How have voting patterns in the Midwest & interior West trended relative to the national popular vote in presidential elections since 2000? Hint: we're seeing a lot of red. This episode features a discussion on part two of J. Mile Coleman’s’ analysis on trends in two party voting in presidential elections since 2000.
It's all about leverage. You hear this from a lot of people. Thomas Friedman said it years ago in one of his Sunday New York Times columns on foreign policy. He was referring to international relations. In particular, he was talking about bargaining leverage, namely the kind of leverage that is needed to motivate an ally or an opponent to change their course of action, whether it concerns trade, military build-up, or political alignments.
People in business, especially sophisticated big business, talk about leverage all the time. Gary Hamel and C. K. Prahalad wrote a chapter in their famous book, Competing for the Future, that was all about leverage, although the concept of leverage they were talking about was resource leverage, not bargaining leverage.
In fact, resource leverage captured the essence of the age-old concept of leverage first identified by the ancient Greek mathematician and scientist Archimedes, who said that if he had a pole that was long enough, a place to stand, and a fulcrum of some kind, then he could move the earth.
Hamel and Prahalad were focused on resource leverage in business when engineers and managers leveraged a product or a service in such a way that it created massive positive results. Uniting the tape recorder and the headphone, for example, led to the Walkman. They discuss many kinds of resource leverage and especially companies that are great at leveraging scarce resources.
Resource leverage and bargaining leverage both involve the broad concept of using a force, an input, to create a much larger force, the output. They are different, but they both fit under the concept of leverage. The same holds for financial leverage, which involves borrowing funds to make an investment (e.g., a house) that will, in time, yield large results.
I wrote a paper for the Brookings Institution in 2010, called "The Age of Leverage," which later became a book. The immodest thesis of this article was that our entire Age (a 25-50 year time period) revolved around the age-old concept of leverage. The idea was that leveraging was as old as Western Civilization—and probably Eastern Civilization, too. But it had grown in its use and influence as a result of the IT revolution, the end of the Cold War, the dismantling of the nuclear family, and the deregulation of the financial services industry.
In short, new inventions like the internet, as well as changes in the structure of authority, unleashed massive leveraging opportunities—even necessities in order to survive.
We should be teaching the concept of leveraging in middle school and high school. Students need to learn about this fundamental method—or tool—to achieve results. Leveraging would help students with career readiness, family life, and political and civic knowledge and action, which would strengthen our democracy.
Leveraging would help in career readiness because students need to learn how to network in order to get interviews and get jobs. Leveraging would also help in jobs because employees need to learn how to leverage relationships to produce better products and services. Leveraging would help in political and civic activities because young people need to learn how to work with others to promote social causes, regardless of their political commitments. Leveraging would help with family life because middle school and high school students need to learn good negotiating and good investment strategies. Learning how to network, work with others, get interviews, and collaborate with others to advance social causes, negotiate, and invest are obviously good things to know how to do. Leveraging provides an excellent umbrella to group together these tasks.
Leveraging, like technology, is morally neutral. Yet its capacity to promote democratic values is limitless. Good citizens need to be well-informed, fair, kind, respectful of each other's privacy, engaged in civic and political affairs, and they need to be skilled in resource, bargaining, and financial leverage. If my thesis that we live in the Age of Leverage is even half right, then the time is right to start using leveraging as the umbrella concept it is designed to be.
Dave Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.
If approved, the Democracy Voucher program would bring in $4.5 million each year through a property tax.
A public funding mechanism for Seattle elections is up for renewal in next week's election.
The Democracy Voucher program was passed 10 years ago. It offers voters four $25 vouchers to use each election cycle for candidates who accept certain fundraising and spending limits. Supporters said it is a model for more inclusive democracy, touting higher turnout, increased participation from more small donors and a more diverse candidate field.
Spencer Olson, spokesperson for the group People Powered Elections Seattle, which supports Proposition 1, said the program helps level the playing field.
"It's really important that people's voices are heard and that candidates can run being supported by their constituents," Olson contended. "Versus just listening to those wealthiest donors, those special interests that have historically been the loudest voices at the table and really dominated what priorities rise to the top."
The voucher is supported by a property tax. Olson and other supporters hope to bring the model statewide. Critics said the program is not big enough to make a difference in elections and has not curbed outside spending. Ballots are due by 8 p.m. Tuesday.
Olson pointed out the vouchers have succeeded in encouraging more diverse participation in local elections.
"The intention of the program was to bring a public financing program to Seattle elections to help empower more candidates -- more diverse candidates, women, renters, people of color -- to have equal access to be able to run, and run competitive elections without having to rely on wealthy donors, special interests," Olson emphasized.
Olson noted because the money comes from a dedicated tax levy, unused vouchers roll over to the next election.
"The goal isn't to create an unlimited pot of money but to be able to provide resources for candidates to run with the community's support," Olson stressed. "But it's not a blank check at the same time."
Eric Tegethoff is a journalist covering the Northwest for Public News Service.
Seattle Votes on Democracy Vouchers Designed To Counteract Wealthy Donors was originally published by the Public News Service and is republished with permission.
The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's interview series engages diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This initiative is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.
The latest interview in this series features Rahmin Sarabi, founder and Director of the American Public Trust, an organization dedicated to promoting and implementing deliberative democracy practices, such as citizen assemblies.
Deliberative democracy is a political concept that emphasizes the importance of discussion and consensus-building in the decision-making process. Its implementation, through interventions like participatory budgeting, where residents help decide how to allocate public funds, and citizen assemblies, where randomly selected residents deliberate and make policy recommendations, has gained traction in recent years. Successful examples in Brazil and several European countries have inspired pilots across the United States.
I spoke with Rahmin to explore why he sees deliberative democracy as a necessary antidote to the challenges facing our political system today. Proponents like Rahmin argue these reforms can reimagine democracy for a public that has grown deeply distrustful, while producing public decisions that are more representative. This perspective suggests that one of the central challenges in the pro-democracy sector is how we practice democracy itself.
Skeptics, however, raise both philosophical and practical concerns. Some argue that the U.S. is fundamentally governed as a republic, where elected representatives—not citizens directly—should make policy decisions. Others point to the cost and scalability of these practices. For example, convening a citizen assembly of 40 people in a municipality over several weekends is expensive and not easily replicable. This raises the question: do these processes meaningfully expand participation, or give a small group more access?
I posed these questions to Rahmin, whose responses reflected a thoughtful theory of change and a clear vision for why deliberative democracy matters. His key points included:
While acknowledging their value, Rahmin sees them as one tool within a broader collaborative governance toolkit:
“So, I think (citizen assemblies are) like the Mercedes Benz, or whatever metaphor we want. It's a powerful tool. It should be used on our toughest issues. But if we frame it as collaborative governance, there's a whole other set of tools that are more accessible in between as well.”
Many focus on the democracy part—the final recommendations—but Rahmin stresses the importance of the deliberation itself.
In an era of deepening affective polarization, when people struggle to engage across ideological divides, deliberative processes can create space for constructive dialogue. They allow participants to grapple with complex public problems while engaging with those who may hold opposing views—all within the context of solving a real issue.
As Rahmin articulates, “We need more voice in general. As much as we can move that voice in the direction of an informed voice, the better.”
For Rahmin, the goal isn’t incremental reform—it’s wholesale transformation:
As he expresses, “I think if this stuff just looks like incremental add-ons to the status quo - whatever liberal democracy that we've had the last 3 decades- no one's going to care….
So this is an area where, frankly, I'd love to have more allies envisioning how we can work better together, because otherwise we're preaching to the choir and having lovely Zoom calls amongst a very small community and not really reaching the public.”
Ultimately, Rahmin argues, we must offer people “a new kind of democracy.”
I came away from our conversation with a deeper understanding of the deliberative democracy sector and a clearer sense of how Rahmin sees its potential to transform—not just supplement—our democratic system.
Scott Warren is a fellow at the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University. He is co-leading a trans-partisan effort to protect the basic parameters, rules, and institutions of the American republic. He is the co-founder of Generation Citizen, a national civics education organization.
President Donald Trump finally acknowledged there is “real starvation” in Gaza—a reality that has generated momentum among holdout countries to recognize a State of Palestine, as 147 of 193 U.N. members have already done. Trump claims that this impermissibly “rewards Hamas.” Concerns about the optics of “rewarding” a militant group that is not the country’s government should not drive the decision to recognize Palestine as a state or the decision to maintain diplomatic relations with its government.
Countries that have already recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and the fact that the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) forms a defined geographic area with a government and a population—the traditional criteria for statehood. Countries that have not recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) lack of effective control over parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and to the idea that recognition can be used as future diplomatic leverage. But waiting to recognize a state of Palestine until after there is a negotiated agreement between Israel and the PA is an outdated position that amounts to “kicking the can” down an interminable road.
In the face of mounting evidence of starvation and even genocide in Gaza, France indicated that it will formally recognize the State of Palestine at the upcoming 80th session of the U.N. General Assembly. The United Kingdom indicated that it will recognize the State of Palestine if Israel does not take certain steps (using recognition as a stick for the Israeli government), and Canada announced that it will grant recognition if the PA meets certain conditions (using recognition as a carrot for the PA). These recognition announcements underscore the gravity of the humanitarian situation and the consensus that neither side can use violence to further expansionist aims.
Like many internationally recognized borders, Israel’s borders entrench certain historical injustices. As a practical matter, borders are designed to reduce conflict by ensuring the territorial integrity and political independence of each state. Hamas’s call to establish a Palestinian state “from the river to the sea” violates Israel’s international right to territorial integrity and political independence; so too do certain Israeli politicians’ (and evangelical Christians’) calls to extend Israeli sovereignty throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), which are not lawfully part of Israel.
Jews and Palestinians share a deep historical and emotional connection to the same territory and deserve to live in community without fear of persecution or further displacement. Formal recognition of both Israel and Palestine reinforces the message that neither Israeli Jews nor Palestinians can claim exclusive control of all the territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Regional dynamics, including the desire to avoid a nuclear threat from Iran, should not prevent a clear-headed assessment of the current Israeli government’s extremism and its embrace of eliminationist rhetoric that sounds eerily like that of Israel’s enemies.
Hamas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose codependence many have noted, have not served the interests of the populations they claim to protect. Hamas’s authoritarianism and suppression of dissent in Gaza are well known, and Arab countries are now adamant that Hamas play no role in Gaza’s future. The Israeli government’s unrelenting militarism and decimation of Palestinian life in Gaza, as well as violence in the West Bank and the subversion of domestic rule-of-law institutions, are tearing apart the fabric of Israeli society and further endangering Jews in the diaspora.
Those who care about the future of the region and its peoples should not let the mantra of “rewarding terrorists” stop them from supporting efforts to end starvation in Gaza, disarm Hamas, and empower actors on both sides whose vision for the “day after” involves coordination and coexistence, not extermination and expansionism.
Chimène Keitner is a professor of law at the University of California, Davis School of Law, a PD Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project. She previously served as Counselor on International Law at the U.S. Department of State.
