Ranked Choice Tennessee envisions a future where more Tennesseans can participate in elections using ranked choice voting (RCV). Our activities fall into two main categories: civic education and advocacy. We work with election administrators, policy makers and the public to share best practices and help facilitate successful RCV elections.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Why trying to protect freedom may work better than campaigning to protect democracy
Oct 07, 2024
Williams is an assistant Professor of Political Science, Allegheny College. Bloeser is an associate professor of political science and director of Center for Political Participation at Allegheny College.
When Joe Biden was the Democrats’ candidate for president in 2020 and again in 2024, he staked his candidacy on being the person who would save democracy from the threat Donald Trump posed.
But Kamala Harris has shifted away from that message and toward the idea of protecting and advancing freedom. Freedom has become the theme of many Harris campaign ads and speeches. Her slogan “we are not going back” is meant to invoke concern about freedoms being taken away.
As scholars of citizens’ commitment to democracy, we see a few reasons that promoting freedom might be a more effective campaign message than protecting democracy. One is that our research and others’ has found that a lot of Americans aren’t very concerned with democracy.
Wide support for violating democratic principles
In our research, we have found that when people think about groups that threaten their values, they are willing to support political representatives who offer protection against the perceived threat. Using a nationally representative sample of 1,500 respondents from 2019, we found that a large proportion of Americans are willing to support leaders who would violate democratic principles such as freedom of speech and following collectively agreed-upon rules and laws.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Majorities of Americans, across the political spectrum, indicate that they want leaders who will “crack down” on groups they find threatening. Many also indicate that they would support leaders who would “bend the rules” to “protect the interests of people like you.” Notably, however, people who identified as Republican supporters were the most likely to want leaders who will take these sorts of actions.
A March 2024 survey from the Public Religion Research Institute asked a similar question and found that more than 40% of Americans agree with this statement: “Because things have gotten so far off track in this country, we need a leader who is willing to break some rules if that’s what it takes to set things right.” Strikingly, half of Republicans endorse this statement.
Perhaps surprisingly, messages that highlight threats to democracy do not seem to be effective. Recent political science research finds that negative messages emphasizing the threat Trump poses to democracy are less effective than positive messages about what Harris will do.
Other scholarship suggests sparking fear makes people think, but it does not spur them to action. Enthusiasm, however, can move people to participate. The question is what might lead people to feel enthusiastic.
Is freedom the answer?
Over the past several decades, America’s two major parties have taken different approaches to mobilizing their supporters to vote. Republicans have been successfully messaging on symbolic values and ideology, often talking about abstract values such as freedom. Democratic candidates, meanwhile, have focused on policy messages that help them appeal to coalitions of diverse social groups.
For example, as Congress debated what would become the Affordable Care Act, Republican opponents criticized the legislation for stripping freedom away from citizens and raised concerns about government overreach. These efforts provided a theme that led many Republicans to victory in the 2010 congressional election. At the time, Democrats emphasized the benefits to particular groups, such as young people, women and lower-income Americans, rather than emphasizing an overarching ideological cause. Over time, they have taken a similar tack on issues pertaining to the rights of workers, women, the LGBTQ community and racial minorities.
The Harris campaign appears to be changing the Democrats’ approach. For instance, she has cast restrictive abortion policy as an instance in which the government infringed upon the personal freedom of citizens.
Similarly, Harris has focused on protecting the rights and freedoms of people of color and LGBTQ Americans.
Harris’ unning mate, Tim Walz, echoed this messaging at the Democratic National Convention. He told the crowd, “No matter who you are, Kamala Harris is gonna stand up and fight for your freedom to live the life you want to lead. Because that’s what we want for ourselves. And that’s what we want for our neighbors.”
Will it work?
The effectiveness of this turn toward freedom remains to be seen. Yet there is reason to believe that this messaging can influence voters and have larger benefits for American society.
Freedom is a core American value. But for much of this century, freedom has mainly been defined by the Republican Party, as the absence of government interference in one’s life. This notion of freedom provided a basis for policies such as lower taxes, less government regulation and fewer social services.
The Harris campaign has begun to offer a rival vision of freedom, even if it is not quite fully formed. Her idea most resembles the notion of freedom that some political theorists call “ freedom from domination.” This concept implies that citizens should live under societal conditions that prevent some individuals or groups from having unjustified control over others.
Importantly, to accomplish this, freedom from domination implies that government policies can be useful for creating conditions that enable increased freedom. If people struggle to afford child care, health care or education, social policies that alleviate that struggle can help people achieve greater autonomy to make choices that affect their own lives.
Regardless of which conception of freedom a person prefers, or which party they generally support, the Harris campaign’s decision to talk about freedom is consequential. It opens the door to competition between parties over how to think about a core American value and pushes political discussions away from the politics of retribution.
It isn’t always obvious how to counter threats to democracy, but Harris’ positive message around freedom offers one possible strategy. If Harris wins in November, it may indicate that focusing on a shared value such as freedom could be a more effective way to combat the threat to democracy, rather than focusing voters’ attention on the threat itself.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Breast Cancer Awareness Month is a model for blurred lines
Oct 04, 2024
Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.
It is rare to find issues that bridge partisan lines and unite Americans across the ideological spectrum. Breast Cancer Awareness Month stands as a powerful exception.
Observed annually in October, BCAM has evolved from grassroots beginnings into a global movement, reshaping our understanding of breast cancer and, in the process, demonstrating the potential for collective action to address a shared health crisis. Almost every American citizen knows someone experiencing some form of cancer, particularly breast cancer. The BCAM model, I purport, offers valuable lessons in how to participate in our nation's social contract more faithfully in polarizing times.
The seeds of BCAM were planted in the early 20th century, with a few pioneering women speaking publicly about their breast cancer diagnoses. However, it wasn't until the 1980s that breast cancer awareness began to gain mainstream momentum. This shift was fueled by the courage of high-profile women like Betty Ford and Nancy Reagan, who shared their battles with the disease, helping to shatter the stigma surrounding breast cancer.
The turning point came in 1985, when the American Cancer Society and Imperial Chemical Industries (now part of AstraZeneca) launched the first Breast Cancer Awareness Month. The initial goals were modest: educate women about the importance of breast cancer screening and early detection. However, the movement quickly took on a life of its own, with the iconic pink ribbon becoming a universal symbol of solidarity and hope.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
BCAM has surged in growth and impact for nearly 40 years, becoming a powerful global movement. Thousands of events, ranging from charity runs and walks to fundraising galas and auctions, occur each October, mobilizing communities and raising vital funds. Since its inception, BCAM has been instrumental in generating hundreds of millions of dollars in research funding. This influx of support has fueled groundbreaking discoveries, improving detection methods and treatment options and significantly boosting survival rates.
Interestingly, BCAM's importance extends beyond the medical arena. The movement has been a catalyst for a profound cultural shift, helping to dismantle the stigma and silence that once surrounded breast cancer. By fostering greater openness, empathy and understanding, BCAM has empowered survivors to share their stories and ensured that those affected by the disease feel seen and supported. Many social advocates and spiritual innovators believe these encouraging signs transfer into practices and results.
BCAM's true superpower lies in its ability to transcend the traditional boundaries that often divide us effortlessly. It doesn't matter if you identify as conservative or progressive. When we all come together, donning pink, it becomes a powerful expression of solidarity with everyone fighting the good fight against breast cancer. BCAM's influence extends beyond raising awareness; it bridges cultural and geographic divides, reminding us of a significant and profoundly shared concern: the health and well-being of our fellow human beings. In a world where differences often dominate the headlines, BCAM shines as a unifying force, highlighting our common humanity and the importance of compassion and support in the face of adversity.
The BCAM model offers a roadmap for building bridges and finding common ground. By focusing on something shared — a commonly acute health crisis — instead of a myriad of partisan differences, BCAM is an open invitation that rallies around a common purpose. All that is required is empathy, the willingness to see the humanity in others and the otherness that often mislabels our fellow humans. Also, the curating of open, honest dialogue and interplay spaces where diverse yet similar experiences are welcomed and valued.
The BCAM movement has shown that even the most daunting challenges can be overcome when we come together. It has mobilized millions of people worldwide, transforming the way we think about, diagnose and treat breast cancer. It stands as a testament to the power of collective action, demonstrating that, through unity and determination, we can reshape the world around us. From funding groundbreaking research to supporting those affected by the disease, the impact of BCAM is immeasurable.
This October, join in recognition of BCAM, teaming up with thousands of others committed to building a society with greater empathy, understanding and cooperation around a shared hope. Together, we can educate communities, advance medical breakthroughs and save countless lives. Ultimately, it is only by living in this expression of the social contract more faithfully that we can create a more just, compassionate, united and cancer-free world.
Keep ReadingShow less
Eric Adams is trying on Donald Trump’s playbook
Oct 04, 2024
Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
It’s the go-to play nowadays.
If you’re a politician collared for alleged crimes, feign indignation, call it a “conspiracy,” blame the “corrupt” Department of Justice, and refuse to resign.
New York Mayor Eric Adams has been indicted on five federal charges related to 2021 campaign contributions, wire fraud, and bribery. The scathing 57-page indictment was unsealed on Thursday, and according to the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Damian Williams, Adams was “showered” with gifts from foreign entities — namely Turkey — that he knew were illegal.
According to the indictment, there was luxury travel, free airline tickets, meals and hotel rooms from Turkish officials, and Adams allegedly tried to hide the gifts, the value of which exceeded $100,000 — all in return for political favors.
Adams is innocent until proven guilty. But the SDNY isn’t dumb.
As my CNN colleague Elie Honig, a former state and federal prosecutor, said, “I’m going to put this real unscientifically for you: if you’re going to charge the sitting mayor of New York City, you better be damn sure that you have the evidence on him, because if you don’t, it will be a disaster.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
But gone are the days of bowed-head press conferences and resignations in the wake of painful, costly, ugly and damaging scandals. So Adams has done what others before him did — some unsuccessfully, one very successfully.
First, he denied all charges and called them “lies.”
“My fellow New Yorkers, it is now my belief that the federal government intends to charge me with crimes. If so, these charges will be entirely false, based on lies.”
Then, he tried to claim he was being “targeted.”
“I always knew that if I stood my ground for all of you, that I would be a target, and a target I became.”
Then, he pointed fingers.
“Exactly who in the federal government, White House, do you say is targeting you for speaking out,” he was asked by one reporter.
“I think you need to ask the federal prosecutors who gave the directive and the orders, I don’t know. But we should ask them who gave the directive and orders that we’re going to take on and create this group of lies? They have the answer to that question.”
And finally, he refused to resign and let the people of New York get on with their business, instead insisting on dragging them into what will undoubtedly be a political circus that will unquestionably affect his ability to do his job.
But no matter — Adams is trying a play that was popularized by Donald Trump over decades. Deny, blame, deflect.
Over the course of his multiple indictments for alleged crimes during and after his presidency, Trump has blamed the “corrupt” DOJ, even going so far as to name and smear attorneys, judges, clerks, and their family members.
Many of those folks have endured death threats and harassment because of Trump’s baseless attacks.
Anyone can see how dangerous these attacks are, but Trump has so far managed to avoid prison, a trick others seem all too willing to try.
New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez tried it after he was indicted for a panoply of crimes, including corruption, conspiracy to act as a foreign agent, and obstruction of justice. For months he asserted his innocence, called the charges a conspiracy, and refused to resign.
In January, he had this to say: “The United States Attorney’s Office has engaged not in a prosecution, but a persecution. They seek a victory, but not justice.”
In July a jury found him guilty of all charges.
To believe these greedy, self-serving conspiracies, you’d have to ignore the fact that in fewer than four years, the Biden DOJ has indicted seven Democrats — including his own son!
But they’re not meant to make sense, only to enrage and tug at the conspiratorial impulses of a voter base that is now all too used to hearing tales of “rigged” and “stolen” elections, “the deep state,” and a “corrupt DOJ.”
To save their own political hides, Trump, Menendez and now Adams are shamelessly willing to smear and undermine these institutions to the point of breaking them.
And it’s working. Average confidence in institutions is at a pathetic 28%, with just 8% of Americans having “a great deal” of confidence in the criminal justice system. Forty-two percent have “very little.”
Among all the detritus and wreckage of the Trump era, this is one of his most enduring legacies — a playbook for politicians to try to save themselves by throwing everyone else under the bus. Including America herself.
©2024 S.E. Cupp. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.Keep ReadingShow less
Reality bytes: Kids confuse the real world with the screen world
Oct 04, 2024
Patel is an executive producer/director, the creator of “ConnectEffect” and a Builders movement partner.
Doesn’t it feel like summer break just began? Yet here we are again. Fall’s arrival means kids have settled into a new school year with new teachers, new clothes and a new “attitude” for parents and kids alike, to start on the right foot.
Yet it’s hard for any of us to find footing in an increasingly polarized and isolated world. The entire nation is grappling with a rising tide of mental health concerns — including the continually increasing alienation and loneliness in children — and parents are struggling to foster real human connection for their kids in the real world. The battle to minimize screen time is certainly one approach. But in a world that is based on screens, apps and social media, is it a battle that realistically can be won?
If we want to reduce screens’ negative impact on our children’s mental health, what we need is a “hard reset” of their relationships with their devices by ensuring they are deeply aware of the difference between the real world and the screen world.
I’ve spent the last eight years focused on showing people the difference between these worlds, helping bring them back together, in person, to bridge divides and foster authentic human connection, conversation and community. Like the people I work with, parents can help their children understand the difference between the two worlds through a two-part plan: first, by hard-resetting their misguided relationships with their screen and, second, by intentionally connecting them to others in real life.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Remember when the end of “The Wizard of Oz” revealed that the wizard was just a man behind a curtain? To break a child’s toxic relationship with their screen, parents need to pull back another curtain to show their kids exactly how all media works, from social media and news companies to search engines and apps. Almost everything kids see on their screens is an edit, and behind almost every edit is a similar intention: more likes, followers and users that can be monetized. Through the attention extraction model, most everything that appears on our screen is designed to maximize our attention for profit, feeding us more content, regardless of the impact it may have on us individually and as a society. If, as a family, you haven’t yet watched the documentary “The Social Dilemma,” the start of the year is a perfect time.
Helping kids realize that the structure of social media is not made with their well-being in mind — in fact, it has a very different motive — can help them recognize that they are not alone in their feelings and reactions to the screen. According to Pew Research, 31 percent of teens say social media makes them feel like their friends are leaving them out and 23 percent say what they see on social media makes them feel worse about their own life. Talking with their peers less about what is on their screen, but rather how their screen makes them feel, is a point of connection they may not realize.
Having spent nearly a decade connecting people, it is clear that one of the secrets to connection in the real world is the introduction. In other words, how people are introduced to one another often sets up the way they will see one another. Based on the primary-recency effect, when people first connect through the two-dimensional edits in the screen world, they make assumptions that lean into pre-conceived notions of how the “other” should be. In a country growing increasingly polarized and dehumanized by social media echo chambers and a profound lack of human connection, this reality impacts our children, who have less real world experiences under their belts.
The beginning of a school year offers a timely opportunity to allow children the space to paint a more complete picture of their new classmates before screens intervene. A simple initialism, EPIC, can provide parents with four techniques for making sure interactions are maximized for connection and trust.
- Equalization: What are the meaningful overlaps of life experiences that your child and those around them share? Have them seek similarities, rather than differences, with the kids they are about to meet. If they change what they are looking for, it will change what they see.
- Personalization: In a world of infinite edits of information that make it hard to find common ground, encourage your child to personalize what they think based on their own life experiences, rather than regurgitate information they absorbed from their screen.
- Investigation: When people meet for the first time, they often feel anxious about what they are going to say. Suggest your child focus on trying to learn and understand the other person rather than worrying about their responses.This empathy will be felt by the other person, and is a powerful driver of trust and connection.
- Collaboration: Many young adults feel overwhelmed by the burden of social interactions, fearing if it goes wrong it’s all their fault. Social interactions are less worrisome when people remember both sides are equal participants in a collaboration and it’s not all on them.
If we use this time at the start of every year to teach children the realities of the screens they use and how to intentionally foster deeper, real world introductions, they will create a future for themselves and others empowered and enriched by social connections, not fearful of them.
Keep ReadingShow less
Meet the change leaders: Scott Klug
Oct 04, 2024
Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
After a 14-year career as an Emmy-winning reporter, Scott Klug upset a 32-year Democratic House member from Wisconsin in 1990. Despite winning four elections with an average of 63 percent of the vote, he stayed true to his term limit pledge and retired in January 1999.
But during his time in office, Klug says, he had the third most independent voting record of any member of Congress from Wisconsin in the last 50 years.
Klug now works at the law firm Foley & Lardner, where he is a public affairs director and co-chair of the firm’s federal public affairs practice. He represents a broad array of the firm’s clients in Washington and several state capitals. He is also able to draw on his time as a television reporter to help clients craft proactive media strategies, particularly when faced with crisis management challenges.
In 2013, he authored “The Alliance,” a mystery novel about religion and antiquities.
Klug has returned to the public eye to represent “Lost in the Middle” voices in a regular podcast he produces.
He is a resident of Madison, Wis., where he lives with his wife, Theresa Summers Klug. The couple has three children.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
I had the wonderful opportunity to interview Klug for the CityBiz “Meet the Change Leaders” series. Watch to learn the full extent of his democracy reform work:
- YouTubewww.youtube.com
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More