Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Why local-level offices need independent candidates

Why local-level offices need independent candidates
Getty Images

Nagel leads the marketing team at Good Party, a company building free tools and a volunteer movement for independent candidates. Prior to his involvement in politics, Jack worked in tech startups, with previous stops at Help Scout and G2.

City governments are not just where Americans feel the most impact of government on their daily lives – they’re the last line of defense against hyper-partisanship. A recent piece in The New York Times revealed a sign of increasing tensions to come: Swing state legislatures this session have passed increasingly partisan agendas without mandates. Local governments, generally non-partisan, are where we can reverse this trend and govern by consensus. These races also provide the perfect platform for independent candidates to emerge as a solution to the two-party system that has devolved into chaos. By recruiting and electing truly independent candidates – those that have no party affiliation or financial backing of partisan special interests – we can foster talent and enthusiasm for a nationwide independent movement.


Early 20th-century progressives sought to make municipal governments – the bodies that have the most impact on the daily lives of the people they represent – more efficient. Today, 22 of the nation’s 30 most populous cities have non-partisan elections. But the promise of local governments escaping partisanship has not panned out. In a study of the San Diego City Council, professor Craig Burnett of Hofstra University found even with a nominally non-partisan council, all but one of the eight city council members consistently voted with their party affiliation. Furthermore, school boards nationwide have become the hotbed of the culture wars with substantial investment in candidates backed by partisan groups such as Moms For Liberty.

The consequences of this development are immense. Local governments hold the power to make decisions that directly impact our day-to-day lives. Increasingly, cities are shifting focus from filling potholes and providing services to wading into national politics. Some governments are even starting to weigh in on foreign policy issues, a far cry from the vision of municipal governments as efficient executors of the public will. This escalating partisanship has resulted in state legislatures punishing local governments with different party affiliations. In Nashville this year, the state attempted to halve the size of the Metro Council in retaliation to the body voting down a proposal to host the RNC in 2024.

Electing truly independent leaders will allow cities to focus on delivering results for their communities. True independents have an opportunity to act in the best interests of their constituents by not taking money from special interests or political parties that may influence their agenda. By refusing money from special interests and political parties, independents can govern based on consensus, eliminate corruption and waste, and prioritize the needs of the people they represent. This approach cultivates good habits in our future leaders, setting good habits for governance.

One of the main obstacles independent candidates face at the national level is their lack of a track record and a popular base to support their campaigns. By starting locally, true independents can gain the necessary experience and demonstrate their ability to govern independently. Plus, these races are winnable – nearly 70 percent of elected offices around the country are left uncontested, and most of these uncontested positions are at the local and regional levels.

This formula has worked elsewhere: Hillary Schieve went from at-large Reno city council to a three-term mayoral incumbent; Calvin Schrage gained experience on the Abbott Loop community council in Alaska to win a state house seat as an independent. Lastly, Ron Nirenberg, the independent mayor of America’s seventh largest city, San Antonio, ran a grassroots, underdog campaign for city council, priming his successful mayoral run.

One organization dedicated to electing more independent candidates around the country with the goal of ending the two-party system is Good Party. This year, they had over 750 participants from around the country say they’re interested in running for local office as independents, and are actively working with 22 individuals on serious mayoral and city council campaigns.

As one of their candidate prospects said, “Winning as an independent is not a moonshot.” By resisting the allure of the noisy federal environment and concentrating on winnable, impactful local races – a nationwide independent movement is just around the corner.


Read More

Protestors holding signs, including one that says "let the people vote."

Attendees hold signs advocating for voting rights and against the SAVE America Act at a rally to outside the U.S. Capitol on March 18, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Heather Diehl

SAVE America Act Debate Begins; Mullin for DHS Hearing

Both chambers of Congress are in session this week and next. The House will probably function about like it has been - lots of votes (often by voice) on uncontroversial bills; many fewer votes on Republican priority bills. Lots of hearings this week and a few legislator updates.

Committee Meetings

Both chambers have a busy week with 64 total committee meetings scheduled.

Keep ReadingShow less
Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less