Congressional pages carry electoral votes into a joint session of Congress in January 2017.
Think you know all there is to know about the Electoral College? Test your smarts with this quiz.
This quiz is powered by CredSpark.
Capitol building, Washington, DC
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The D.C. Council may delay the implementation of ranked choice voting (RCV), frustrating pro-democracy forces that understandably want the voter-approved law in place for next year’s elections.
- YouTube youtu.be
Political insiders predictably search for procedural hurdles to try and stop changes that reduce the control of party leaders. Implementation can turn into a slow, uphill battle even after voters speak clearly. The case is no different with Initiative 83 in DC, which calls for both RCV and semi-open primaries.
"Honoring [voters'] decision does not mean rushing implementation," said Councilmember Wendell Felder at a November 24 hearing.
At-large Councilmember Anita Bonds says she's also worried the elections board doesn't have the resources and time needed to implement RCV. "We want to make sure that if we’re going to do this in the nation’s capital, it will be good as gold," Bonds said.
Voters in Washington, D.C. approved Initiative 83 on Nov. 5, 2024, with 73% support, adopting a semi-open primary system and RCV beginning in 2026.The summary statement for the initiative was as follows:
If enacted, the Initiative would both: (a) implement ranked choice voting to allow voters to rank up to five candidates according to their preference in each contest for any office (other than political party offices); and (b) permit any voter who is not registered with a political party to vote in the primary election of that voter’s choosing for all offices (other than political party offices). This Initiative will not be implemented unless the D.C. Council separately chooses to appropriate funds for the projected costs.”
In July, the DC Council approved funding for just part of the law's implementation in an 8-4 vote. The Council stopped short of funding the initiative’s open primaries component.
Next year’s races in Washington, DC, are expected to be some of the most competitive in decades. Mayor Muriel Bowser announced on November 25 that she would not seek re-election.
Nevertheless, Felder has introduced emergency legislation requiring what he called a “comprehensive needs assessment” before rollout. He questioned whether election administrators can realistically prepare the system in time for the Democratic primary in June 2026, considered the most decisive election in the heavily Democratic city.“We are not making a small change here; we’re changing the way people vote in the District of Columbia,” Felder said.
At a hearing last week, Board of Elections Director Monica Evans said the agency can still meet the deadline, but her comments suggested it would take a heroic effort to pull it off. “We’ve been asked to do the impossible in the past,” Evans said.
She testified that there is a plan and that the items that need to be finalized include ballot size and design, software updates, and an audit plan.
"Knowing that we have support from individuals who have already been in these shoes is very helpful to us as we finalize our plans and hit the ground running come January," she said.
Felder continued to ask whether she needed more time. Evans said she felt caught between opponents who want to halt the system altogether and supporters who expect immediate implementation. “I feel like I’m being set up to be the fall guy,” she said.“
Do you have sufficient resources to implement ranked choice voting in the DC Primary Election in 2026?” Ward 5 Councilmember Zachary Parker asked Evans. Evans said it was hard to answer with yes or no.
“The reason I say that is [that] more time, more money means more touch points. So we will absolutely be able to engage in a voter outreach campaign, but as far as how robust that campaign will be, that will depend on dollars,” she said.
Felder will need to persuade at least eight other council members on December 2 to support his bill delaying the law.
In Maine, it took some time to recognize that the primary obstacle to implementing RCV was the unprecedented collusion between senior political leaders from the two major political parties. In the midst of the battle, then-Republican Governor Paul LePage threatened to continue a government shutdown and called RCV “the most horrific thing in the world.”
The Democratic opposition was not as overt but clearly as dangerous. The Democratic secretary of state, Matthew Dunlap, was unwilling to fulfill his legal responsibility to begin the implementation of RCV immediately after RCV became the law on January 7, 2017. Instead, he engaged in a legislative lobbying and public relations campaign to convince members of both parties and his government staff that it was okay to ignore and repeal the results of a free and fair election.
He argued for at least a year that RCV was impossible to implement and would result in “cars burning in the streets” of Maine. He also overestimated the cost of the reform by more than $1.4 million. Ultimately, Dunlap was forced in court to recant his absurd claims and implement the law.
RCV was first used in Maine on June 12, 2018, and voters have used it in 8 statewide elections since then without incident. RCV will be the method used in the Democratic and Republican primary elections for U.S. Congress in June 2026 where both Dunlap and LePage are currently candidates.
DC Ranked Choice Voting at Risk: Council Moves to Stall 2026 Implementation was first published by IVN and republished with permission.
Capitol building, Washington, DC
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The D.C. Council may delay the implementation of ranked choice voting (RCV), frustrating pro-democracy forces that understandably want the voter-approved law in place for next year’s elections.
- YouTube youtu.be
Political insiders predictably search for procedural hurdles to try and stop changes that reduce the control of party leaders. Implementation can turn into a slow, uphill battle even after voters speak clearly. The case is no different with Initiative 83 in DC, which calls for both RCV and semi-open primaries.
"Honoring [voters'] decision does not mean rushing implementation," said Councilmember Wendell Felder at a November 24 hearing.
At-large Councilmember Anita Bonds says she's also worried the elections board doesn't have the resources and time needed to implement RCV. "We want to make sure that if we’re going to do this in the nation’s capital, it will be good as gold," Bonds said.
Voters in Washington, D.C. approved Initiative 83 on Nov. 5, 2024, with 73% support, adopting a semi-open primary system and RCV beginning in 2026.The summary statement for the initiative was as follows:
If enacted, the Initiative would both: (a) implement ranked choice voting to allow voters to rank up to five candidates according to their preference in each contest for any office (other than political party offices); and (b) permit any voter who is not registered with a political party to vote in the primary election of that voter’s choosing for all offices (other than political party offices). This Initiative will not be implemented unless the D.C. Council separately chooses to appropriate funds for the projected costs.”
In July, the DC Council approved funding for just part of the law's implementation in an 8-4 vote. The Council stopped short of funding the initiative’s open primaries component.
Next year’s races in Washington, DC, are expected to be some of the most competitive in decades. Mayor Muriel Bowser announced on November 25 that she would not seek re-election.
Nevertheless, Felder has introduced emergency legislation requiring what he called a “comprehensive needs assessment” before rollout. He questioned whether election administrators can realistically prepare the system in time for the Democratic primary in June 2026, considered the most decisive election in the heavily Democratic city.“We are not making a small change here; we’re changing the way people vote in the District of Columbia,” Felder said.
At a hearing last week, Board of Elections Director Monica Evans said the agency can still meet the deadline, but her comments suggested it would take a heroic effort to pull it off. “We’ve been asked to do the impossible in the past,” Evans said.
She testified that there is a plan and that the items that need to be finalized include ballot size and design, software updates, and an audit plan.
"Knowing that we have support from individuals who have already been in these shoes is very helpful to us as we finalize our plans and hit the ground running come January," she said.
Felder continued to ask whether she needed more time. Evans said she felt caught between opponents who want to halt the system altogether and supporters who expect immediate implementation. “I feel like I’m being set up to be the fall guy,” she said.“
Do you have sufficient resources to implement ranked choice voting in the DC Primary Election in 2026?” Ward 5 Councilmember Zachary Parker asked Evans. Evans said it was hard to answer with yes or no.
“The reason I say that is [that] more time, more money means more touch points. So we will absolutely be able to engage in a voter outreach campaign, but as far as how robust that campaign will be, that will depend on dollars,” she said.
Felder will need to persuade at least eight other council members on December 2 to support his bill delaying the law.
In Maine, it took some time to recognize that the primary obstacle to implementing RCV was the unprecedented collusion between senior political leaders from the two major political parties. In the midst of the battle, then-Republican Governor Paul LePage threatened to continue a government shutdown and called RCV “the most horrific thing in the world.”
The Democratic opposition was not as overt but clearly as dangerous. The Democratic secretary of state, Matthew Dunlap, was unwilling to fulfill his legal responsibility to begin the implementation of RCV immediately after RCV became the law on January 7, 2017. Instead, he engaged in a legislative lobbying and public relations campaign to convince members of both parties and his government staff that it was okay to ignore and repeal the results of a free and fair election.
He argued for at least a year that RCV was impossible to implement and would result in “cars burning in the streets” of Maine. He also overestimated the cost of the reform by more than $1.4 million. Ultimately, Dunlap was forced in court to recant his absurd claims and implement the law.
RCV was first used in Maine on June 12, 2018, and voters have used it in 8 statewide elections since then without incident. RCV will be the method used in the Democratic and Republican primary elections for U.S. Congress in June 2026 where both Dunlap and LePage are currently candidates.
DC Ranked Choice Voting at Risk: Council Moves to Stall 2026 Implementation was first published by IVN and republished with permission.
equity, inclusion, diversity
Even before Trump’s actions against DEI, many in the academic community and elsewhere felt for some time that DEI had taken an unintended turn.
What was meant to provide support—in jobs, education, grants, and other ways—to those groups who historically and currently have suffered from discrimination became for others a sign of exclusion because all attention was placed on how these groups were faring, with little attention to others. Those left out were assumed not to need any help, but that was mistaken. They did need help and are angry.
Another problem with DEI is that it maintains, if not amplifies, a sense of victimization and anger toward the broader society. It supported a us-versus-them perspective. There was no effort in DEI to bring minority and majority groups together to help change the current dynamic. The assumption was that if you were going to protect your rights, you had to fight for them. And so it unintentionally further polarized an already polarized society.
Because of these problems, some in academia and state government have adopted the concept of pluralism to replace DEI. The concept of pluralism, broadly stated, is that everyone is recognized as part of the whole, that all voices are allowed to speak and be heard, and that opposing groups learn to talk to each other with respect and, hopefully, find a way to bridge historical animosities.
This is a good thing; polarization is very harmful for all concerned. But from what I’ve read, it appears that the baby has been thrown out with the proverbial bathwater.
Discriminated-against groups still need their own space, their own support group, because the rest of society is so lacking in understanding of their history and nature. And of the discrimination that they have not only suffered from historically, but are still suffering from today, despite all the laws that have been passed, and the impact of that discrimination.
If the dominant culture truly comes to accept pluralism—with all minority groups respected—then there might be less need for such identity groups. However, I think there would still be a legitimate need. I have never understood, for example, why the gay ghetto, which was such a wonderful, nourishing experience, was felt by gays to no longer be necessary once society became more accepting of gays. We have truly lost something that was not necessary.
We may be accepted, but we have a rich culture, and it can only thrive when we’re living together. And regardless of how much accepted, we will never feel the belonging bond we felt living in the gay ghetto. The same is true for other groups. Society is a large, cold, amorphous body; everyone benefits from belonging to a group where they feel they truly belong. That does not have to lead to conflict with the larger society if one is treated with respect and truly accepted for who they are.
Further, it should not be seen as destructive of or inconsistent with pluralism for groups to speak out against current discrimination, racism, or misogyny in our country. Pluralism requires respect for everyone by everyone. It’s the equivalent of the classic lawyer’s statement that “Reasonable men may differ.” It’s about coexisting with civility regardless of differences.
If that is not the current status—and that is certainly not the status now with racism, discrimination, and misogyny being widespread—then not only should it be ok to call out such violations of the spirit of pluralism, but this must be done. Otherwise, pluralism will be a delusion.
In the 90s, multiculturalism was given a bad name, just as DEI has now, and for much the same reason—for emphasizing our differences, rather than our commonality.
What America needs at this point in time is a combination of pluralism and DEI; it's not one or the other, as I've stated. Through this combination, we will both emphasize our commonality—the fact that we are all Americans and human beings—and support the vitality and equality of the subcultures within our midst, fostering a sense of respect, home, and belonging.
But we cannot have a reasoned discussion of this matter—or better put, not implement it—because Trump and his MAGA allies are not only against DEI efforts, but they don't support pluralism. Trump provides ample evidence of his lack of respect for women. Still, perhaps the most unvarnished example of the growth on the far-right of nativism and an anti-everything other than the white male perspective is the rise of podcaster Nick Fuentes, who has said that "women should shut the f* up," that Blacks "need to be in prison for the most part," and "white men should run everything."
There can be no effective DEI or pluralism while Trump and MAGA-adherents hold the reins of power in our government and have the support of almost half the population.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
Americans are not confused. We are exhausted.
We’ve watched a Congress that no longer works, a Supreme Court that often ignores its own ethical obligations, and a Justice Department hesitant to enforce the laws it was created to uphold. Leaders promise to serve the people — yet spend their time serving donors, factions, and themselves.
And here is the question no one in Washington seems brave enough to ask:
How long can a democracy survive when its leaders stop listening — and when the citizens who elected them stop demanding accountability?
Families are paying more for groceries. Healthcare feels fragile. Schools struggle. Public trust in government is near historic lows — just 20% of Americans approve of Congress’s performance.
Yet many voters shrug when officials break the law, mislead the public, or abandon their constitutional duty. Some do not vote at all — then express outrage at the consequences of their own inaction.
Democracy cannot function when citizens tolerate corruption or remain silent.
Nothing illustrates this moral collapse more vividly than January 6 — the day the U.S. Capitol, the heart of our democracy, was attacked. Police officers were beaten. The peaceful transfer of power — our most sacred civic ritual — was threatened. Speaker Nancy Pelosi led the House through the crisis, while then‑Representative Mike Johnson reportedly worked behind the scenes with loyalists to keep President Trump in power. Some members of Congress minimized the attack; others defended the rioters. Millions of voters ignored who was responsible. The country watched in disbelief.
After his first impeachment, Senator Susan Collins said she believed President Trump had “learned his lesson.” But he hadn’t. He did it again — abused his power, incited violence, and continues to defy the rule of law.
And this time, he did so with the tacit support of the highest court in the country.
The Supreme Court has refused to enforce clear ethical standards, declined to recuse justices with glaring conflicts of interest, and delayed rulings that could have protected the integrity of our elections.
Meanwhile, those who tried to hold Trump accountable — leaders like former Rep. Liz Cheney and former Sen. Mitt Romney — were penalized. Cheney lost her leadership role and her seat. Romney chose not to run again, citing the toxic political climate.
Where was the courage to do the right thing?
Those who incited violence were later pardoned or had their sentences reduced. Their victims — the officers who were beaten, the staffers who hid in fear, the lawmakers who fled for their lives — were victimized again.
Our system of accountability is broken. And it is deeply frustrating.
Where are our checks and balances when the most powerful can lie, incite violence, and walk away untouched? Right now, Congress and the courts are failing to exercise those powers at all. Justices accept gifts from billionaires and refuse to recuse. Members of Congress skip votes and dodge oversight without consequence.
True service means listening to the people, conducting audits, acknowledging failures, and collaborating across party lines. Leaders must remember they legislate for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike — not for factions or donors. Transparency is not optional: budgets, proposals, and votes must be open to the public. Ethical standards must be enforced through codes of conduct, whistleblower protections, and independent oversight. Congress must use its checks and balances responsibly, safeguarding free and fair elections from interference. Leaders must cut out obstruction and partisan theater that wastes time and erodes trust. These are not radical demands — they are the basics of ethical leadership.
When citizens stop paying attention — or stop believing their voices matter — democracy suffers.
Trust collapses. Laws are bent. Courage is punished. And the people are left with leaders who serve themselves.
Accountability takes courage — and too many leaders lack it.
They fail to hold themselves accountable when they break promises, skip votes, or betray the public trust. They fail to hold each other accountable when colleagues lie, incite violence, or abuse power.
Instead of consequences, there are excuses. Instead of courage, there is complicity.
Accountability is not cruelty. It is clarity. It is the foundation of trust. And without it, democracy cannot survive.
Throughout my career in public education, accountability has made me stronger. Accepting responsibility for my failures was tough, but it paid off. It built trust. It built integrity. And it reminded me that leadership is not a performance — it’s a promise.
I wrote to my former representatives while they were still in office — urging them to vote in the best interest of our community. They didn’t. One knew she couldn’t run again — voters in our district had seen enough. Another lost public support for breaking promises. These were not partisan disagreements. They were failures of trust.
That’s why I check roll calls and track votes. I ask others to do the same — even family members in other states. But too often, they don’t. They complain, but they don’t engage.
This is how democracy erodes — not just through bad leadership, but through public disengagement.
Americans must not give up. We must pay attention. We must demand better — and reward those who lead with courage and conscience.
I understand why some people stay silent. In today’s climate, speaking up can be risky — especially in my state. Some threaten, intimidate, or try to silence voices that challenge power. But I write because this moment is too urgent to ignore.
I applaud my nephew in Georgia, who shows up at rallies, town halls, and meetings with leaders. He reminds me that courage is contagious. We don’t get discouraged. We know that our voices matter — for our children, our grandchildren, and the future of this country.
Silence is not an option.
Democracy demands participation. Accountability demands courage. And the future demands that we speak.
Call to Action
If you care about this country — speak up. Write your leaders. Check their votes. Share the truth. Hold them accountable. And never forget: democracy only works when we do.
Encourage leaders to compromise, collaborate, listen to the voices of the people, and hold themselves accountable for keeping their oath.
They want power. But it is time that Americans demand accountability.
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and advocate for ethical leadership and health care justice.
