IVN is joined by Nate Allen, founder and Executive Director of Utah Approves, to discuss Approval Voting and his perspective on changing the incentives of our elections.
Podcast: Seeking approval in Utah
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol Building on Oct. 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C. If Democrats win the House in November, questions will swirl around impeaching President Trump yet again.
(Andrew Harnik/Getty Images/TNS)
The Good Reasons and Bad Politics Surrounding a Third Trump Impeachment
Nov 01, 2026
A coalition of right-wing organizations and activists is lobbying the White House to grant mass pardons to junior staffers in the administration. “A pardon for all junior administration personnel is viewed as unlikely,” one source told the Washington Sun, “but the president could issue blanket pardons for all employees involved in particular policy areas, such as deportations, war or trade.”
Oh, just war, deportations and trade? Is that all?
There’s a raging debate within the Democratic Party, mostly beneath the surface, about whether President Trump should be impeached for a third time. It’s relevant because the Democrats are almost guaranteed to win back the House, and therefore the power to impeach.
But the debate isn’t over whether Trump has done anything impeachable. That question is settled: Of course he has. Democrats are debating whether it would be politically wise to stir up all the drama only to inevitably fail at securing the two-thirds vote requirement for conviction in the Senate. Spending the next two years on a failed impeachment wouldn’t fulfill their promises to deal with “affordability” and the like.
I don’t really care about the politics one way or another. But if Democrats decide to go down that path, Trump’s abuse of the pardon power would be a good place to start.
There’s ample evidence that various figures have outright bought pardons, or received them in trade for political services rendered. If you don’t think that’s impeachable, take it up with James Madison, who insisted that a president handing out pardons in exchange for nefarious activity done on his behalf would be impeachable. You know, like sitting back as the Capitol is ransacked after your efforts to steal an election fail. Then again, Trump was already impeached for that, and the Senate refused to convict him.
And that’s the problem. Hyperpartisanship has nullified the impeachment power. If Jan. 6 wasn’t enough, what’s the point of trying again?
There are only two relevant replies to that question: If impeachment is in the political interests of the opposition party, and if it’s the right thing to do whether or not it’s in their interest.
I can come up with several more candidates for reasons to impeach Trump because it’s the right thing to do. Whether it would be in the political interest of the Democrats is a much tougher question to answer. It depends in part on the specific abuses and on the evidence. But it’s not obvious to me that any evidence would be compelling enough to get roughly half the GOP Senate caucus to convict, and that’s assuming the Senate would even take up the impeachment in the first place. That would depend on whether Democrats take the Senate.
Some argue that merely impeaching the president without conviction is good enough, because that alone is a form of censure. Maybe, but would putting the country through a failed exercise redound to the political benefit of the Democrats? I don’t know and neither does anyone else.
But I do think there is something Democrats could do that would be both beneficial for them and for the country: Start serious hearings on legislative measures, and even constitutional amendments, that would make it more difficult for future presidents to exploit the baleful precedents being set by this one.
For starters, we must amend the pardon power. As I have argued before, so long as impeachment isn’t a viable option, the pardon power is too distorting of the constitutional order for a president to wield unilaterally. A simple Senate veto of all presidential pardons would be a sufficient check.
Also, we need legislation that puts criminal penalties or other safeguards on the withholding or distribution of federal money — like disaster relief — for political purposes. Democrat-controlled states are twice as likely to have their FEMA requests denied as are Republican ones. On the campaign trail, Trump has repeatedly vowed to punish states that don’t elect Republicans. “If we don’t win, there’s no money; if we do win, you’re getting it,” he said at a North Carolina rally. And of course there’s that offer of a $5,000 bribe to every American for a Republican victory.
Again, the founders would have considered this abuse of the public trust to be impeachable. But the least Congress can do is make this sort of thing more difficult. Holding hearings that use the manifest evidence of Trump’s misfeasance and malfeasance would have a similar teaching effect as impeachment. It might also attract GOP support for two reasons. First, many Republicans are rightly terrified of a future Democrat borrowing from Trump’s playbook. Second, because even though they are equally terrified of saying so publicly, they are appalled by what Trump is doing.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
The United States Capitol building with its white dome against a blue sky
Photo by Louis Velazquez on Unsplash
Would Congressional Term Limits Make Congress Better—or Worse?
Oct 31, 2026
Starting in the 1990’s, the idea of putting term limits on members of Congress became a recurring idea to reform the institution and improve democracy. The idea was born out of the theory that replacing the current crop of legislators with a new batch would produce a better Congress. More than 30 years later we now have quantitative and qualitative data showing the impact of term limits.
Twenty-one state legislatures have enacted some kind of term limit on legislators since 1990. Since then, dozens of academic studies have examined the impact on such factors as: complexity of legislation, influence of lobbyists and staff on legislative outcomes, and interactions with constituent. Here are some key findings.
Reduced legislative capacity. With less experienced lawmakers writing legislation the legislators produced weaker and fewer bills. Intuitively, this makes sense. If you have less experienced individuals in any workplace they require time to understand the nuances of the business. As a confidential consultant for members of the U.S. House and Senate I’ve seen this countless times. Even experienced members of the minority party can legislate circles around rookie lawmakers.
Power shifted to lobbyists. With the institutional memory erased, special interest backed (and written) legislation was more likely to pass. When legislators are forced out of their jobs due to term limits they often migrate to the lobbying community. But they still retain their institutional and issue knowledge they gained as lawmakers. To be fair, not all lobbyists fall into the grim stereotype portrayed in movies and TV. Most are subject-matter experts and lawmakers rely on them to convey how a proposed piece of legislation might affect a group of constituents or businesses. Yet, we can also see a world that would likely be better of legislatures were not compelled to rely on lobbyists since the in-house expertise was unable to run for re-election.
Power shifted to leadership and executive branch. With inexperienced lawmakers trying to quickly get up to speed on their job, academic studies have suggested that the power vacuum is filled by legislative leaders and the executive branch in states. Of course, to have functioning legislators you need functioning leaders. But this power shift almost always consolidates power away from the majority of state constituents. We’ve seen this power shift occur in the U.S. Congress, under Democratic and Republican leaders, since 1995. And seen it shift on a massive scale since the beginning of President Trump’s second term. There are very few scholars (and most members of Congress) who think a weakened legislative institution is healthy for our democracy.
Reduced constituent engagement. With no electoral incentive, especially in lawmakers’ final terms, there was less engagement with constituents. Legislators grew more distant from the voters. Term limited lawmakers also were more likely to skip committee meetings and miss floor votes. Putting oneself up for the voters’ assessment every two or four years is a remarkable human incentive our Founders created.
Also consider that general retirements and electoral outcomes often result in significant reductions in senior lawmakers. This effect was on display at the start of the 118th Congress, when Rep. Kevin McCarthy was forced to 15 ballots to gain the speakership. The 435 House members voting on McCarthy had not been sworn in (the Speaker’s vote comes first). And at the beginning of that Congress in 2023, 49 percent of House members had four years’ experience in the Congress or less. Can we really say with that infusion of new blood that 2023 was a banner year for the Congress?
One can also assess what we would lose when experienced lawmakers are forced out of office. Under term limits, all these lawmakers would have been required to leave before the pinnacle of their legislative effectiveness: Henry Clay, Lynden Johnson, Orin Hatch, John McCain, and Ted Kennedy. At the height of their careers these legislators crafted historic bills on health care, transportation, taxes, and defense policy.
There is of course a natural “stick it to the man”/“throw the rascals out” mentality that runs through public opinion. Yet when we explore how to reform our democratic institutions, we should be grounded in solid research rather than impulsive passions.
Bradford Fitch is the former CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation, a former congressional staffer, and author of “The Citizen’s Handbook for Influencing Elected Officials."
Keep ReadingShow less
Data calculations
Getty Images
Inconvenient Numbers Are a Sign the System Works
Oct 31, 2026
Earlier in October, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that consumer prices rose 3.7 percent over the past year, a little higher than the month before, with gasoline accounting for more than half of September's increase. Rising prices are the kind of news no incumbent politician wants weeks before an election. The report was published anyway, on schedule. That is the quiet discipline of a trustworthy statistical system. It tells us what is true even when the number is unwelcome to whoever holds power.
So, do Americans trust government data? We do. But that trust is incomplete, and it has room to grow.
In a national survey this summer, nearly three in four adults agreed that federal statistics are valuable and needed for policymakers to make good decisions. At the same time, only about half said they tend to trust those statistics. That gap between perceived value and trust is significant, which the nonpartisan Data Foundation documented in a report this month and is worth digging into. Americans are not rejecting the value of federal statistics at all. Instead, many are simply unsure whether to believe the statistics. Our national statistics are a portrait of our economy, our communities, and our people. They should also tell us about ourselves. The question is why so many of us do not yet see ourselves in those statistics.
Part of the answer may be that averages are a poor guide to any one life. A national inflation rate is a single number standing in for millions of households with very different spending, spread across dozens of metro areas, each with its own mix of rent, groceries, and gas. Inflation is accurate, and it may also bear little resemblance to your receipt. Over the year ending in September, prices rose about 4.1 percent in the Washington, D.C., metro area but just 1.9 percent around Tampa. In September alone, ground beef and milk got cheaper while gasoline got more expensive. Whether the national number feels true to any person depends on where and how they live. When the headline average does not match the life a person is living, no wonder the number can feel meaningless.
That doubt matters most this fall because the economy is the top issue for voters, according to the Pew Research Center. Economic statistics are therefore under the most pressure to tell a convenient story. So look at the places where that pressure is highest. We examined Senate battleground states, where any hypothetical thumb-on-the-scale would pay off most. In September, unemployment was 3.3 percent in Maine and 3.4 percent in Ohio, below the then national rate of 4.2 percent, while Texas sat at 4.4 percent and Michigan at 5.0 percent, above it. That is not the uniformly favorable story a campaign would want. What keeps these figures honest is process: established methods, published release schedules, and transparent revisions. Officials may see them in advance under embargo, but no one can alter, suppress, or delay them.
Here is the part we most want to say plainly: It is not the American people's obligation to trust their government or government data. The government has to earn that trust, and keep earning it. The long technical documentation behind every official number is necessary because it is how independence is proven and credibility is built. But documentation is far from sufficient. People have to be able to see themselves in the statistics their government produces. If anything, the answer runs the other way: our statistical agencies may need to produce even more relevant statistics about our economy, our people, and our society, not fewer. Statistics that are more representative, higher in quality, easier to reach, and easier to understand are how public statistics stay relevant, trusted, and used.
One of us has spent a career advocating for national efforts on data quality and trustworthiness, so the data infrastructure keeps pace with the demands of modern society. The other has spent a career inside the government, as a federal chief data officer at the Office of Personnel Management and as chief data scientist at the Government Accountability Office, building the systems that produce context-relevant and rigorously validated numbers. From both vantage points the lesson is the same: data earns trust when it stands apart from the politics of the moment, and when people can find themselves in it.
The United States has already pointed itself in this direction. Alongside democracies around the world, it joined the Luxembourg Declaration affirming the value of data and evidence. The next step is to formally measure not only whether people trust the government, but why. U.S. participation in the OECD's international survey on the drivers of trust would do exactly that, connecting headline numbers to the things that actually move trust: reliability, fairness, responsiveness, and whether decisions draw on the best available evidence.
To date, Republican and Democratic administrations alike have not participated in the OECD's international survey, despite the reality that while America is exceptional in many ways, low trust in government is not unique to America. And if official statistics matter this much, the agencies and data officials who produce them need secure, sustained funding: enough to produce, manage, and protect this information, and to keep it accessible to people and machines alike as more of public life runs on data—even if the numbers are politically inconvenient.
This month's inflation numbers were not flattering for many political campaigns. They arrived anyway, measured the same way everywhere, released on a published schedule for Principal Federal Economic Indicators. That is independence in practice. Trust will not come from telling Americans to believe the numbers; trust comes when the numbers are clear enough, and close enough to people's lives, that people can see themselves in them.
Nick Hart is President and CEO of the nonpartisan Data Foundation. He is a fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration and the Bipartisan Policy Center.
Taka Ariga is Vice President for Data Policy and Impact at the Data Foundation. He is a former Chief Data Scientist at the Government Accountability Office.
Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.
jimfeng/Getty Images
Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance
Oct 29, 2026
The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.
This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:
- Trust must be intentionally built between the two political parties before they can solve problems.
- Legislators must listen to one another and understand what motivates and concerns their colleagues.
- Shared experiences built on close personal interactions can bring state legislators together, help them identify shared values and goals, and find ways to work together for the common good.
When this happens, it almost always involves sharing information about each legislator’s perspective, their district’s challenges and opportunities, and a shared desire to make things work for all Pennsylvanians. The Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange (PLE) builds on this success and reinforces the idea that Pennsylvania benefits when we work together.
The PLE pairs legislators from opposite parties to visit each other's districts, focusing on districts that differ in geography, economy, culture, politics, and community demographics. The PLE aims to honor these differences, define common problems across communities, and identify shared interests and goals.
PLE trips typically last 12–36 hours, depending on the district’s geographic size. The Institute of Politics (IOP) designs itineraries in collaboration with the host legislator to showcase unique experiences, industries, businesses, institutions, and community leadership within the district. The trips will provide meaningful opportunities for local and county civic, business, education, and faith leaders to connect with the two members. Itineraries may include tours, roundtable conversations, meetings with local civic and community leaders, and shared meals to help legislators better understand a district's economic, social, political, and cultural makeup. The PLE will nurture authentic connections, bipartisan collegiality, and trust across differences.
The host legislator designs visits to reflect key challenges, opportunities, and constituent needs in their communities, and they exclude lobbying activity. Instead, visits are centered on relationship-building and introduction to each other’s district, with an eye toward potential future collaboration that grows organically from what is experienced on the
The Pennsylvania Exchange is built on a simple yet powerful premise: when lawmakers step outside the Capitol and into one another’s communities, they see the Commonwealth—and each other—with fresh eyes. Each bipartisan visit focuses on the issues that matter most to Pennsylvanians. By grounding itineraries in local, regional, and statewide policy concerns, participating legislators confront real challenges together and begin identifying solutions that can make a tangible difference back in Harrisburg.
These exchanges are uniquely valuable because of the diversity of the participants. Lawmakers come from regions shaped by distinct histories, industries, economies, and natural resources. As they travel across these varied landscapes, they gain a deeper appreciation for the perspectives that define Pennsylvania’s political and cultural mosaic. They discover not only the differences that shape their constituencies but also the unexpected commonalities that can form the basis for a shared purpose.
During each visit, policymakers hear directly from local leaders, residents, and stakeholders—voices often missing or overlooked in statewide debates. These conversations surface new priorities and reveal areas of alignment that transcend partisan politics. Participants often discover shared interests they didn’t know they had, along with policy ideas that emerge organically from Pennsylvanians' lived experiences.
By the end of each exchange, lawmakers return to Harrisburg with more than goodwill. They carry concrete ideas for legislative action—sparked by joint exploration, honest dialogue, and the recognition that durable solutions are possible when leaders see the Commonwealth through one another’s eyes. The Pennsylvania Exchange strengthens relationships, broadens understanding, and equips policymakers to craft bipartisan legislation grounded in the realities of the communities they serve.
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More