Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Democracy Madness: Electoral vote pact wins best election reform idea

Democracy bracket
vasosh/Getty Images

In a bracket defined by upsets, it seems only fitting the underdog would be crowned champion of the Elections "region" of our reader-driven contest to come up with the single most important democracy reform proposal.

The No. 11 seed, completing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, routed multimember congressional districts (No. 9) to seal its trip to the Democracy Madness Final Four.


Getting states to promise their electoral votes to the national (not their own states') winner of the popular vote has been gaining momentum, especially since Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016 with 306 EVs — despite getting 3 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton.

Sixteen states and Washington, D.C. have all enacted laws binding themselves to the pact. But it only takes effect once states with a majority of 270 votes in the Electoral College join. So far the deal is about three-quarters done: The states now in the compact have a combined 196 electoral votes — although Coloradans will vote this fall on whether to pull out.

The compact has gained steam as the leading alternative to outright abandoning the Electoral College. That's a near impossibility because it would require amending the Constitution and smaller states would never agree.

The popular vote compact barely bested independent redistricting commissions in the previous round. That way of combating partisan gerrymandering was favored to win after the first seed, popular-vote presidential elections, got skunked by the proposal to have several people represent each House district.

The popular vote compact will square off in the Final Four against ranked-choice voting, which has already won the Voting quarter of the draw.

Before getting there, champs have to be crowned in two other divisions. Sixteen proposals for reforming money in politics will go head-to-head starting Monday. After that, readers can whittle down 16 "best of the rest" ideas.

See the full regional bracket.


Read More

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

This question is not an exercise in double-talk. It is critical to understand the power that our Constitution grants exclusively to Congress, and the power that resides in the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 recognizes that distribution of power by saying that a President can only introduce military force into an existing or imminent hostility if Congress has declared war or specifically authorized the President to use military force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less