Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Business meeting, blurred background and people in office for teamwork, collaboration and planning

Another recruitment drive won’t fix a nonprofit board. A practical guide to sharing real decision-making power with diverse members: acknowledge, affirm, act.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

Before Recruiting Diverse Board Members, Examine Who Holds Power

Nonprofit leaders keep asking me where they will find the next generation of diverse board talent. My question is what those leaders will be allowed to change once they arrive. In this piece, I outline concrete steps boards can take to ensure diverse members have real opportunities to shape organizational decision-making and to translate good intentions into meaningful progress.

In my board service and consulting work, I hear the concern from executives and grassroots activists alike. They worry about recruiting successors, sustaining funding, and governing organizations whose work increasingly depends on partnerships beyond their own walls. I share those concerns. I also wonder whether another recruitment initiative will solve what troubles them.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less