Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
At Unrig online, talk of voting at home to save lives
Griffiths is a contributor to Independent Voter News.
The coronavirus pandemic has put a strain on American life and the democratic process. Voters want a meaningful say in the 2020 elections, but they don't want to risk their health to exercise their constitutionally protected right to vote.
In response, the vote-at-home movement has gained significant traction as reformers and election officials consider the best methods and practices to keep voters safe while protecting their civil rights.
What vote-at-home brings to the broad conversation on improving the democratic process was the topic of the first of a six-part, virtual Unrig Summit series, hosted this week by RepresentUs, to keep voters connected to the movements to transform the American political process.
"As it stands now, if the president chooses not to debate the Democratic nominee, it is much more likely that no debates will be held, thus denying voters an opportunity to hear from the candidates," writes Shawn Griffiths.
Could the presidential debates look different this fall?
Griffiths is a contributor to Independent Voter News.
The rules that govern American elections were not set up by a neutral government board or body. They were set up by the Republican and Democratic parties — not to promote fair competition or advance choice, but to ensure a political advantage.
As former Gehl Foods CEO Katherine Gehl puts it, the political industry "is the only industry where people are told competition is bad for the consumer."
Can't argue with science: An MIT study supports unrigging elections
Griffiths is a contributor to Independent Voter News.
The beginning of the 2020 presidential election was an unmitigated disaster. Results that should have been reported the night of the Iowa caucuses instead took days as a result of technical issues with an app and inconsistent numbers being reported. Politicos were baffled while accusations of a rigged process arose after the candidate with the most votes didn't leave with the most delegates.
At the center of the controversy was independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, and suddenly the question became whether or not we would witness a repeat of 2016. Was the party once again trying to sabotage the Sanders campaign? Are we looking at yet another rigged 2016 presidential primary process?
Many Sanders supporters took to the Internet to cry foul, while Sanders called the caucuses an "embarrassment" and a "disgrace."
Something has to give: The case for independents
Mikalaski is a staff writer for Independent Voter News and marketing coordinator for IVC Media, a digital marketing firm affiliated with IVN.
This is the first in a three-part series on independent voters.
The most basic right in a healthy democracy is the right to vote. Without this right, governments can turn into the worst of autocracies and dictatorships, ignoring the needs of citizens and abusing the power of the state. Voter discrimination is not a new phenomenon and has been around since the very beginning of the United States.
When we talk about voter discrimination in the U.S., many obvious examples come to mind.
When our country was formed in 1776, only white men over the age of 21 were allowed to vote. Black men weren't legally given the right to vote until the 15th Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1870 and even so, previously Confederate states passed Jim Crow laws that continued to systematically disenfranchise black voters.