Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The new talk

Opinion

Tina Kotek

While Democrat Tina Kotek faced a stronger-than-usual GOP challenge for governor in Oregon, her party continued its dominance in a one-party state.

Mathieu Lewis-Rolland/Getty Images

Frazier is a recent graduate of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law and the Harvard Kennedy School.

We, the people, are the drivers of our democracy. But we’re no longer behind the wheel. Parties seized control and are steering us in a dangerous direction.

It’s time for us all to have the “talk” with anyone and everyone who cares about the future of our democracy. As a country, we’ve reached that special age where the consequences of our actions are solely our responsibility. We’re no longer that new democracy on the block that can blame its blunders on a lack of maturity.

Rather than birds and bees, we need to talk about R’s and D’s and what parties are doing to our democracy. We need to specifically talk about our mutual obligation to one another – as co-sovereigns over this great country – to register as “no party preference” or whatever the equivalent is in our respective jurisdictions.


Perhaps we, the people, were tired when we gave the keys to our democracy to parties. We had just fought for decades to free ourselves from out-of-touch and distant rulers who had little interest in our well-being and instead prioritized their own accumulation of power. So when parties offered us a chance to rest our eyes – to delegate decisions such as who would run our democracy and where they’d take us – we willingly switched to the passenger seat. “We’ll switch back at the next rest stop,” we thought.

Hundreds of miles later, parties are still in control and we, the people, are effectively sovereigns in name only. In states like Oregon, one party controls every stage of the electoral process. In that blue state, voters unaffiliated with the Democratic Party have no meaningful role in the selection of statewide officials. Thanks to a closed primary system, only registered Democrats can participate in the initial (and, in most cases, determinative) stage of the election – the candidate Democrats select in the primary almost always wins the general election.

Parties also rarely share the same goals as we, the people. Their main goal is to retain power, not to make sure they’re solving problems or communicating with constituents. Consider that incoming lawmakers are instructed to spend at least half of their day fundraising. If parties really were in our corner and truly wanted to address pressing issues – corruption, climate change and unequal access to economic opportunity, etc. – would they order officials to dial for dollars while they could be coordinating and collaborating to actually get work done?

Our democracy was designed to prevent state-based loyalties from undermining national progress. Our Founding Fathers feared that representatives would struggle to reach compromises that may benefit one state over another, which is why they designed the House and Senate in ways that would counteract the ability of a single state and its representatives to control our government.

The original design of our democracy did not include checks and balances with respect to extreme partisanship or party-based loyalties. It follows that parties are akin to an invasive species – something non-native to an environment that can wreak havoc when left unchecked.

We, the people, can no longer claim to be ignorant of the negative effect of parties on our democracy. We’re smart enough to identify candidates who should run for office; we’re aware of the problems in our community that need to be prioritized; and we’re capable of being back in the driver seat of our democracy.

It’s time for a new version of the "talk." We need to wake up to the fact that our democracy has been taken over by parties. The first step to taking back control is asserting our independence – registering as “no party preference.” As the ranks of NPPs grow, parties will have less and less authority to exercise our sovereign power.

Go have the talk. Find a friend. Tell them that we, the people, have a sovereign responsibility to care enough about our democracy to make independent decisions. Then, contact your secretary of state or election office and take that critical first step of reclaiming our position as the drivers of our democracy by freeing yourself from undying party loyalty.


Read More

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual policy conference at the Washington Convention Center March 6, 2018 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

After AIPAC failed to defeat El-Sayed in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary—after spending $32 million—it said that it remains committed to defeating El-Sayed and his "radical, anti-Israel" agenda in the general election. Which means it is poised to sink tens of millions of dollars in supporting Republican Mike Rogers. It also said that Haley Stevens, his opponent, had presented "an authentic Democratic agenda." Meaning that El-Sayed did not? And they think that Mike Rogers, a MAGA Trump supporter, does compared with El-Sayed?

How can AIPAC say that El-Sayed does not present an authentic Democratic agenda when his socialist stance is much more in line with the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence than most centrist Democrats'? And making it sound like AIPAC cares about an authentic Democratic agenda is deceitful, when in the same breath they make clear that they will support Mike Rogers, a Trump lackey, in the general election.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research
silhouette of person using microscope

Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research

Scientists and the federal government have been close partners since World War II. A landmark report by President Truman’s chief science advisor laid out a vision for government research that shaped eight decades of federally funded science. That vision is now at risk. In principle, the Trump administration has supported scientific research with its own vision for a new “golden age of science.” But in practice, the administration has upended the relationship between the government, researchers, and their institutions. The changes have alarmed working scientists and their allies, who have protested in record numbers.

In July, I moderated a webinar on “Rewriting the Rules: What’s happening to public science?” (read the transcript here). The webinar was co-sponsored by NAPA, CODE, and the Bridge Alliance, with Dr. Aaron Carroll of AcademyHealth, Dr. Chris Marcum of the Federation of American Scientists, Dr. Gretchen Goldman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Dr. Maryam Zaringhalam of the Center for Open Science. I also interviewed Cole Donovan of the Stand Up for Science Foundation by email.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why hasn’t the Princeton Redistricting Project spoken out?

The exterior of Capitol Hill

Getty Images

Why hasn’t the Princeton Redistricting Project spoken out?

The 2026 congressional map is finally set after ten states adopted new congressional redistricting maps for the November 3 General Election. Observers note that the Princeton Gerrymandering Project (PGP) has not graded any state’s maps since it gave California’s Proposition 50 an “F” on October 30, 2025.

The PGP has officially paused grading its Redistricting Report Card because founder Dr. Sam Wang, who transitioned from the Gerrymandering Project to the Electoral Innovation Lab, has launched a campaign for Congress in New Jersey’s 12th District, requiring him to step back from his academic roles, including his leadership at PGP.

Keep ReadingShow less
Impunity: Democracy and the Toll of Unchecked Harm

Lady Justice

Photo provided

Impunity: Democracy and the Toll of Unchecked Harm

Impunity is not only the failure to punish. It is a public answer to the question of whether harm matters.

Every democracy must repeatedly answer the question of impunity. When public trust is violated, or when law itself is manipulated or attacked, penalties matter. But the deeper question is whether a society can recognize injury and prevent further harm when it has lost the ability to clearly name wrongdoing.

Keep ReadingShow less