Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

How a nuclear power plant helps explain the importance of ranked-choice voting

Millstone nuclear power plant

The Millstone Power Station in Waterford, Conn.

Rowland leads the Connecticut Task Force of Veterans for Political Innovation and also sits on the State Central Committee for the Griebel-Frank for CT Party. He is co-founder of a statewide RCV coalition.

The Millstone Power Station provides more than 47 percent of Connecticut’s electricity, and more than 90 percent of its carbon-free electricity. It is Connecticut’s only nuclear power plant and it will help us understand why ranked-choice voting is so important.

Gov. Ned Lamont recently received the endorsement of the Griebel-Frank for CT Party, putting him on a third line on November’s ballot. This endorsement was conditioned on the governor introducing legislation to implement ranked-choice voting, also known as instant run-off elections. To understand why this is so important to the health of our democracy, it is helpful to use Millstone as an analogy.


All nuclear-produced electricity is made by nuclear fission, splitting atoms apart to release energy in the form of heat and radiation. The energy released is captured and turned into electricity. This process of division produces harmful byproducts and toxic waste.

Our current political systems operate in much the same way. Dividing the electorate produces energy, and that energy is harnessed by politicians to further their goals, which are often not to solve problems but to simply consume that energy, maintain their power and continue to divide.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The toxic byproducts are all around us. Polarization, hyperpartisanship, politicizing issues that are not political, mud-slinging, obstructionism, and on and on. Our current method of electing officials – plurality voting – supports this division much like reactors support nuclear fission. To succeed in a plurality election, one must only receive the most votes, not a majority.

The incentives created by that system work to keep division in the structures of our politics. They incentivize behavior that is toxic, appealing to only the most extreme voters and energizing them to vote by convincing them our democracy is in peril or the identity of their country is in jeopardy. In reality, however, it is not the issues and policies of the day that divide us. It is the process. Division is the process of creating energy for politicians, energy that is captured at the polls.

An alternative form of nuclear energy is fusion, where atoms are combined to form larger atoms and energy is similarly released. Fusion is the process that our sun uses and, on Earth, the fuel required to power fusion reactions (hydrogen) is near inexhaustible. Aside from those benefits, there are no toxic byproducts, harmful emissions or risk of a meltdown. Fusion reactions, however, require specific conditions and a large amount of skill to accomplish. Much like those in our political system who have the skill and ability to bring people together to accomplish something, it only occurs under very certain conditions and is certainly uncommon.

Now imagine if nuclear fusion was a commercially viable energy source and we wanted to repurpose Millstone to be a fusion reactor. We couldn’t just walk into Millstone and press different buttons and get a fusion reaction. We would need to fundamentally change the structure and the systems and processes that occur within that structure. Similarly, to change our political system from one that uses division to one that fosters unity, we would need to change the structure. Electoral reforms do just that, and ranked-choice voting is one of the most important.

RCV creates fundamentally different incentives for all of those involved. For candidates, it removes the typical spoiler argument for third-party candidates. It also removes the overwhelmingly popular “lesser of two evils” method of getting elected. It requires candidates to focus on their merits. For voters, it is a better way for them to express their preference, versus being forced to make a binary choice or abstain.

For those looking to run for office but don’t want to be involved in such a toxic environment, it clears the way. And finally, and I believe most importantly, for public officials. It allows those who are elected to solve problems by working with everyone at the table, not just their party. It discourages obstructionism. It also gives a candidate a much richer idea of what is important to their constituents based on how the electorate voted and what is important to them.

To remove the division, we need to change the structures. One of those structures is how we conduct elections. Connecticut will soon see a better system of electing officials that has no toxic byproducts. It is hard work, but Connecticut seems ready to take on the challenge.

Read More

Donald Trump and Kamala Harris debating

Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris debate on Sept. 10.

Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The state of our nation: Polling Americans’ priorities for election 2024

Originally published by The 19th.

This is the third annual poll from The 19th and SurveyMonkey, designed to shed light on what women, particularly women of color, and LGBTQ+ people think about the issues animating our politics. It comes as Americans face another critical election, one that could make Democrat Kamala Harris the first woman to hold the country’s highest office or give Republican Donald Trump a second term. Here’s what we learned about how Americans view the candidates, as well as opinions on abortion and on reproductive care more broadly, the ability to access gender-affirming care and more.

Keep ReadingShow less
Happy elementary students raising their hands on a class at school
skynesher/Getty Images

Project 2025: A threat to equitable education

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.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Michelle Obama resonated deeply at the Democratic National Convention.

"Shutting down the Department of Education, banning our books — none of that will prepare our kids for the future," she said.

Keep ReadingShow less
Taylor Swift

Taylor Swift made another call for peopleto register to vote at the Video Music Awards on Thursday.

Christopher Polk/Billboard via Getty Images

What will Taylor Swift's endorsement of Kamala Harris mean?

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

On Sep 11, we reported in The Fulcrum thatTaylor Swift had entered the political fray by endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris for president of the United States. I ended the article by stating that “the full extent of her impact remains to be seen.”

Now only a few days later, some data is already suggesting the impact could be significant. The day after Swift endorsed Harris there was a significant surge of visitors to Vote.gov, the U.S. government website that helps citizens understand how they can register to vote. According to a spokesperson for the Government Services Administration, Swift’s endorsement on Instagram led directly to 337,826 people visiting the site.

Keep ReadingShow less
Social Security card, treasury check and $100 bills
JJ Gouin/Getty Images

In swing states, both parties agree on ideas to save Social Security

A new public consultation survey finds significant bipartisan support for major Social Security proposals — including ideas to increase revenue and cut benefits — that would reduce the program’s long-term shortfall by 78 percent and extend the program’s longevity for decades.

Without any reforms to revenues or benefits, the Social Security Trust Fund will be depleted by 2033, and benefits will be cut for all retirees.

Keep ReadingShow less