Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Motivote

Adulting is hard. Voting shouldn't be. Commit to vote with friends, compete, earn rewards, save democracy. A lot of messaging to voters focuses on motivation — trying to convince people why it's important to vote.

But studies actually show that planning outweighs strong motivation.


Take an example from health care: In a study of people with the goal of getting healthier, one group who read motivational material about exercise — but did not plan when and where they would do it — showed no increase in exercise frequency. On the other hand, 91 percent of participants who planned their intentions (by writing down when and where they would do it each week) ended up following through.

Why can plans make such a difference? As humans, we believe in the best version of our future self. We hope we’ll “just remember” to do something, leaving it to chance. But, too often, that idealized self bumps up against a reality where we get busy and distracted.

Plan-making encourages us to think through potential obstacles and develop strategies for overcoming them.

How can we apply plan-making to voting?

Encourage voters to think through the details of how they'll vote — the more nuanced, the better.

A foundational study shows that when voters got phone calls that walked them through plan-making prompts, like when they will vote and where they will be coming from before that, increased turnout by 4.1 percent.

Prompt voters to think through their voting method (absentee, early, Election Day?), when they are planning to go, what they need to bring, whether they need to request time off from work or find child care, etc. Bonus points for adding it to their calendar!


Read More

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate
the letters are made up of different colors

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key takeaways

  • The U.S. has no national AI liability law. Instead, a patchwork of state laws has emerged which has resulted in legal protections being dependent on where an individual resides.
  • It’s often unclear who is legally responsible when AI causes harm. This gap leaves many people with no clear path to seek help.
  • In March 2026, the White House and Congress introduced major proposals to establish a federal standard, but there is significant disagreement about whether that standard should prioritize protecting innovation or protecting people harmed by AI systems.

Background: A Patchwork of State Laws

Without a national AI law, states have been filling in the gaps on their own. The result is an uneven landscape where a person’s legal protections depend entirely on which state they live in.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stethoscope, pile of hundred dollar bills and a calculator

A deep dive into America’s healthcare cost crisis, comparing reform to a modern “moonshot.” Explores payment models, rising costs, and lessons from John F. Kennedy’s space race vision to drive systemic change.

IronHeart/Getty Images

The Moonshot America Needs to Solve Its Healthcare Crisis

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy told the nation, “We choose to go to the moon.” It’s often remembered as a moment of national ambition. In reality, the United States was locked in a Cold War with the Soviet Union, and the fear of falling behind in technological dominance made the mission unavoidable.

Today’s space race is driven by a different force. Governments and private companies are investing billions to capture economic advantages, from satellite infrastructure to advanced computing to the next frontier of resource extraction.

Keep ReadingShow less
After the Court's Voting Rights Decision - How to Protect Black-Majority Districts
a large white building with columns with United States Supreme Court Building in the background

After the Court's Voting Rights Decision - How to Protect Black-Majority Districts

The Supreme Court recently ruled that Louisiana violated the Constitution in creating a new Black-majority voting district. This was after a Federal court had ruled that the previous map, by packing Blacks all in one district, diluted their votes, which violated the Voting Rights Act.

The question is what impact the decision in Louisiana v Callais will have on §2 of the Voting Rights Act ... and on the current gerrymander contest to gain safe seats in the House. The conservative majority said that the decision left the Act intact. The liberal minority, in a strong dissent by Justice Kagan, said that the practical impact was to "render §2 all but a dead letter," making it likely that existing Black-majority districts will not remain for long.

Keep ReadingShow less