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
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Sen. Mark Kelly poses for a selfie before a Harris-Walz rally featuring former President Barack Obama on Oct. 18, 2024.
Photo by Michael McKisson.
Kelly Sponsors Bipartisan Bill Addressing Social Media
Dec 15, 2025
WASHINGTON – Lawmakers have struggled for years to regulate social media platforms in ways that tamp down misinformation and extremism.
Much of the criticism has been aimed at algorithms that feed users more and more of whatever they click on – the “rabbit hole” effect blamed for fueling conspiracy theories, depression, eating disorders, suicide and violence.
Federal law shields social media platforms and internet providers from lawsuits over content posted by users. First Amendment rights make it hard for Congress to regulate speech.
The latest effort comes from Sens. Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat, and John Curtis, a Utah Republican, who have teamed up to fight political violence since the Sept. 10 murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
Under the Algorithm Accountability Act they unveiled Nov. 19, social media companies would lose that legal immunity if they use an algorithm to promote content that results in harm.
The bill would amend Section 230, the provision of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that protects tech companies from lawsuits over user-generated content.
“Too many families have been hurt by social media algorithms designed with one goal: make money by getting people hooked,” Kelly said in a statement. “Over and over again, these companies refuse to take responsibility when their platforms contribute to violence, crime, or self-harm. We’re going to change that and finally allow Americans to hold companies accountable.”
A Utah Republican and a Maryland Democrat, Reps. Mike Kennedy and April McClain Delaney, filed an identical measure in the House on Nov. 21.
Unlike broader reforms of Section 230, the Algorithm Accountability Act targets the recommendation process that puts content in front of users, rather than the content itself.
The bill wouldn’t directly limit what platforms such as Facebook, TikTok, X and Instagram distribute, but would require them to “exercise reasonable care” in designing how they organize the content they serve up to users.
“Algorithms make us see the world as more aggressive and more conflictual than it actually is. It makes us see the other side as more extreme and more of a threat,” said Yphtach Lelkes, a professor of communication and political science at the University of Pennsylvania.
A study published Nov. 24 in the journal JAMA Network Open found that even a one-week “detox” from social media – cutting back on screen time – reduced anxiety, depression and insomnia in young adults.
“I think it’s coming from a good place,” Lelkes said of the Kelly-Curtis bill. But, he said, tech companies are motivated to keep users engaged, and tamping down harmful, inappropriate and “outrageous” speech could reduce usage.
“How do you get companies to promote public good over this need to keep people online as long as possible?” he said.
Tech companies warn that encouraging them to tweak algorithms to deemphasize certain political viewpoints means that instead of being neutral about user content, they are picking winners and losers.
That could mean trouble for organizing and recommending content in ways “the government would prefer you not to,” said Zach Lilly, director of government affairs at a trade association called Net Choice. “That’s where you start to ask those First Amendment questions.”
Lilly also argued that algorithms are designed to personalize content to a users’ interests.
Eliminating that, he said, “would result in such an extreme reduction in the ability to post our own content online without platforms feeling the need to remove our content for fear of liability.”
Smaller tech companies would find it especially costly to comply, he said.
Curtis and other leaders in Utah have been outspoken about political violence since the murder of Kirk during a campus appearance in their state.
Kelly has also been a leading voice on the topic. His wife, former Rep. Gabby Giffords, was shot in the head in 2011 while meeting with congressional constituents in Tucson. The gunman also shot 18 others, killing six, including a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl. Giffords narrowly survived.
Lelkes said it’s important to keep in mind that algorithms alone don’t cause people to “end up in rabbit holes” online.
“It’s more like they were already extreme and ended up in these places,” he said.
Meanwhile, artificial intelligence makes algorithms ever more effective at serving up content that keeps users from putting down their phones.
“AI systems are making decisions that are impacting people’s lives with little to no transparency about how those decisions are made, or accountability,” said Caitriona Fitzgerald, deputy director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
“We are playing catch-up,” she said. “We didn’t have the rules of the road in place that would have in any way limited the growth or the trajectory of AI.”
Kelly Sponsors Bipartisan Bill Addressing Social Media was originally published by Arizona Luminaria and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
The “Big Beautiful Bill” Becomes Law: From Promise to Fallout
Dec 14, 2025
When I first wrote about the “One Big Beautiful Bill” in May, it was still a proposal advancing through Congress. At the time, the numbers were staggering: $880 billion in Medicaid cuts, millions projected to lose coverage, and a $6 trillion deficit increase. Seven months later, the bill is no longer hypothetical. It passed both chambers of Congress in July and was signed into law on Independence Day.
Now, the debate has shifted from projections to likely impact and the fallout is becoming more and more visible.
Medicaid Cuts: Larger Than First Projected
The most immediate change since May is the sheer scale of the Medicaid reductions. Negotiations in Congress pushed the cuts from $880 billion to over $1 trillion over the next decade, making them the most significant rollback in the program’s history. Analysts now project 11.8 million people will lose health insurance by 2034, up from the 10.3 million estimated earlier this year.
The law imposes strict work requirements: childless adults aged 19 to 64 must document 80 hours per month of work, education, or volunteering to maintain coverage. The Congressional Budget Office estimates 4.8 million people will lose coverage due to these requirements alone. States must also conduct eligibility checks every six months instead of annually, a bureaucratic hurdle that will increase churn and paperwork. For many, coverage will be lost not because they fail to qualify, but because they fail to navigate the red tape.
Other provisions add financial strain on everyday Americans. Copays of up to $35 per visit are now required for some enrollees above the poverty line. States that provide Medicaid to undocumented immigrants face federal funding penalties. And the elimination of provider taxes long used by states to finance Medicaid will reduce payments to hospitals and doctors, likely leading to staff layoffs and longer wait times.
Fiscal Impact: A Deficit Tug-of-War
The fiscal debate surrounding the bill has only intensified. The CBO projects $3.3 trillion added to the deficit over the next decade, as tax cuts outweigh spending reductions. Independent watchdogs warn that debt-to-GDP could reach 194% by 2054, crowding out investment and raising borrowing costs.
The White House counters with a far more optimistic picture, claiming the bill will reduce deficits by $11 trillion through economic growth, tariffs, and spending cuts. Supporters argue that extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts will spur GDP growth, investment, and job creation. Critics point out that similar promises were made in 2017, yet deficits ballooned.
This debate over projections underscores a more profound truth: fiscal responsibility has become a matter of partisan narrative rather than agreement on the math. Citizens are left to wonder whether forecasts are based on proven forecasting procedures or are used to justify ideological goals.
Political Fallout
The politics of the “Big Beautiful Bill” has intensified. Republicans are divided. Some moderates worry that deep cuts to Medicaid and food assistance will be politically damaging, especially in swing districts. Others, particularly deficit hawks, argue the bill does not go far enough in reducing spending. Rep. Chip Roy of Texas declared, “This bill falls profoundly short. I am a ‘no’ unless serious reforms are made.”
To soften the blow, GOP leaders have tried to rebrand the legislation as the Working Families Tax Cuts Act. Yet even supporters admit it is difficult to “sell” to voters who are already feeling the effects of reduced benefits and higher healthcare costs.
Democrats, meanwhile, have seized on the bill as a rallying point. They warn of increased hunger due to SNAP cuts, hospital closures in rural communities, and millions losing access to essential care. For them, the bill is not just a policy disagreement. It is a moral indictment of priorities that favor tax relief over human need.
State-Level Impacts
The consequences are not abstract. They are unfolding in real time across the states.
- Kansas: Governor Laura Kelly projects $150 million in lost federal funding and warns of rural hospital closures.
- Arizona: SNAP changes could cut benefits for 124,000 residents, straining food banks already stretched thin.
- North Carolina: Counties face millions in new administrative costs to implement SNAP changes, diverting resources from other local needs.
- New Hampshire: Republicans are moving quickly to implement strict Medicaid work verification, while Democrats push back against what they call punitive measures.
Expansion states like California and New York face the highest financial burdens, as they must decide whether to raise taxes or cut coverage to offset federal reductions. Rural states like Alabama and Oklahoma risk losing hospitals altogether, leaving communities without emergency care. States with large immigrant populations face additional penalties, further complicating their budgets.
Why This Matters
The “Big Beautiful Bill” illustrates the tension between promises of fiscal discipline and the lived realities of healthcare access. Supporters argue it will reduce waste, fraud, and abuse. Opponents warn it undermines the very infrastructure of care that sustains families, communities, and rural America.
For citizens, the question is not only whether the bill balances the books, but whether it balances our values. Does it strengthen the social contract, or weaken it? Does it invest in long-term growth, or mortgage the future for short-term relief?
As the law takes effect, these questions will not remain theoretical. They will be answered in hospital closures, in families losing coverage, in food banks overwhelmed, and in state budgets stretched to the breaking point. The numbers are essential, but the human stories behind them are what will ultimately define the legacy of the “Big Beautiful Bill.”
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
;;
Keep ReadingShow less
Government shutdown
wildpixel/Getty Images
Fulcrum Roundtable: Government Shutdown
Dec 14, 2025
Welcome to the Fulcrum Roundtable.
The program offers insights and discussions about some of the most talked-about topics from the previous month, featuring Fulcrum’s collaborators.
Consistent with the Fulcrum's mission, the Fulcrum Roundtable strives to share many perspectives to widen our audience’s viewpoints.
The most recent U.S. government shutdown lasted from October 1 to November 12, making it the longest in American history at 43 days.
It began after Congress failed to pass a continuing resolution, leading to the furlough of about 900,000 federal employees and the closure of numerous agencies and institutions.
The shutdown ended when President Trump signed a funding bill on November 12, which temporarily extended government funding until January 30, 2026, and approved three full‑year appropriations bills.
Although the shutdown has concluded, its ripple effects remain: federal employees are facing steep increases in health insurance premiums, and delayed economic data releases have complicated assessments of U.S. growth.
Politically, the shutdown coincided with declining approval ratings for the administration, underscoring the broader impact of the prolonged stalemate.
Helping us make sense of it all are two Fulcrum collaborators.
Bobby J. Smith II, an Associate Professor of African American Studies at the University of Illinois—Urbana-Champaign. He is also the author of the James Beard Award-nominated book, Food Power Politics: The Food Story of the Mississippi Civil Rights Movement.
Joseph Crupi, a legal scholar who studies the legislative process. He previously served as a Scholar-in-Residence at the Law Library of Congress.
- YouTube youtu.be
In the column, Crisis Not Averted: How Government Shutdown Exposes America’s Food Insecurity, Bobby wrote about SNAP benefits:
To be very clear, what the world is witnessing right now isn’t just another political game. It is the latest move in the administration’s War on Food Security, or the ability of many Americans to access safe and nutritious food.
This war began when Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 on July 4 of this year, effectively transforming food into a political weapon. The law severely cut food stamps and terminated the SNAP-Ed program, which provided food and nutrition education to millions of low-income individuals.
In Arbitration Could Prevent Government Shutdowns, Joseph wrote that the way Congress makes decisions seems almost designed to produce government shutdowns:
Senate rules require a three-fifths supermajority to close debate on most bills. In practice, this means that senators from both parties must agree to advance legislation to a final vote. In such a polarized political environment, negotiating an agreement that both sides can accept is no easy task. When senators inevitably fail to agree on funding bills, the government shuts down, impacting services for millions of Americans.
Joseph argues that arbitration could offer a way out:
In arbitration, the parties to a dispute select a neutral third party to resolve their disagreement. While we probably would not want to give unelected arbitrators the power to make national policy decisions, arbitration could help resolve the much more modest question of whether an appropriations bill could advance to a final vote in the Senate.
I invite you to read their columns and those of all of The Fulcrum's contributors. It's time well spent.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
people holding a signage during daytime
Photo by Liam Edwards on Unsplash
ENDING THE VICIOUS CYCLE OF NON-GOVERNING
Dec 13, 2025
“We the People” know our government is not working. For decades, Americans have said they want leaders who work together, confront problems honestly, and make decisions that push the country forward. Yet the officials we send to Washington keep repeating the same self-defeating patterns—polarization, gridlock, shutdowns, and an almost complete inability to address the nation’s biggest challenges.
The result is a governing culture that cannot resolve problems, allowing them instead to grow, intensify, and metastasize. Issues don’t disappear when ignored—they become harder, more expensive, and more politically explosive to solve.
In October, over seven million people took to the streets in the No Kings protest—the largest public demonstration in modern memory—expressing outrage at Trump’s attempts to control the levers of government and his disregard for the separation of powers. Weeks later, record-breaking special-election turnout in states such as Virginia and New Jersey made clear that voters were desperate for a new direction. Long lines in California reflected the same frustration with political manipulation and gamesmanship.
Yet as those demonstrations unfolded, Washington was shut down for 43 days. Congress once again failed to pass the annual budget bills—something it hasn’t done on time since 1997. Instead, lawmakers rely on a chain of short-term continuing resolutions (CRs), each one a manufactured crisis that becomes a leverage point for partisan brinkmanship. The latest CR funds the government only through January 31, 2026—barely two months of stability.
During the standoff, federal employees were furloughed or forced to work without pay. Air traffic safety was strained. Public services were disrupted. And on issue after issue—immigration, the economy, Social Security, climate, AI, healthcare, civil rights, Ukraine, reproductive rights, guns, housing—the country made no progress. Not even a beginning.
Some analysts framed the huge November turnout and the No Kings protest as a decisive victory for Democrats. But that interpretation misses the point. With only two parties to choose from, a vote against Republican leadership is not automatically a vote for Democratic leadership. More likely, it is a rejection of the current political trajectory, which could easily flip in the next election.
Even if Democrats take the House and perhaps the Senate in 2026, we will still have two polarized parties, the same rigid decision-making structures, and the same inability to govern. A change in congressional control cannot fix a broken system.
If the 2026 midterms simply repeat the “we win, you lose” cycle, the public will be no closer to solutions. We cannot keep perpetuating this vicious cycle of non-governing. The core problem is not political preference. It is a governing framework that has failed—and has been failing for years.
The Illusion of Mandates
After the recent election, Kamala Harris said, “We must harness the people’s power to come up with a blueprint for our government that truly works for the American people.” She is right. But listening to the public requires more than celebrating a partisan win. The “blueprint” cannot be a continuation of three decades of escalating hostility and governance by conflict.
The challenge starts with the psychology of partisanship. George Washington warned 229 years ago of “the baneful effects of the spirit of party,” rooted in “the strongest passions of the human mind.” That warning has never felt more relevant: political passion has overtaken national responsibility.
We must also avoid misreading the moment. Trump-era politics distorted the landscape so severely that many assume the public is shifting left. But recent polls show something different. Support for both major parties remains historically low. Nearly half of voters now identify as Independent–not wedded to either party. A few weeks ago, Republicans polled slightly ahead, but now it’s Democrats. Volatility and indecisiveness characterize the public mood on parties, while a poll of more than 20,000 people last summer found that 80% want leaders who compromise to get things done.
The public is not endorsing Democrats or Republicans. They are rejecting dysfunction. They are rejecting the chaos and extremism of recent decades—an era marked by wild swings of power, constitutional brinkmanship, weaponizing government authority, and rising threats to democracy itself.
For decades, Congress has misread the public, interpreting every narrow victory as a mandate. But a win by 1%, 2%, or 3% is not a mandate. It is a warning.
The Call for Something Different
A few organizations have been listening to the public. Swing Left’s Ground Truth initiative emphasizes trust-building by “showing up early, listening closely, and treating every voter as worth the conversation.” Future Caucus, No Labels, the Independent Center, the Sunwater Institute, the Bipartisan Policy Center, ModSquad PAC, and Blue Dog PAC are all seeking new pathways for cooperation.
Future Caucus’s major post-2024 study, Together or Torn, found that 84% of voters prefer leaders who “work together respectfully and with integrity toward solutions.” That number is astounding—and it has remained consistent across multiple polls.
Evan Bayh, recently named one of six No Labels’ National Leaders, warned, “Bad things will happen to our beloved country unless millions of good people step up to counter the dangerous extremism and political violence consuming our politics.” No Labels has also helped build the Problem Solvers Caucus—a bipartisan group of roughly 70 House and Senate members working to build trust and find cross-party agreements.
But while these efforts matter, none provide what America truly needs: a well-known, membership-based, coherent, sustained, national mechanism to influence the decision-making structures of Congress and the broader government. Fragmented efforts, however sincere, with little public identity cannot overcome structural incentives that reinforce division—large-scale public involvement and support are necessary.
Why Our Political System Cannot Fix Itself
The greatest obstacle to reform is structural. The Constitution states simply that each chamber of Congress “may determine the rules of its proceedings.” Those rules, written and controlled by party leadership, define: what bills get voted on; which amendments are allowed; how committees operate; how debate is structured; who holds procedural power; and whether bipartisan cooperation is possible.
No independent analysis would conclude that today’s rules serve the public. They serve the parties.
Consider just a few examples of how Congress’s rules now obstruct real legislating: closed rules in the House routinely prevent members from offering amendments, shutting out genuine debate; the so-called Hastert Rule blocks votes on bipartisan bills unless they have the support of a majority of the majority party; Senate holds allow a single senator to freeze nominations or legislation indefinitely; the mere threat of filibuster—once a tool for extended deliberation—has become a routine weapon of paralysis; and leadership’s tight control over committees suppresses the bipartisan policymaking those committees were designed to produce.
These are not quirks. They have been woven into the decision-making system over the years and are now considered rigid constraints. They deliberately frustrate cooperation and compromise and are designed to give power to the party in control, rather than facilitating constructive problem-solving.
While rule changes are technically easy—a majority in the House, a supermajority or nuclear majority in the Senate—the political incentives overwhelmingly discourage reform. Leaders, lobbyists, funders, influencers, and interest groups have various reasons to preserve systems that benefit them, even those systems that harm the nation. A simple matter of party over country.
The Need for an External Force
Some assume the solution is a third party. But third-party efforts routinely collapse under structural and financial pressures, ballot-access barriers, and the ever-present fear of becoming a spoiler.
The Forward Party has made a serious attempt to advance an alternative party based on bipartisanship and compromise. Their slogan, "Not Left, Not Right, but Forward," is inspiring and what many voters are asking for. Yet, after four years with prestigious backing and financial support, it has failed to gain even widespread name recognition.
The media landscape compounds the challenge. News outlets increasingly reflect partisan identities. Algorithms reinforce beliefs. Disinformation spreads. Even legitimate reporting is dismissed as biased when it challenges a party’s narrative.
Because neither party will voluntarily rethink the governing framework, because third parties remain structurally marginalized, and because information channels are fragmented and distrusted, we need a new force—external, respected, and powerful enough to pressure both sides and gain nationwide recognition.
A national forum… A civic mediator… A Third Point of View!
Not a third party… Not a loose protest movement… Not just another nonprofit…
Something fundamentally different!
Imagine an institution with millions of members, expert staff, public representation, credibility, and the ability to influence media narratives, congressional debate, and individual legislators. A forum grounded in constitutional principles, driven by evidence, and committed to bipartisan solutions rooted in documented public consensus.
A forum that does not dictate ideological positions but provides authoritative guidance—research, analysis, and public sentiment—to help both parties move toward balanced, practical solutions.
A place where moderates, independents, unaffiliated citizens, and exhausted majorities can unite around constructive governance.
What a National Third Point of View Could Do
A Third POV forum could fill systemic gaps by:
- Coalescing public sentiment into a unified national membership organization open to individuals and organizations alike, giving millions of citizens a direct connection and support for an instrument that advocates governance consistent with their beliefs.
- Coordinating policy expertise on congressional rules, legislation, AI-enabled transparency and information management, and institutional reform.
- Bringing together existing reform groups, strengthening them, and providing focus, rather than competing with them.
- Producing trusted analysis—research, scorecards, public opinion indexes—that media and lawmakers must take seriously.
- Influencing legislation by presenting compromise-oriented positions backed by millions.
- Providing nonpartisan framing for political events to reduce manipulation.
- Applying timely, targeted public pressure on congressional decision-making.
- Proposing specific rule changes to reduce polarization and restore constructive deliberation.
The goal is not to replace election campaigns or parties. It is to counterbalance them—providing a home for the widely documented and recognized public voice for cooperation and compromise. An ever-present influence on decisions beyond the campaign seasons and a respected counter to partisan extremes.
What Existing Efforts Teach Us
Groups like No Labels, the Independent Center, Future Caucus, the Bipartisan Policy Center, and others have demonstrated two important truths:
- Millions of Americans are hungry for post-partisan solutions.
- Congress’s outdated rules and procedures are the root cause of dysfunction.
The Hoover Institution and Sunwater Institute’s 2024 report, Revitalizing the House, put it plainly: “This is not a Republican or Democratic problem, but a problem with how the institution currently operates.”
These organizations have laid a solid foundation of infrastructure and concept for a much broader movement to fit the critical needs of our time. What is missing is scale—a membership organization large and visible enough to influence and shape national political incentives.
That is what a Third POV forum could provide.
Harnessing the Public’s Power
The largest gap in American politics today is between what the people want and what the political system delivers. The public wants respect, cooperation, responsibility, and results. They want decisions based on facts and the national interest, not party discipline or fear of primary challenges.
Millions support this vision. Thousands of groups, organizations, and staff resources are backing this idea. But they are scattered and uncoordinated—silos without a central structure capable of shaping congressional behavior.
To carry “the great experiment” beyond its 250-year epoch, we must reconnect public power to political decision-making in a durable, organized, and sustained way. That means more than voting every two years. It means building a civic architecture worthy of the country’s complexity and ambition.
A Blueprint for a New Mindset
The way forward requires a fundamental mindset shift—one that recognizes the political reality of a country divided nearly 50–50 and accepts that neither side can govern effectively without the other.
Bipartisanship is not a courtesy. It is a structural necessity.
A national Third POV forum could reinforce this reality by: Keeping public expectations visible and unavoidable; elevating compromise-oriented solutions; exposing manipulative partisanship; giving moderates and independents political cover and recognition; influencing committee agendas and legislative priorities; and demonstrating that the real mandate is for the government to function.
With enough members and credibility, such a forum would become impossible for Congress, the Executive Office, and the media to ignore.
The Time Is Now
We stand at a crossroads. The old model—win, lose, power, control—has given us paralysis, anger, instability, violence, and democratic decay. The public is demanding something better. The country is ready for a new mindset and a new civic infrastructure that gives voice to the exhausted majority.
The solution is not another party, another protest, or another think tank.
It is a Third Point of View—an organized, respected, nationwide forum with the legitimacy and scale to influence how decisions are made and how governing actually works.
We cannot continue the vicious cycle of non-governing. The survival of American democracy depends on rethinking how we solve problems, how we allocate power, and how we listen to the public.
It is time for the new mindset.
It is time for the next evolution of American self-government.
It is time to build the Third Point of View.
It is time for the groups, organizations, foundations, and powers already dedicated to the bipartisan government model to organize, coordinate, and expand this tenet of governance to give it the scale and influence the public is demanding.
Jeff Dauphin, aka J.P. McJefferson, is retired. Blogging on the "Underpinnings of a Broken Government." Founded and ran two environmental information & newsletter businesses for 36 years. Facilitated enactment of major environmental legislation in Michigan in the 70s. Community planning and engineering. BSCE, Michigan Technological University.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More