Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Restore confidence in elections through mandatory poll duty

Election workers

Election workers in Atlanta help check in a voter at a polling place during Georgia's Senate runoff election on Dec. 6.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Simon is a technology consultant and a contributing author of “Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework.”

No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, it’s clear that democracy in America has been weakened by events over the past decade. In fact, one of the few things that people can agree on in an increasingly polarized country is that the very foundations of American democracy have become threatened. In such an environment, we need to look for ways to strengthen our trust in the democratic process.

There is no magic bullet to quickly restore Americans’ confidence in elections; that trust will need to be rebuilt over time. For those who have lost faith in the election process, regardless of the reason, it will take many small building blocks to repair the foundation. To that end, I propose that establishing “election poll duty,” akin to jury duty, could be one of those building blocks.


Some factions in America have been attacking the election process by raising doubts about voting methods, tabulation of votes, voting equipment and systems used, as well as the audits and controls built into the process. At the same time, experts in the field widely view recent elections as some of the most secure in American history.

My contention is that the more people understand the process, the less likely they would be to try to bring it down. If more people were to participate in the election polling process over time, this would increase the understanding and appreciation for what goes on — thereby making it harder to cast aspersions on the process with baseless attacks.

Currently, most people are aware that they could be called upon for jury duty. Names are periodically selected from motor vehicle records, voter registration or other governmental records within the state to serve on jury duty. If your name is called, you are legally required to fulfill your obligation as per state rules and regulations. On the other hand, election poll workers are generally volunteers. Fortunately, we have enough civic-minded people in the country who are willing to serve in these roles as election officials, although it has become harder to serve amid increasing personal threats.

There are plenty of volunteer opportunities that don’t require specialized skills or technical knowledge, just a little training. By treating election poll staffing like jury duty and selecting a cross-section of people to serve, we would promote collaboration with other people in a nonpartisan fashion to conduct elections. Polarization has effectively eliminated communication across party lines; random selection of election poll works could help promote communication and understanding that is noticeably absent in society today.

If we are going to stem the tide of polarization in America and restore faith in the election process, we will need to take collective action. The concept of compulsory election poll duty would be a small, but important, step that could be part of a grassroots effort to help preserve the common principles that bind all of us together as Americans.


Read More

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

This question is not an exercise in double-talk. It is critical to understand the power that our Constitution grants exclusively to Congress, and the power that resides in the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 recognizes that distribution of power by saying that a President can only introduce military force into an existing or imminent hostility if Congress has declared war or specifically authorized the President to use military force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less