More Equitable Democracy launched in January 2018 and serves as a nonprofit intermediary working with communities of color to advance electoral system reforms that increase representation for underrepresented communities. We strive to be co-creators within these communities to establish stronger bonds of democracy while empowering these groups with education, research, and the tools to strategically implement long-term change.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.
Getty Images, J Studios
No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That
Sep 10, 2025
In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.
In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.
But young people in the United States can’t do this. This is not because they are uniquely apathetic or disinterested in politics. Rather, as a new Protect Democracy and New America report argues, it is because the winner-take-all electoral system makes it nearly impossible to create new political parties in the U.S. A more proportional and permissive electoral system would allow young people to realistically start new political parties, and the enhanced electoral competition from having more parties would also jolt the existing parties into doing a better job of appealing to young voters and investing in young candidates.
In a winner-take-all system, only the one candidate with the most votes wins the representation of the entire district, so voters and parties organize around the two candidates that have a shot at winning, resulting in a two-party system. Voters, wary of wasting their votes, vote for the candidate who might win, even if it means not voting for their preferred candidate. Third parties don’t enter races because they know voters won’t waste their vote on them or because they could spoil the election. In proportional systems, even if a party or candidate doesn’t come up at the top, they can still win a seat, so voters are more likely to vote sincerely, and smaller parties are more likely to be created and participate in elections.
Besides making it easier for young people to start a party, proportional systems can also improve the participation of young people in politics through other mechanisms. While in winner-take-all systems, electoral victory depends on swing voters; In proportional systems, parties can win more seats with additional votes, so they have incentives to include young candidates on their candidate lists to appeal to young voting groups. Moreover, because multiple candidates can win in a district under proportional representation, parties can run young candidates without necessarily displacing older politicians. This makes it easier for parties to invest in young political talent while keeping experienced incumbents.
Without a proportional electoral system, young political entrepreneurs in the U.S. don’t have the option of creating partisan alternatives. Instead, they have to work within the parties and dislodge incumbents if they want to win a seat and have real influence. Needless to say, older incumbents are in no rush to step aside for young politicians.
For the rest of young people frustrated with the existing parties, the two-party system forces them to either choose between voting for the party they consider the least worst or not vote at all. For many young people who do not feel represented by the two parties and who feel that politics is not working for them, disengaging from politics becomes a rational response. But this disengagement creates a vicious cycle: if young people don’t participate as much in elections, candidates don’t seek out their votes, which further alienates young people from politics, and so on.
As a result, older people dominate American politics to the point that many now refer to the country as a gerontocracy, ruled by older people. Among OECD countries, the U.S. stands out for having the biggest age divide between elected officials and constituents and for having the highest share of representatives over 60 years of age. While older age comes with experience, the exclusion of young people from politics means the country is missing out on the talent, ideas, and energy of younger generations, and risking that young voters turn their backs on democracy.
Electoral reforms, like the adoption of proportional representation, can bring young people back into politics and improve politics for all. So while organizing around a new party is a fool’s errand right now, organizing around electoral reforms may be a winning strategy for disaffected young people and for the country overall.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
red meat in white plastic bag
Photo by Jonathan Cooper on Unsplash
A Witch Hunt Won’t Feed America
Sep 10, 2025
Missouri’s food economy runs on undocumented labor. Turning a blind eye won’t work anymore.
In meatpacking plants across Missouri, hundreds of workers clock in before dawn, keeping one of the state’s most essential industries up and running. Many of them are Latino immigrants, some undocumented, who have become the invisible backbone of Missouri’s $93.7 billion agriculture economy. They’re the ones who process the pork and clean the poultry that end up on our dinner tables.
This reality isn’t unique to Missouri. It’s mirrored in agricultural communities across the country, where immigrant workers form the foundation of our food system.
Meatpacking is grueling, dangerous work. With injury rates three times the national average, hazards like amputations, high-speed production lines, and constant repetitive motions that can cause musculoskeletal issues are daily realities while on the floor. Workers must face long hours in cold, loud environments, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with little break time and limited, if any, access to personal protective equipment (PPE). These working conditions declined during the COVID pandemic and remain demanding today.
And in spite of the risks, undocumented laborers continue to make up a substantial portion of the workforce; about 23% of workers are undocumented, and 42% are foreign-born in this sector.
The U.S. is criminalizing the very people keeping it fed. Immigration crackdowns don’t just break up families; they break supply chains. That means meatpacking plants losing essential workers, farms going understaffed, and local economies potentially being pushed to the brink.
The meatpacking industry has a long history of worker exploitation, though.
Meatpacking plants were first built in large cities where workers had better access to unions and collective bargaining. However, new companies began relocating to rural areas, where union presence was weaker and labor costs were lower, effectively moving the industry away from its unionized roots.
With the move to rural areas, plants recruited Latin American immigrants to fulfill the low-wage, demanding jobs that native-born workers were less willing to do.
Even though undocumented workers pay taxes and significantly contribute to the nation’s economy, they still lack labor protection in U.S. labor laws. They live every day among escalated anti-immigrant rhetoric and threats of deportations and family separations hanging over their heads.
These workers are not transient, but rather embedded in the communities they help sustain. In fact, most undocumented immigrants in America have lived here for more than a decade.
Relying on a workforce without legal protections is an unsustainable and flawed model for employers and workers.
Mass deportations would weaken the economy, and the consequences would ripple across our food system. Unharvested crops, higher food prices for consumers, and reduced domestic food production can follow major labor shortages.
“You would see farms go out of business, and we could see interruption in our food supply,” testified American Farm Bureau Federation president Zippy Duvall before the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee earlier this year.
This country and its people must find both a just and effective path forward for those who have repeatedly contributed to and are so vitally part of our success.
This raises the question: How do we protect those who maintain our food system while they remain increasingly vulnerable?
It is essential to recognize the role of H-2A visas in meeting agricultural labor needs. These visas enable foreign nationals to obtain temporary work permits for agricultural jobs when local workers are unavailable.
This system provides some assistance, but it also has its own financial and administrative barriers: its complex paperwork and high costs limit accessibility, especially for smaller farms. Simplifying the process, reducing expenses, and expanding the program to cover year-round positions would better meet the needs of farmers.
Visas fall far short of addressing the deeper, structural issues behind the agricultural workforce crisis. What’s needed is reform that builds a stable, sustainable, and humane labor system for the future of American agriculture.
Comprehensive immigration and labor reform is a long-term, politically complex process and goal.
In the meantime, we must focus on practical, community-based solutions.
One such approach is to invest in bilingual outreach and support networks that can advocate for workers. Partnerships like these should be expanded and permanently funded, not just in crisis moments throughout states.
In Missouri, the Migrant Farmworkers Assistance Fund (MFAF) provides essential bilingual case management and emergency assistance to migrant farmworkers and their families. The nonprofit’s staff meet with migrant workers upon their arrival at local orchards to help determine eligibility for public benefits, access medical and dental services, and assist with school enrollment for their children.
Monarch Immigrant Services, based in St. Louis, plays a vital role in promoting equity and stability for these groups as well. By providing mental health services, social support, legal assistance, language services, and senior engagement to over 3,000 individuals, they’re effectively working to invest in immigrant and refugee communities through equitable access to transformative services.
Local solutions can – and do – provide immediate relief. These services not only keep workers uplifted, but they also help them remain stable and resilient.
Another potential step is the adoption of fair labor certification programs that hold employers accountable and provide consumers with a means to support ethical practices, according to Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy.
For example, the Equitable Food Initiative (EFI) works with farms to certify that produce is grown under safe, fair, and dignified conditions. Participating operations have the opportunity to integrate worker voice, foster collaboration between managers and workers, and recognize the value of all staff.
It's important to recognize that many migrant workers endure abuse and exploitation out of fear of deportation.
Groups like Centro de los Derechos del Migrante (CDM), a transnational organization aiding Mexico-based migrant workers in the U.S., assist migrant workers in confronting these injustices. Ensuring that labor migration policies reflect workers’ voices and priorities, CDM collaborates with workers to transform the power imbalances that harm people in the H-2A and other temporary work visa programs.
Promoting equitable practices in local agriculture and raising awareness about available resources can help safeguard the well-being of these essential community members. We must realize that protecting them is a shared responsibility.
It’s up to us to speak out for those who are too often silenced, even if, at times, it feels like our messages empty into an abyss. We cannot continue to accept the labor of undocumented workers while treating them as disposable. We cannot have a witch hunt and a workforce at the same time.
As someone whose community was once welcomed and rebuilt after war, I believe in this country’s ability to honor the dignity of all workers, regardless of status. We owe it to the people who feed us every day. They deserve more than fear and invisibility. They deserve protection, recognition, and a seat at the table.
Know your rights during recruitment and at work. Learn how to protect your rights and issues such as discrimination and sexual harassment, expenses and reimbursements, and fair wages.
Workers can also share their experiences and review their recruiters and employers to prevent recruitment workplace abuses at contratados.org.
For help with workplace or recruitment problems, contact Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc. (CDM). CDM can assess your situation, recommend the best course of action, and accompany your case throughout the process. CDM never charges workers for services.
U.S.: (667) 217-5738 | Mexico: 55-96-61-6771
Layla Halilbasic is an incoming junior at Webster University in St. Louis and a cohort member with the Fulcrum Fellowship.
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.
Please help the Fulcrum in its mission of nurturing the next generation of journalists by donating HERE!
Keep ReadingShow less
Recent data shows that Americans view members of the opposing political party overly negatively, leading people to avoid political discourse with those who hold different views.
Getty Images, Richard Drury
How To Motivate Americans’ Conversations Across Politics
Sep 09, 2025
Introduction
A large body of research shows that Americans hold overly negative distortions of those across the political spectrum. These misperceptions—often referred to as "Perception Gaps"—make civil discourse harder, since few Americans are eager to engage with people they believe are ideologically extreme, interpersonally hostile, or even threatening or inferior. When potential disagreement feels deeply uncomfortable or dangerous, conversations are unlikely to begin.
Correcting these distortions can help reduce barriers to productive dialogue, making Americans more open to political conversations.
Reducing barriers is part of a broader category of civil discourse motivation. Additional ways to motivate involve showing the attractiveness of engaging across the political spectrum. We think of two broad categories of civil discourse motivation: "positive motivation" (increasing the desire to participate), and "lowering barriers" (reducing what makes participation feel hard). Motivation is vital to getting Americans to engage with each other.
Perception Gap corrections mostly address the latter category of lowering barriers, but both categories are useful to support healthier discourse. In this article, we highlight a couple of other ways to lower barriers, and we briefly explore methods of positive motivation.
Our organization, More Like US, focuses on college campuses, which are especially important places to do this work, particularly given the heightened tensions following the violence in the Middle East that began on October 7, 2023.
Americans Have Overly Negative Distortions (Perception Gaps) of Each Other
The data shows that Americans view members of the other political party overly negatively. As shown below, this includes exaggerated perceptions of ideological extremity, interpersonal hostility, inferiority that can exacerbate stereotypes, and even a willingness to use violence.
- Ideological extremity: According to More in Common’s original Perception Gap study, Americans believe that approximately 55% of individuals in the opposing political party hold extreme views, whereas the actual number was closer to 30%.
- Interpersonal hostility: Also from More in Common research, only 12% of both Republicans and Democrats say it is fine to treat those in the other political party with hostility during political conversations. However, both Republicans and Democrats think more than 40% of those in the other party believe that is acceptable behavior.
- Inferiority that can exacerbate stereotypes: The Pew Research Center found that the majority of Americans see those in the other party as more closed-minded, dishonest, immoral, and unintelligent. To some extent, the findings likely also indicate some degree of stereotyping: Democrats have been more likely to describe Republicans as closed-minded (potentially corresponding to stereotypes of backwardness or excessive adherence to tradition), and Republicans have been more likely to describe Democrats as immoral (potentially corresponding to stereotypes of a lack of belief in God or support for religion).
- Willingness to use violence: The Polarization Research Lab surveys hundreds of Americans every week. One of its questions, which has now reached over 150,000 Americans, shows greatly exaggerated views of the other side’s support for political violence. Less than 4% of both Democrats and Republicans support throwing rocks at peaceful protesters from the other party that result in a head wound. Yet those in both parties think about 45% of those in the other party would support such an action, a difference of more than 40 percentage points.
Correcting Perception Gaps Lowers Barriers to Political Conversations
If someone sees those on the other side as more extreme, interpersonally hostile, inferior, stereotypical, and/or threatening than they actually are, it is understandable that they would hesitate to engage. These highly negative and exaggerated impressions exacerbate a core psychological barrier to dialogue: intergroup anxiety.
More in Common’s "The Connection Opportunity" report identifies intergroup anxiety as the single most important factor reducing willingness to engage across political lines. Perception Gaps, our tendency to assume the worst about political outgroups, fuel that anxiety.
Intergroup anxiety is likely to be high when people perceive that a person from “the other side” is likely to have extreme and completely different views, act in aggressive ways (e.g., combative, dismissive, unreasonable), and possibly be morally or cognitively inferior. Given these assumptions, simply opting out of conversations can feel like a safe choice.
But when these misperceptions are corrected—when people learn that their peers are more ideologically similar, open and respectful, and generally better people than expected—these barriers begin to lower. The imagined risks shrink, and the sense of permission to engage grows.
Conversations can then seem doable, rather than seeming like daunting tasks requiring deep “bravery” or “courage” (as some groups in this space seem to suggest).
Lowering these barriers does not require deep shifts in worldview. Relatively modest corrections, like learning that others are less extreme or hostile than assumed, can reduce anxiety and make conversations feel more approachable.
Conversation Motivation Includes Both "Positive Motivation" and "Lowering Barriers"
To better understand how to encourage political conversations, it helps to distinguish between two types of motivation: the desire to do something and the reduction of obstacles that discourage it.
Using a sports example, a child’s aspiration to emulate their favorite baseball player represents an increased desire to participate, what we call positive motivation. Meanwhile, severe outdoor allergies constitute an obstacle. Providing allergy medication or immunotherapy would thus reduce the obstacle, what we call lowering barriers. Both additional positive motivation and lowered barriers increase the likelihood of participation.
As explained above, correcting Perception Gaps is a clear example of lowering barriers.
Other methods can also lower barriers. For instance, teaching dialogue skills overcomes a major concern about having the capacity to engage well. Opportunities to model good civil discourse can also reduce hesitancy to engage when students see others successfully doing so.
Then there are approaches that can encourage participation by increasing interest—what we call positive motivation.
At least among college students, one strategy is to highlight that students often enjoy these conversations more than they expect. Surveys from Unify America’s Civic Gym suggest that cross-partisan discussions can be energizing and rewarding. Emphasizing these outcomes can spark interest.
Another potential area of positive motivation involves emphasizing broad and long-term benefits (e.g., attractiveness to employers, ability to handle social situations).
Finally, messages encouraging values (e.g., curiosity, open-mindedness) can provide positive motivation to some. From some of the earliest studies in psychology, it has been shown that people generally want to see themselves as “good.” If this “goodness” means being, say, curious and open-minded, then some can change their behaviors to align with this conception of desirable attitudes and behaviors. Some advocates of curiosity in terms of cross-ideological dialogue include Mónica Guzmán and The Viewpoints Project.
Some approaches can both lower barriers and increase positive motivation. For instance, as mentioned above, modeling effective civil discourse can reduce hesitancy. And for some, it can actually inspire and be a source of positive motivation when they want to be like those they see successfully conversing with each other.
More Like US Seeks to Increase Motivation for Political Conversations on College Campuses
Our organization, More Like US, has a focus on college campuses, especially to motivate civil discourse. Our two active projects in fall 2025 can improve motivation to engage:
- Let’s Be SVL: Starting at Vanderbilt University in fall 2025, this effort includes messaging designed to address the misperceptions many students have of one another that reduce motivation to engage in political conversations. The mnemonic SVL, pronounced like civil, can also motivate conversations by giving students simple, repeatable guidance about how to successfully dialogue across the political spectrum: share Stories, relate to others’ Values, and closely Listen.
- Arts for America: This is a workshop for college students to use their talent in the Arts to better portray fellow Americans across the political spectrum. "Arts" is broad, including audio, video, visual art, stories, live performances, games, social media posts, and more. The content the students create can reduce misperceptions of each other across the political spectrum, lowering barriers to engage.
More Like US is also planning future efforts to shift norms and increase motivation to have civil discourse across politics on college campuses. The National Social Norms Center (NSNC) at Michigan State University and its predecessors have worked for over two decades to correct misperceptions about dangerous health behaviors, such as binge drinking on campus. They have found that students overestimate how much their fellow students drink; once these misperceptions are corrected, students drink less. Now, More Like US and NSNC seek to use the same logic to correct misperceptions and problematic social norms that inhibit dialogue on campus, such as by helping students see that more of their peers across politics are more open to dialogue than expected. When conversations feel both socially supported and personally manageable, more students are likely to take part.
Conclusion
When Americans assume that those who disagree with them are far more extreme or hostile than they really are, dialogue may never even begin. These misperceptions feed intergroup anxiety. Correcting these misperceptions reduces that anxiety, lowering a major barrier to engagement.
Learning dialogue skills and seeing others effectively model discourse can also reduce hesitation to engage.
Still, lowering barriers by reducing anxiety is only part of the equation. Motivation also depends on positive motivation, including highlighting surprising enjoyment, long-term benefits, and values that encourage engaging with one another.
All of these motivational tools can unlock conversations that may not have happened otherwise.
James Coan is the co-founder and executive director of More Like US. Coan can be contacted at James@morelikeus.org
Imre Huss is a current intern at More Like US.
Keep ReadingShow less
RFK Jr. has publicly challenged the safety of vaccines, although the evidence he cites is widely disputed by mainstream scientists, medical institutions, and public health experts.
Getty Images, Jackyenjoyphotography
Just the Facts: Vaccine Safety, RFK Jr.’s Claims, and Florida’s Mandate Rollback
Sep 09, 2025
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is currently the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services and is responsible for shaping national health policy, managing public health programs, and guiding medical research and regulatory frameworks.
He has publicly challenged the safety of vaccines, including required childhood immunizations and COVID-19 vaccines. However, the evidence he cites is widely disputed by mainstream scientists, medical institutions, and public health experts.
What are the facts?
What the Research Says About Safety
- Hundreds of large-scale studies have examined the safety of vaccines like MMR (measles, mumps, rubella), DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis), polio, and others.
- These studies consistently show that routine childhood vaccines are safe, with no link to autism, diabetes, fertility issues, or developmental delays.
- The American Academy of Pediatrics, CDC, and World Health Organization all affirm that the risk of serious adverse effects is extremely low.
What Are the Known Side Effects
Most vaccine side effects are short-lived and mild:
- Fever
- Soreness at the injection site
- Fatigue or fussiness
However, There Are Rare but Documented Risks, Which Include:
- Febrile seizures (linked to fever, not brain damage)
- Severe allergic reactions (anaphylaxis occurs in about one in a million doses)
- Blood clotting issues (extremely rare and typically treatable)
These risks are tracked through systems like VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) and Vaccine Safety Datalink, which monitor and investigate any patterns.
What Are the Issues Related to Vaccination Misinformation
- The MMR-autism myth has been thoroughly debunked. Over 27 studies have shown no causal link.
- Experts caution that repeating misinformation—even to refute it—can reinforce false associations. That’s why clarity and nuance are key in public discourse.
Why Do Vaccine Mandates Exist
Required vaccines are designed to:
- Protect individual children from serious illness
- Create herd immunity to prevent outbreaks
- Safeguard vulnerable populations (e.g., infants, immunocompromised individuals)
When mandates are weakened, as seen in recent policy shifts in Florida, experts warn of increased risk for outbreaks of preventable diseases like measles and polio.
What Are RFK Jr.'s Key Claims?
- Vaccines cause harm, including death, especially among young people. He has endorsed statements like:
- Doctors recommend vaccines for financial gain. He claimed pediatricians are “pressured to follow the money, not the science,” suggesting financial incentives drive vaccine recommendations.
- Aluminum in vaccines causes autism and other chronic conditions. He misrepresented a large Danish study, claiming its supplementary data showed “calamitous evidence of harm,” despite the study concluding no link between aluminum-containing vaccines and autism.
- Children receive an excessive number of shots. He has claimed that children get up to 92 mandatory shots, which is factually incorrect. Most states require around 30–32 shots across 10–12 diseases.
What Are the Scientific Rebuttals to RFK’s Claims
- Medical experts and fact-checkers have repeatedly shown that RFK Jr. cherry-picks data, misinterprets studies, and relies on anecdotal or non-peer-reviewed sources.
- The CDC, FDA, WHO, and American Academy of Pediatrics maintain that vaccines are rigorously tested and monitored, with benefits far outweighing risks.
- VAERS, a system RFK Jr. often cites, collects unverified reports and explicitly warns that entries do not imply causation.
Are There National Mandates for Child Vaccines or Do Just States Mandate Vaccinations?
- Under the Tenth Amendment, states hold the “police power” to protect public health and safety. This was affirmed in the landmark 1905 Supreme Court case Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which upheld a state’s authority to mandate smallpox vaccination during an outbreak.
- The federal government does not impose universal vaccine mandates for children. Its role is more about guidance and funding—for example, through the CDC’s recommended immunization schedule and programs like Vaccines for Children (VFC).
School Entry Requirements
- Every U.S. state requires certain vaccines for children to attend public (and often private) schools.
- These typically include:
- DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis)
- MMR (measles, mumps, rubella)
- Polio
- Varicella (chickenpox)
- Hepatitis B
- States also define exemptions, which vary widely:
- Medical exemptions (allowed in all states)
- Religious exemptions (allowed in most)
- Philosophical exemptions (allowed in some)
Does the Federal Government Have Any Influence on Vaccination Mandates?
While the federal government doesn’t mandate vaccines for schoolchildren, it can:
- Require vaccines for immigrants, military personnel, and federal employees
- Tie funding conditions to vaccine compliance in healthcare settings (e.g., Medicare/Medicaid facilities)
Is Florida Considering Ending the Mandates for Vaccines?
Florida is actively working to end all childhood vaccine mandates, which would make it the first state in the U.S. to do so. Governor Ron DeSantis and Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo announced plans to phase out vaccine requirements for schoolchildren, including those for:
- Measles
- Polio
- Chickenpox
- Hepatitis B
- DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis)
Ladapo described current mandates as “immoral” and likened them to “slavery,” arguing they infringe on parental rights and bodily autonomy.
What Is the Legal Path Forward in Florida?
- The Florida Department of Health can repeal mandates it enacted through its own rulemaking.
- However, some vaccine requirements are written into state law, so legislative action will be needed to eliminate them entirely.
- A new “Make America Healthy Again” commission has been formed to guide this effort, chaired by Lt. Gov. Jay Collins and First Lady Casey DeSantis.
Has There Been Pushback From Experts to the Florida Proposal?
- Pediatricians and public health officials warn that this could lead to outbreaks of preventable diseases, especially in schools.
- Florida already has a higher-than-average exemption rate, with most being nonmedical.
- Critics say the move prioritizes ideology over science, while supporters frame it as a win for medical freedom.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More