Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The media needs to pay more attention to democracy reform

Opinion

Mary Peltola

Mary Peltola's win in Alaska shows the benefit of reforms. If only the media paid more attention, writes Bowe.

Ash Adams for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Bowe writes about politics in the digital age for Democracy Through the Looking Glass.

A closer look at the 2022 midterm results offers solid evidence that democratic reform efforts are a moderating political force, in a time when both the media pundits and the electorate are exhausted by the pugilistic style of politics today. This creates a powerful narrative that election reforms can fix the pain voters are feeling about hyper-partisanship today. But will the media even care?


First, the fate of the 10 Republican House members who voted to impeach Donald Trump after the events of Jan. 6, 2021, makes an interesting case study comparing the outcome between a partisan primary election system and a nonpartisan primary system. Seven of those lawmakers campaigned within a partisan primary system. The other three ran in nonpartisan primaries – advocated by democracy reformers – where the top two finishers in a single nonpartisan primary advanced to the general election.

All seven GOP House members representing places with partisan primaries will not be returning in January. Four retired (instead of facing certain defeat) and three lost — two annihilated — in their primaries. But two of the three who ran in nonpartisan “jungle” primaries were reelected, and the third fell just 68 votes short of the second-place finish needed to advance to the general election.

The data is clear. Depending on how the election rules are designed, results can have a more or less polarizing outcome. These 10 members showed a great deal of political independence — country over party — but only three were rewarded for demonstrating independence over blind partisan loyalty.

Then there is what happened in Alaska, with a new system of four candidates advancing from a nonpartisan primary to the general election — and using ranked-choice voting to determine which candidate has a majority of voter support. Again, the results gravitated toward the middle rather than the extreme.

In Alaska’s general election for Senate, moderate Republican incumbent Lisa Murkowski initially finished less than 1 point ahead of conservative GOP challenger Kelly Tshibaka (43.4 percent to 42.6 percent), but well short of the required 50 percent majority under RCV rules. In the final RCV tabulation — after the ranked votes from the two eliminated candidates were redistributed — Murkowski won with 54 percent. The moderate Murkowski captured 90 percent of the ranked vote from the two eliminated candidates, the bulk of which came from voters who initially voted for the Democratic candidate.

In Alaska’s House race, the dynamics were different, but the moderate outcome was the same. Most impressive, the dynamics of this House election were tested twice, less than four months apart, and achieved the same results.

Moderate GOP scion Nick Begich ran against GOP conservative icon Sarah Palin and moderate Democrat Mary Peltola in August to fill the remaining term of the late Rep. Don Young, and again in November. In both elections, Peltola won the initial vote, but fell short of a majority, with Palin finishing second and Begich third. After the ballots for Begich were redistributed to voters’ second choices, Peltola had more than the necessary majority of votes required to win.

Voters backing a Democratic candidate helped elect a moderate Republican to the Senate, and voters supporting a Republican candidate helped elect a moderate Democrat to the House.

So, the good news is the reform community has demonstrated how relatively minor reforms in election rules can elect more consensus-oriented politicians and can alleviate the political fatigue from which we all suffer. But, like the proverbial tree falling in the forest, if the media doesn’t give saturated coverage to the success of these reforms, did they even happen?

Historically, major media coverage of reform issues and successes has been nearly non-existent. This creates a major hurdle that must be cleared before reform advocates can win the hearts and minds of Americans and make major strides to achieve reform.

The challenge for democracy reform advocates is how to capture the attention (and imagination) of the mainstream media so they will tell these stories about how voters — when given the opportunity — will vote for moderation over extremism.

It certainly is a story worth telling.


Read More

news video camera
black video camera
Photo by Matt C on Unsplash

When the Cameras Went Dark: What a Press Ban Reveals About American Journalism

When I came to the United States from India in 1982, I did not trust newspapers. Back home, everyone knew which party a paper favored before reading a line. American television felt different. My family watched Peter Jennings every evening, and later I found Larry King on CNN, who let his guests talk instead of telling viewers what to think. That habit of holding everyone to one standard has mostly faded.

On Sept. 18, President Trump announced he was banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, saying their reporting was fake news. The next morning the Secret Service took reporters’ badges at the gate. The outlets sued on Monday, and Fox, ABC, NBC and CBS declined to take CNN’s turn in the television pool. On Sept. 24, Judge Timothy Kelly, whom Trump appointed, blocked the ban for 14 days. He found the outlets likely to win on due process, because reporters got no notice and no chance to respond, and he doubted the government’s national security explanation. Trump’s answer was to call the judge “totally disloyal.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman sitting and typing on laptop on her lap.

AI chatbots are always guessing, even when they sound sure. Experts and Claude itself explain the AI trust gap, bias and why to check sources.

Oscar Wong/Getty Images

AI’s Information Crisis: Why Trust Is Harder to Sustain Than Ever

In all the debates about human and machine intelligence, one thing has become clear: We humans love to talk about AI. We’ve speculated whether AI will create or eliminate jobs, revolutionize or destroy science, comfort or torment us, entertain us brilliantly or rot our brains, or some combination of all these things. But amid the noise, we may have paid too little attention to a subtler impact: how AI is disrupting our relationship to information and making it harder to know what to believe.

The problem isn’t just deepfakes, the malicious manipulation of images, video, and audio. Even benign, well-intentioned AI applications can be profoundly misleading. The nature of the large language models that power chatbots means that they are always guessing, however confident they seem. How can we use AI to produce reliable information that improves public discourse rather than distorting it?

Keep ReadingShow less
Digital illustration of robot's hand holding and supporting man who is working on his desk using computer, represent themes of artificial intelligence (AI), the future of work, and the intersection of humanity and technology.

Universal basic income would cost trillions. Wage insurance, a bigger child tax credit, and a tax break for work could help workers left behind by AI at a fraction of the price.

Andriy Onufriyenko / Getty Images

AI’s Costs: The Human Element & the Response

The age of AI will be a revolutionary age. In medicine, engineering, and more, there is the possibility of great benefit to humanity. Consider some Wall Street Journal headlines: “The Quest to Use AI to Help Find New Drugs,” and “Fusion Startup Gets an AI Boost.” Already, AI is a substantial portion of GDP growth.

Yet a rising tide will not lift the boats with holes in their hulls, as Jack Kemp once said. Artificial intelligence is challenging our leaders to think about those possibly left behind. Within the AI community itself, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei expresses concern that we could see 5-10% GDP growth with 10% unemployment.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a block with the words, "AI," on it, surrounded by slightly smaller caution signs.

Efficient AI may not mean less energy. The Jevons paradox shows why demand can grow, and why no one can say yet where AI’s real limits will be.

Getty Images, J Studios

The People Selling You the Future Don’t Know It Either

Artificial Intelligence is everywhere and can no longer be avoided. Will there ever be a ceiling for the expansion of this technology? AI companies are not just selling software. The story about the inevitability that AI will have in transforming work, education, medicine, art, government, and daily life is much more profitable. People must accept the transformation or be left behind. They are selling behind a mask of certainty.

The court of public opinion on AI has concluded that this technology is too energy-consuming for the benefits it allegedly brings and the ways many people use it. Therefore, companies have shifted their agendas to presenting efficiency as a solution to the technology’s enormous need for power. Smaller, better models and chips, and more efficient data centers may reduce the energy required for a single text-based request or generated image. If those improvements make AI cheaper to use, it will be invited into more daily life right?

Keep ReadingShow less