Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Mapping accountability power relationships

Mapping accountability power relationships
Getty Images

Kevin Frazier is an Assistant Professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University. He previously clerked for the Montana Supreme Court.

I’m not proud to admit it, but I’m a better husband when my mother-in-law visits. I walk a little faster to get to the door. I add a few extra “pleases” and “thank you's.” And, I’m slightly less cheap--making sure I cover some meals, cocktails, etc.


Theoretically, I should do all these things on a daily basis -- trust me, my wife deserves it. In practice, it’s human nature to be a little “extra” when you’re in the presence of someone with accountability power -- a product of their ability to impose significant consequences on you and their likelihood of doing so.

If I didn’t bring out my A game around my mother-in-law, there’s some chance that she’d caution her daughter against a life with a selfish or stingy partner. That’s why she has accountability power over me - although I like to think I’m on her good side at this point, even the slim odds of such a dire consequence is enough to put a little pep in my step.

Mapping accountability power relationships explains a lot of how the world works. Your boss, for example, wields substantial accountability power over you. They can fire you (significant consequence) and will fire you if you continually fall short of expectations (high probability).

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Your colleague, on the other hand, has far less accountability power. Worst case, they complain to your boss about something you’re doing (low-to-medium consequence). And, that worst case is somewhat unlikely given that most co-workers try to give their colleagues the benefit of the doubt (low probability).

Allocating accountability to different individuals and groups can drastically change behavior. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC, wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups faced fewer barriers to investing their substantial funds in elections. As a result, typical Americans have seen their accountability power disappear faster than a toddler trying to avoid clean-up time.

Today, megadonors to political campaigns have vastly more accountability power over politicians than Average Joes and Janes. First, they have more to give -- a politician has a significant incentive to make sure they’re the recipients of those funds, rather than their opponent (significant consequence). Second, they are more likely to give -- megadonors have specific policy goals in mind; they actively search for whichever candidate will do the most to advance that goal and will act on that information (high probability).

Under this theory of accountability power, it’s no wonder politicians think less about potholes and more about tax loopholes. The main tool Americans use to hold politicians accountable--their vote--is of minimal consequence (when analyzed in isolation) and has a relatively low probability of occurring (a lot of folks don’t vote).

Making politicians responsive to Main Street Americans requires increasing our collective accountability power. We need mechanisms to impose significant consequences on politicians and we need to demonstrate our willingness to do so. As long as donors have the money and means to dictate elections, our primary means of holding politicians may not come through the ballot box. Restoring our collective accountability power, then, requires some democratic imagination.

This short piece can’t cover all uses of that imagination, but one place to start is with proxy voting. This mechanism is a regular feature in shareholder elections as well as in some labor union elections. Voters in those elections can delegate their voting rights to someone to vote on their behalf and in line with their preferences. If used in democratic elections, elected officials would face greater pressure to comply with public demands as a result of “increased” voter turnout and, likely, greater public attention to official’s actions.

Another is citizen’s assemblies. Imagine if 100 randomly-selected individuals convened on an annual basis to set an agenda for their elected officials. With this agenda in place, voters would have an easier means of assessing whether their elected officials acted on the will of the community rather than the will of those with the largest wallets.

Both of these ideas need a lot of work, raise a lot of controversial questions, and deserve consideration. Our politicians aren’t accountable to “we the people”. That’s a big problem that requires some big ideas.

Read More

Ballot box with Nevada seal on it
Baris-Ozer

Election integrity: How Nevada ensures safe and secure voting

While elections work differently depending on where you live, all states have security measures to ensure the integrity of every vote. With that in mind, The Fulcrum presents a six-part series on how elections work in swing states. Created by Issue One, these state summaries focus on each state's election process from registration to certification.

Our freedom to vote in fair and secure elections is the foundation of our system of self-governance established under the U.S. Constitution. As citizens, we have a voice that many people around the world do not.

Because the majority of elections are run at a local level, the voting experience can be very different depending on where a voter lives, but all states, including Nevada, have verification processes in place before, during, and after votes are cast to ensure the integrity of the election. Whether you cast your ballot in-person or by mail, early or on Election Day, your vote counts.

Keep ReadingShow less
A crowd of protesters in Times Square,, with one person holding a sign that reads "PROJECT 2025 is CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM" by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The sign includes the hashtags #StopProject2025 and au.org/project2025. The background features prominent advertisements, including a Meta billboard and the Nasdaq building.

Project 2025 would restrict freedom of religion, writes Quince.

Photo by Selcuk Acar/Anadolu via Getty Images

What kind of America do you want?

Quince, a member of the board of Lawyers Defending American Democracy, was the first African American woman to serve on the Florida Supreme Court and as chief justice.

On Nov. 5, in elections around the country, we will determine whether these United States of America will continue to aspire to be a democratic republic or whether this country will give up its freedoms and embrace authoritarianism.

As an African American female who has lived through — and is still living through — systemic racism in this country, I know that despite the flaws in our system, our best path forward is to continue to work for justice and equality for all, to work with and preserve the rule of law and embrace and strengthen the constitutional ideals that are the hallmark of our American democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court
Casey He

When the Supreme Court fails, are states' high courts an answer?

Toscano is an attorney and a former Democratic leader in the Virginia House of Delegates. He is the author of “Fighting Political Gridlock: How States Shape Our Nation and Our Lives.”

Montana and Kansas are typically viewed as politically conservative states. Donald Trump won both in 2016 and 2020 by hefty margins, and Democrats rarely prevail in presidential contests there. Bill Clinton was the last to win in Big Sky Country in 1992, and Lyndon Johnson was the last Democrat to take Kansas’ electoral votes in 1964.

While Democrats in both states can win statewide contests, their legislatures have been controlled by Republicans for decades, and now hold supermajorities in both chambers.

Keep ReadingShow less
Man holding an anti-abortion sign

The tangled threads of race, religion and power have long defined the anti-abortion movement.

Paul Hennessy/Anadolu via Getty Images

Abortion, race and the fracturing of the anti-abortion movement

Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.

The Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision sent shockwaves through the very soul of America, shattering the fragile peace that once existed around the issue of abortion. But amid this upheaval, a quiet reckoning is taking place within the anti-abortion movement itself — a reckoning that lays bare the tangled threads of race, religion and power that have long defined this struggle.

To truly understand this moment, we must first confront the roots of the anti-abortion movement as we know it today. It is a movement born mainly of the white evangelical Christian right, which found its voice in opposition to Roe v. Wade in the tumultuous decades of the 1970s and ‘80s. For many conservative evangelicals, the issue of abortion became a rallying cry, a bulwark against the perceived threats to traditional authority and values.

Keep ReadingShow less