serious about restoring the public's trust.

Andrey Denisyuk/Getty Images

We need a government that works

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University and a Tarbell fellow.

The first — and really only — order of business for the government is to solve problems beyond the grasp of a single person or a small community. In exchange for that service, we the people surrender some of our income and liberty. This grand bargain breaks down when the government decides it’s got other things to do besides take care of everything from our sewage to our space debris.

The longer the government falls short of our expectations, the more likely the people will be to opt out of their own obligations, such as voting. This dangerous tit-for-tat is hard to reverse. A less effective government sparks a less dutiful public, which makes it harder for the government to perform, and so on.

Keep ReadingShow less
People wading in a river, in front of a destroyed house

Workers walk through the Rocky Broad River in Chimney Rock, N.C., near a home destoryed by Hurricane Helene.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025 would have 'catastrophic' impact on hurricane warnings

Raj Ghanekar is a student at Northwestern University and a reporter for the school’s Medill News Service.

Residents in the southeastern United States are still recovering from devastating damage brought on by back-to-back hurricanes. As federal, state and local officials continue working to deliver aid, experts say the country would be less prepared for future hurricanes if proposals included the conservative plan known as Project 2025 were to be put in place.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration houses the National Weather Service and National Hurricane Center, which are vital to predicting these cyclones. But the 920-page proposal published by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, argues NOAA “should be dismantled” and includes steps to undermine its authority and position leading the country’s planning for severe weather events, such as providing official emergency warnings.

Keep ReadingShow less
People walking alongside a river

Migrants from Guatemala prepare to cross the Rio Grande, to enter the United States in February. The best way to address immigration is fix problems caused by past interventions in foreign countries.

Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images

Immigration isn't a border issue – it's caused by U.S. interventions

Yates-Doerr is an associate professor anthropology at Oregon State University and the author of “Mal-Nutrition: Maternal Health Science and the Reproduction of Harm.” She is also a fellow with The OpEd Project.

Immigration is a hot-button topic in the presidential election, with Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump both promising to crack down hard at the border. But neither candidate is talking about a root cause of immigration: the long history of U.S. meddling, which has directly resulted in displacement. If our politicians really wanted to address immigration, they would look not at the border but at past actions of the U.S. government, which have directly produced so much of the immigration we see today.

Keep ReadingShow less