If you want to suggest a pro-democracy idea for coverage in The Expand Democracy 5, please use the contact form at Expand Democracy.
Bridging Divides: High-Profile Dialogues Across Ideological Lines⚡In an era marked by deep political polarization, recent events highlight the value of efforts to foster dialogue across ideological divides - from citizens in their communities to our political leaders.These moments aren’t just about the interviews themselves; they raise a bigger question: What happens when politicians choose to engage outside their usual echo chambers?
Take former Transportation Secretary and Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, who recently appeared on the Flagrant podcast, hosted by comedians Andrew Schulz and Akaash Singh. Flagrant is a self-described “unruly,” traditionally “anti-woke” podcast with a mostly male audience. Known for its bro-centric and often controversial content, this platform has previously featured figures like Donald Trump.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Buttigieg's nearly three-hour conversation drew praise for his openness to delve into topics ranging from political polarization to cultural divisions. “Mayor Pete” emphasized the importance of engaging with diverse viewpoints and criticized fellow Democrats for avoiding platforms like Flagrant, suggesting that such avoidance limits outreach and understanding. By the end of their conversation, it seemed as though he may have actually changed Schulz’s mind, with the host acknowledging the president’s lack of policy progress. Read Buttigieg's recap of the experience on his Substack.
Donald Trump draws understandable criticism for fostering division, but he also regularly goes out of his comfort zone – including speaking last year at conventions of the Libertarian Party and National Association of Black Journalists and bringing former Democrats Robert Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard into his campaign and leadership team. In a surprising move, Trump last week granted an Oval Office interview to The Atlantic's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, despite their fraught history – Goldberg had published a 2020 article accusing Trump of disparaging U.S. war dead as "suckers" and recently drew widespread attention by recounting his story of being accidentally added to a Signal chat among Trump administration leaders debating and sharing plans about a bombing campaign in Yemen.
Trump’s interview with Goldberg, which also included journalists Ashley Parker and Michael Scherer, covered a range of topics, including Trump's views on executive power, foreign policy, and his approach to governance in his second term. Trump described the interview as a test to see if The Atlantic could provide fair coverage, stating he was doing it "out of curiosity."
What it signals - and what we can all do: These moments underscore a growing public appetite for leaders who don’t just perform for their base, but are willing to engage with people who may not already agree with them. In an age of algorithms and partisan media, there’s power (and risk) in crossing those lines. But it’s also where the work of democracy happens: in discomfort, disagreement, and dialogue. If more politicians were willing to take that step onto unfamiliar podcasts, into skeptical rooms, across ideological battle lines, we might start to rebuild trust not by demanding agreement, but by showing up to be heard and to listen.
But let’s not leave it just to politicians. There is a vibrant “bridging” community creating opportunities for dialogue where anyone can participate. Check out resources of the Bridge Alliance, and groups like Braver Angels and Living Room Conversations.
[Mayor Pete with the Flagrant podcast hosts - image via Buttigieg Facebook page]
Press Freedoms: A Partisan Flip Reflects Deeper Democratic TensionsAs we look at declining faith in democracy, elections and institutions in general, adapting to the modern media landscape is of fundamental importance to sustaining healthy, flourishing democracies. But it’s fair from simple. A recent Pew Research Center survey reveals a significant shift in American concerns about press freedoms, closely tied to the political landscape. In 2024, during the Biden administration, 47% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents expressed high concern over potential restrictions on press freedoms, compared to 38% of Democrats and Democratic leaners. However, under the current Trump administration, these figures have reversed: 60% of Democrats now report high concern, while only 28% of Republicans share this sentiment.
This partisan reversal underscores how perceptions of press freedom are overly influenced by the party in power. The survey also indicates that individuals closely following news about the Trump administration are more likely to express concern about press freedoms. Among those paying close attention, 49% are extremely or very concerned, compared to 29% among those less engaged. The findings highlight the dynamic nature of public concern over press freedoms, reflecting broader tensions in democratic engagement and the importance of safeguarding journalistic independence across political divides.
Resources:
Rethinking Representation: Congress Considers House SizeToo often Americans assume that any election structure or rule in place for a generation or two was put in granite by our constitutional framers. Last week we talked about how the U.S. should not be fixed at 100 members from 50 states. Similarly, it’s high time to break the 115-year-old logjam of having 435 House Members. Before 1910, U.S. House size changed with every decennial census, but the lack of action that decade led to freezing growth even as our population has more than tripled.
A new bill introduced by Michigan’s Haley Stevens in the House of Representatives, H.R. 2797, proposes the establishment of a bipartisan commission to study the appropriate size of the House. The commission would be tasked with examining historical data, population trends, and comparative legislative structures to assess whether an increase in the number of representatives is warranted.
Proponents argue that revisiting the size of the House could enhance representation and ensure that each member serves a manageable number of constituents. Our Common Purpose, a project of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, has excellent sources supporting its commission recommendation for a larger House. Supporters believe that a larger House could lead to more responsive governance, better reflect the diverse interests of the American populace and create new opportunities to modify winner-take-all congressional elections. Although critics caution about potential logistical challenges and increased costs associated with expanding the legislative body, the case for a more representative, responsive Congress is strong
The Papal Conclave and Lessons for Voting💡On May 7, Catholic cardinals from around the world will convene in the Sistine Chapel of the Vatican in Rome, with 133 eligible and expected to participate in voting for a new Pope in the wake of the death of Pope Francis. Picking a new Pope does not happen in regularly scheduled elections. Indeed the last papal conclave in 2013 was the first in the last 600 years not triggered by the death of a Pope. The Vatican needs to organize quickly a process that is done quickly, well, and according to clear rules. The 2024 movie Conclave had its predictable Hollywood twists, but did capture key elements of the process accurately.
With deliberations in secret and with cardinals casting secret ballots, the conclave is designed to balance respecting majority rule with seeking consensus. This month, the new Pope must earn the votes of at least two-thirds of cardinals casting ballots - with that super-majority requirement restored in 2007 after the Church under Pope John Paul II explored allowing a winner with more than half the votes in the event of a deadlock. This means the ultimate choice may not be one of these initial frontrunners, depending on the need for compromise to bring cardinals on board - and the general public will never know who almost was chosen.
When electing leaders, large populations of voters can’t devote days to voting repeatedly to pick a leader. Parliamentary guides like Robert’s Rules of Order urge groups small enough to convene in person to follow procedures in the spirit of the conclave, at least until a winner has a majority of at least 50%. But supermajorities in associations are common too. Indeed, the Democratic Party for much of its history at presidential conventions required winners to earn at least 60% of the vote from delegates – meaning that a presidential candidate could earn more than 50% of the vote on the first ballot and still lose if not able to more definitively unify the party. The 1924 Democratic convention required 103 ballots and 15 days to pick a nominee.
When having remote voters and certainly when having more voters, ranked choice voting – termed “preferential voting" in Robert’s Rules of Order in its recommendation of it as an alternative – is increasingly common. For example, all five national parties in Canada now pick their leaders with RCV, and countless organizations and students at more than 100 American colleges and universities use RCV. Don’t expect an RCV ballot in Rome next week - but its unifying impact will certainly be present in spirit as the cardinals choose a new Pope.
[Cardinals participate in the fifth Novendiales Mass for Pope Francis - Credit:Daniel Ibañez/CNA]
Timely LinksWe close The Expand Democracy 5 with notable links, including followups to recent topics.
