Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Paging Mitch McConnell: Majority of Americans want more election security

Who's concerned about election security? The majority of Americans.

According to a new poll by the Brookings Institution, a majority of Americans support both additional funding and more technical assistance to help states protect against interference in the 2020 presidential election.

Perhaps the survey results and growing pressure from his own party will move Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to stop blocking legislation that would bolster election security.

The Brookings Institution poll of 2,000 adults conducted in early August found that 58 percent supported additional funding for election security and 60 percent endorsed more technical assistance to help states upgrade their election infrastructure to combat interference.


Only 19 percent opposed more funding and 23 percent opposed more assistance. About a quarter of those surveyed were "unsure" of either proposal, according to the survey.

Congress approved $380 million in election security grant funding to the states last year, but state officials have said the funds don't go far enough to protect all voting systems against cyberattacks.

The poll did find mixed results over concerns about foreign interference in elections and whether state officials were doing enough to protect the integrity of the ballot box.

Among those surveyed, 34 percent said foreign interference was "very much" a threat to American democracy versus 26 percent who said it was "not very much" of a threat.

On whether their state election officials were doing enough to safeguard voting machines, 32 percent said yes and 29 percent said no, with the majority (39 percent) saying they were unsure.

Nearly twice as many survey participants (29 percent) believed Democrats were doing more to fight foreign interference than Republicans (16 percent). The Democratic-led House of Representatives has passed election security legislation, and there are a number of bipartisan bills that have been introduced in the Senate. But McConnell has refused to allow a vote on any of them.

Over a quarter of those surveyed also said concerns about foreign interference will make them more likely to vote; only 3 percent said it will make them less likely.


Read More

​Teal shoes are displayed outside Naval Medical Center Portsmouth

Teal shoes are displayed outside Naval Medical Center Portsmouth in April 2018 as part of Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month.

Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Kris R. Lindstrom/U.S. Navy

Military Sexual Trauma Survivors Can’t Sue the Government. A New Bill Could Change That.

When Mayra Diaz opened the door of her Army barracks room in 2022, she didn’t realize it was the beginning of the end of her military career.

She had never met the soldier standing in front of her, Sgt. Greville Clarke. She didn’t know he had sexually assaulted three other women on base over the past 15 months, including one he threatened at knifepoint.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Horizontal photo of a DEMOCRATIC PARTY FLAG

Horizontal photo of a DEMOCRATIC PARTY FLAG with a stylized DONKEY with 3 white stars on blue top of donkey and two red feet. Flag is laying on top of a red, white, and blue American Flag.

Getty Images

How to Define the Democratic Party - Left or Centrist?

Labels can be misleading and misused. The label "Centrist" is empowering because it signifies you are mainstream, not extreme, a place where all people can come together. To be labeled "Left" is to place you outside the mainstream, extreme; left connotes a kind of kookiness as well as—horror of horrors—Socialism.

But are the labels accurate? For most of the 20th century, the Democratic Party was, without question, the party that championed the working man, the average person—the people. But they were nevertheless firm capitalists—they were not Socialists.

Keep ReadingShow less
US $1 dollar bill in mid air melting, red gradated background

From $215B to $7.14T: how outbound investment, falling labor share, and rising corporate profits reveal trickle-down economics' core flaw.

PM Images/Getty Images

Trickle-Down-Economics was Doomed from Day-One; yet Defended to Present-Day

By 1972, U.S. direct investments abroad amounted to $94.0 billion. This was two years prior to the development of the Laffer Curve in 1974 by American economist Arthur Laffer, famously sketched on a restaurant napkin during a dinner meeting in Washington, D.C. Therefore, the writing was on the wall regarding the vulnerability of Trickle-down economics, years prior to Reagan’s Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981.

Trickle-down economics fails primarily because outbound foreign direct investment (FDI) allows corporations and wealthy individuals to invest tax-cut windfall profits globally rather than domestically. The theory of Trickle-down economics predicted that lowering taxes on businesses and high earners will stimulate local capital accumulation, leading to domestic business expansion, job creation, and wage growth for everyone. However, in a highly globalized economy, capital is hyper-mobile. Instead of filtering downward into the domestic economy, these untaxed or low-tax profits frequently exit the country entirely.

Keep ReadingShow less