Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Second Debate, Round 2: Anyone care about democracy reform?

Second Debate, Round 2: Anyone care about democracy reform?

Democratic presidential candidates rarely mentioned democracy reform on night two of the July debates.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

The Democratic debates so far have hardly been a robust forum for democracy reform discussions, but Wednesday night's session was a new low. The topic was almost entirely ignored.

At the three previous debates this summer, the party's presidential candidates have called for expanding voting rights, getting money out of politics and cleaning up government ethics. This time, the 10 candidates used their time on stage in Detroit to hash out their differences on health care, immigration, crime and climate change policies for more than two hours – spending minimal time on anything else.

Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington had the only clear mention of a topic dear to the hearts of government reformers when he proposed fundamentally changing how the Senate works in order to end this extended period of congressional gridlock.

Even if the Democrats win the presidency, hold the House and take a majority of Senate seats next year, he warned, Republicans look certain to retain more than enough seats (41 or more) to block whatever legislation comes their way. And so, Inslee said, "We've got to get rid of the filibuster so we can govern the United States" with simple majorities on both sides of Capitol Hill.


Ahead of the second round of debates, seven of the candidates signed the "Reform First" pledge by End Citizens United, an advocacy group that is mainly interested in shrinking big money's sway over campaigns and governing. By signing, these candidates vowed to make democracy reform legislation the first thing they would pursue after taking office.

Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York were among the signatories. But both kept mum on proposals for fixing the political and governing systems throughout Wednesday's debate.

Rather than talk about any of those topics, Bennet, Gillibrand and the others instead chose to focus almost all of their time on confronting the front-runner, former Vice President Joe Biden. And since Biden has been quieter than anyone else in the top half of the field on matters of democracy reform – he hasn't taken a stand on nine of the 17 leading proposals – there was minimal material on this front for his rivals to bring up and then attack.

It's also the case that CNN's moderators didn't ask anything related to reform on either night, just as NBC's questioners avoided the topic on both debate nights in June.

"Our media must do better. In 2016, moderators asked endlessly about Hillary Clinton's emails. This year, Democratic candidates have been asked whether nominating a socialist would re-elect Donald Trump," the political reform author David Daley wrote this week in Salon. But so far "no one has asked about how we end partisan gerrymandering, about the impact of voter ID on communities of color, or about whether we should rethink the Electoral College."

"It's long past time for them to do their jobs," he said of the political press corps. "It's only representative democracy that hangs in the balance.

Here's a look at how (little) democracy reform fit into Wednesday debate.

1 and 13 — Hour and minutes, until the first mention of anything related to democracy reform. The debate was nearly halfway over when Inslee came out against the filibuster.

16 — 'Reform' references. The word was popular — just not on democracy-related issues like voting rights, access to the polls, campaign finance or the revolving door between government and K Street. All the mentions were tied to health care, immigration or the criminal justice system.

8 — Candidates who said nothing on the topic. Only Inslee and Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey had anything to say on reforming the structure of elections or government, which at last tally, a majority of Americans aren't too fond of.

1 — Nod at voting rights. Most candidates have championed a revival of the Voting Rights Act and talked of other ways to eliminate barriers to the ballot box. Yet, only Booker mentioned voting rights, saying he would "fight against voter suppression."

Reform quotes of note

Booker: "I will be a person that tries to fight against voter suppression and to activate and engage the kind of voters and coalitions who are going to win states like Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."

Inslee: "But if we get a majority in the U.S. Senate, because of the position of these senators, not a damn thing is going to get done. And I'll tell you why. With all their good intentions — and I know they're very sincere and passionate and I respect them enormously — but because they embraced this antediluvian super-majority thing called the filibuster, Mitch McConnell is going to run the U.S. Senate even if we take a majority. We've got to get rid of the filibuster so we can govern the United States."


Read More

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

US Capitol and South America. Nicolas Maduro’s capture is not the end of an era. It marks the opening act of a turbulent transition

AI generated

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

The U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro will be remembered as one of the most dramatic American interventions in Latin America in a generation. But the real story isn’t the raid itself. It’s what the raid reveals about the political imagination of the hemisphere—how quickly governments abandon the language of sovereignty when it becomes inconvenient, and how easily Washington slips back into the posture of regional enforcer.

The operation was months in the making, driven by a mix of narcotrafficking allegations, geopolitical anxiety, and the belief that Maduro’s security perimeter had finally cracked. The Justice Department’s $50 million bounty—an extraordinary price tag for a sitting head of state—signaled that the U.S. no longer viewed Maduro as a political problem to be negotiated with, but as a criminal target to be hunted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red elephants and blue donkeys

The ACA subsidy deadline reveals how Republican paralysis and loyalty-driven leadership are hollowing out Congress’s ability to govern.

Carol Yepes

Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis

Picture a bridge with a clearly posted warning: without a routine maintenance fix, it will close. Engineers agree on the repair, but the construction crew in charge refuses to act. The problem is not that the fix is controversial or complex, but that making the repair might be seen as endorsing the bridge itself.

So, traffic keeps moving, the deadline approaches, and those responsible promise to revisit the issue “next year,” even as the risk of failure grows. The danger is that the bridge fails anyway, leaving everyone who depends on it to bear the cost of inaction.

Keep ReadingShow less
White House
A third party candidate has never won the White House, but there are two ways to examine the current political situation, writes Anderson.
DEA/M. BORCHI/Getty Images

250 Years of Presidential Scandals: From Harding’s Oil Bribes to Trump’s Criminal Conviction

During the 250 years of America’s existence, whenever a scandal involving the U.S. President occurred, the public was shocked and dismayed. When presidential scandals erupt, faith and trust in America – by its citizens as well as allies throughout the world – is lost and takes decades to redeem.

Below are several of the more prominent presidential scandals, followed by a suggestion as to how "We the People" can make America truly America again like our founding fathers so eloquently established in the constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money and the American flag
Half of Americans want participatory budgeting at the local level. What's standing in the way?
SimpleImages/Getty Images

For the People, By the People — Or By the Wealthy?

When did America replace “for the people, by the people” with “for the wealthy, by the wealthy”? Wealthy donors are increasingly shaping our policies, institutions, and even the balance of power, while the American people are left as spectators, watching democracy erode before their eyes. The question is not why billionaires need wealth — they already have it. The question is why they insist on owning and controlling government — and the people.

Back in 1968, my Government teacher never spoke of powerful think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, now funded by billionaires determined to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Yet here in 2025, these forces openly work to control the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court through Project 2025. The corruption is visible everywhere. Quid pro quo and pay for play are not abstractions — they are evident in the gifts showered on Supreme Court justices.

Keep ReadingShow less