Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Meet the reformer: Aaron Hamlin, the man behind approval voting

Meet the reformer: Aaron Hamlin, the man behind approval voting

Hamlin giving a talk on voting methods at the 2018 Effective Altruism Global Conference in London.

Center for Election Science
Aaron Hamlin is executive director for the Center for Election Science, which studies various ways to improve voting and has focused recently on approval voting. Under this method, people can vote for as many candidates as they wish, and the person with the broadest approval emerges as the victor.

What's the tweet-length description of your organization?

We study and advance better voting methods. We have a focus on approval voting, which empowers voters to choose as many candidates as they want — most votes wins. This addresses vote splitting, always lets you support your honest favorite, and tends towards a more consensus winner.

What's democracy's biggest challenge, in 10 words or less?

We use the world's worst voting method. It's really bad.


Describe your very first civic engagement.

I helped pass out fliers for a local candidate while I was in grad school. It was freezing cold and drizzly, but I powered on!

What was your biggest professional triumph?

After we got our initial funding at the end of 2017, I was able to hire strong staff so that our team — collaborating with our partners in Fargo, N.D. — helped bring approval voting to its first U.S. city. And that all happened in under a year.

And your most disappointing setback?

Taking so long for initial funding. Those were precious missed years that could have gone towards empowering voters with better elections.

How does some aspect of your identity influence the way you go about your work?

I try to merge sound reasoning and good ethics. For instance, my background is in the social sciences, so I apply that to the way we hire, going as far as blinding ourselves to candidates' names. Our organization is very outcome-oriented so we focus only on pertinent metrics instead of trivialities like in-your-seat time. I also go out of my way to deliver on employee benefits. It makes organizational sense as it allows employees to focus on their work and stay with us longer. But it's also just the right thing to do.

What's the best advice you've ever been given?

Be sure to sleep and exercise.

Create a new flavor for Ben & Jerry's.

Vegan Rocky Road. Chocolate with almonds and chocolate chips made from Ripple-brand pea milk.

West Wing or Veep?

I'd rather watch the last season of The Good Place.

What's the last thing you do on your phone at night?

Probably reading a dorky article I just found.

What is your deepest, darkest secret?

One of my hobbies is lock-picking. I taught myself in college and now attend meetings of the lock-picking group TOOOL.


Read More

AI chip
a computer chip with the letter a on top of it
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

We Should Regulate AI to Make It Grow Faster

The debate over artificial intelligence has become divided between two powerful ideas: that we need a “moratorium” to slow AI until we can make it safe, and that regulating AI will slow the innovation we need for our economy and national security. Both concerns are legitimate. But “moratorium” and “slowing AI growth” are divisive terms: they reassure those concerned about AI's safety, economic and environmental consequences while alarming those who see AI competition and national security as urgent priorities. We need a different starting point—meaningful regulation that provides the safeguards necessary to protect people, communities and the environment while creating the conditions for AI to continue growing. The experiences of Europe and China challenge the assumption that regulation must slow AI.

China has combined increasingly detailed, technology-specific AI regulation with substantial government support for AI development. Recent studies provide evidence that this approach can promote innovation. One 2026 study of Chinese companies from 2017 through 2023 found that the creation of national AI innovation and development pilot zones significantly increased corporate digital transformation, in part through increased research and development, human capital and reduced transition costs. Another 2026 study, covering Chinese manufacturing companies from 2014 through 2024, found that the same policy significantly promoted the adoption of intelligent technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

A Brief History of Prevention Through Deterrence

The U.S. Border Patrol agency has evolved greatly over the years, shifting its focus to address changing national security concerns. It was originally established in 1924 to restrict illegal immigration by Chinese and European immigrants before moving to restrict alcohol smuggling during Prohibition. The agency adopted its current focus on illegal immigration from Mexico during the 1970s, when immigration pressures coincided with a severe economic recession in the United States. In 1994, the Border Patrol released a strategy document with the support of the Clinton administration which introduced an approach to immigration known as Prevention Through Deterrence. This tactic aimed to discourage border crossings by funneling immigrants through border entry points with harsh terrain, in contrast with previous policies based on arrest and apprehension post-entry.

Successful Prevention Through Deterrence is measured by fewer encounters and apprehensions at the border, indicating that illegal attempts to enter the country have been prevented and deterred. Barriers to entry are policed by a range of physical infrastructure like fences, vehicle barriers, and other blockades designed to stop illegal foot and vehicle traffic. These measures are supported by camera- and thermal-based surveillance systems as well as measures like deportation and criminal charges which impose legal consequences on migrants. The focus of Prevention Through Deterrence operations themselves is twofold: establishing control of high-traffic border sectors and using security measures to enable the seizure of contraband.

Keep ReadingShow less
A microphone in the foreground and a crowd, blurry in the background.

INC ‘26 gathered independent leaders in D.C. to unveil a seven-candidate slate, a Fulcrum Caucus strategy and new tools for corruption-free governance.

Getty Images, uschools

Independent Movement Unites at INC ’26 to Build National Power

From September 23–25, leaders from across the American independent political movement gathered at the JW Marriott in Washington, D.C., for the fourth Independent National Convention (INC ’26). Produced by United Independents, the event brought together hundreds of participants representing political reform organizations, independent campaigns, alternative parties, civic initiatives and grassroots organizing efforts.

The gathering reflected the breadth of activity outside the traditional two-party system while addressing a persistent challenge: translating America's large independent constituency into greater political representation, institutional capacity, and coordinated action.

Keep ReadingShow less
Meeting, handshake and business people with deal in office for funding approval and success.

Four Reds and four Blues reached unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration, then presented them to Reps. Fitzpatrick and Suozzi. Here’s how it worked.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

On Immigration, Common Ground May Be Closer Than We Think

Immigration has become one of the issues pulling Americans apart. Earlier this month, at a constituent conversation in Bristol, Pennsylvania, I watched eight Americans with very different political views offer a glimpse of how it does not have to stay that way.

Four “Reds” and four “Blues” — terms used for participants on the political right and left — sat across from Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), the Republican and Democratic co-chairs of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, to present something increasingly unusual in our politics: unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration developed through an earlier Common Ground Workshop.

Keep ReadingShow less