Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Honoring service members by strengthening our democracy

Honoring service members by strengthening our democracy
Getty Images

Kevin Miller, from McFarland, WI, is an Army Veteran and Wisconsin VPI State Task Force Leader

Courage, sacrifice, duty, honor, and country. If you attended a Memorial Day event, you likely heard these terms used to remember and honor military members who gave their lives in service and defense of our nation.


And while thousands of Americans did attend such ceremonies, a significantly larger number instead “celebrated” Memorial Day by shopping appliance sales, attending cookouts, or having a beer with friends and family. Full disclosure: I absolutely had a Memorial Day cookout with family and friends, and took advantage of a Memorial Day military discount at a local greenhouse.

But the truth is, we cannot honor fallen service members with one day of remembrance or honor all who served with one day of Veterans’ Day events in November. To honor service members and their sacrifices requires everyday actions that actually help preserve our country and its democracy.

I joined the military in 1986 and have continued to serve for over thirty-seven years. But I consider the other work I am doing more important to ensuring the future of our democracy in honoring fallen service members and fellow veterans. This work is not exclusive; it is work available to every American.

Unfortunately, this work is not easy in the current political environment. It requires real critical thinking and an ability to block out the rhetoric coming from the left and the right. One must be willing to dismiss as fact the arguments of those who benefit from our current election process.

I work with a nonpartisan nonprofit organization called Veterans for Political Innovation (VPI). We are one of several organizations working on congressional election reform that will hold elected officials accountable to their constituents rather than political parties and wealthy campaign donors. This reform is Final Five Voting (a top-five open primary and instant runoff general election).

We are advocating for Final Five Voting because the current partisan primaries and plurality general elections are actually quite undemocratic. Under the current system, over 80 percent of Congress was essentially selected by less than 10 percent of the electorate. In addition, half of all military service members identify as independent—unaffiliated with a political party—and are consequently entirely shut out of many states’ primaries.

Essentially, this reform works by having all candidates for a U.S. Senate or Congressional seat run together on a single primary ballot, regardless of party affiliation, if any at all. Each primary voter selects one candidate. The top five vote recipients from the primary face off in an instant runoff general election through which no candidate can win without securing an actual majority of the votes cast (e.g. no plurality winners and no spoilers or wasted votes).

This simple change is incredibly powerful in addressing the most toxic aspects of elections— attack ads, pandering to extremists, out-of-control campaign spending, and a lack of accountability. Even more important, those elected through these reforms can actually get things done, putting their constituents’ needs ahead of political parties, wealthy donors, and extremists.

We are fortunate that in Wisconsin there is already bipartisan legislative support for Final Five Voting. On June 12th, there will be an event in Chippewa Falls with Republican State Senator Jesse James and Democrat State Senator Jeff Smith discussing proposed legislation for Final Five Voting.

As a veteran, I am regularly thanked for my service and see and hear the phrase, “We support our troops.” If you’ve ever expressed such a sentiment and wanted to walk the talk, I strongly encourage you to learn about and support the efforts to implement Final Five Voting in Wisconsin. You can learn more at www.v-pi.org (for info on the June 12th event, select “Menu” and “Upcoming Events)”.


Read More

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. House Republicans

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Democrats Gerrymandered David Valadao’s District. Did It Backfire?

GOP US Rep. David Valadao has never won his seat in Congress on Republican votes alone because too few Republicans live in the district where he was raised, lives, and runs his family farm.

- YouTube youtu.be

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less