Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

And the winner of the first Democracy Madness is ...

And the winner of the first Democracy Madness is ...
Tristiaña Hinton/The Fulcrum

The Democracy Madness champion has been crowned: Ranked-choice voting bested the Cinderella story of the tournament, a National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, to win our reader-driven challenge.

The winner, with 56 percent support, emerged over the weekend with the biggest burst of balloting since our contest started two months ago. That's when we asked you to start deciding which of 64 ideas for fixing the system would be the most transformative at ending the dysfunction and putting voters back at the center of things.


Ranked-choice voting is an alternative to the system used for most American elections throughout history — voters picking one candidate and the one with the most votes (even if it's only a plurality) winning.

Under RCV, voters list candidates in order of preference. If no one wins by securing a majority of first-place ballots, the candidate with the fewest No. 1 votes is eliminated and that person's ballots are redistributed based on their No. 2 rankings. These instantaneous runoffs repeat until one candidate emerges with majority backing.


The main benefit, proponents say, is to reward candidates who can capture the broadest coalition of support. Opponents fear RCV holds a high potential to incubate voter fraud.

The irony was not lost on some folks that RCV was fighting for the top prize in a single-vote contest.

The popular vote co mpact, which focuses on getting states to promise their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote (not their own), had edged out a pair of No. 1 seeds to make it to the final round of the Democracy Madness tournament, but couldn't conquer RCV.


Read More

photograph shows a handheld smartphone displaying the icons of some of the main artificial intelligence based apps

This photograph shows a handheld smartphone displaying the icons of some of the main artificial intelligence based apps, including LLMs, chatbots and generative AI, with logos (from L) of Proton AG's Lumo, Meta AI, Mistral Vibe (formerly Le Chat), xAI's Grok, Microsoft's Copilot, Google's Gemini, Anthropic's Claude, Perplexity, Deepseek, OpenAI's Chat GPT, Google's Notebook LLM and generative AI music app Suno, in Saint-Mande, east of Paris, on July 15, 2026.

Photo by Martin LELIEVRE / AFP via Getty Images)

The Second AI Election: Testing the Safeguards Before November

The 2024 U.S. presidential election was supposed to be the “first AI election.” Experts warned that generative AI could flood voters with deepfakes and fabricated evidence of fraud, U.S. intelligence officials declassified intel reports on foreign influence operations already experimenting with the technology, and leading AI companies pledged to combat deceptive election content. But foreign nations faced significant barriers to deploying AI to influence that election, according to the now-shuttered U.S. Foreign Malign Influence Center.

Two years later, the picture looks very different. AI tools have become far more sophisticated and widely available. Russia, China, and Iran are deploying a wide variety of cutting-edge AI tools in more sophisticated ways in foreign influence operations aimed at the United States and its citizens, among others. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has itself used AI in misleading ways, while at the same time dismantling or defunding the federal and independent bodies that identified and countered election-related influence campaigns. With the potential for AI-driven misinformation campaigns to escalate sharply in this year’s midterms, we tested some of the most popular AI models to learn how they can be exploited to peddle false election narratives. The results are clear: AI companies, lawmakers, and civil society must do more to blunt the threat ahead of elections this November and in 2028 to help ensure free and fair elections. We outline the steps they can take to do so below.

Keep ReadingShow less
library
a large library filled with lots of books

Beyond Campus Walls: Why the Attack on Minority Support Should Worry Every Donor

In President Donald Trump’s latest attempt to bring private universities to heel through policy change in the tax code, the administration is threatening to revoke tax-exempt status from schools that offer targeted support to minority students. This move should have everyone who cares about education, public works, and charitable giving ringing the alarm bell.

U.S. citizens have enjoyed tax incentives to support the good works, charitable causes, or public-serving organizations we care about for more than a century—since the implementation of the Revenue Act of 1913. Beginning in 1969, entities like private schools and colleges, museums, arts centers, and charitable foundations qualified as not-for-profit, donation-eligible organizations through section 501(c)(3) in the U.S. tax code. A not-for-profit designation grants the institution federal tax-free status, meaning it doesn’t pay federal taxes, and allows taxpayers to deduct donations from their federal tax return. Federal tax deductions incentivize individual and corporate donors to open their wallets for charitable giving.

Keep ReadingShow less
classroom
Empty wooden tables and chairs in a library with shelves of books
Photo by Tuyen Vo on Unsplash

What Makes a College Civics Requirement Work

Students entering Ohio’s public universities this fall are the first four-year cohort expected to graduate under the state’s new American civic literacy requirement. Beginning with the spring 2030 graduating class, students must complete an approved three-credit course built around the Constitution and other foundational texts, with limited exemptions for equivalent coursework.

Ohio is not alone. More than a dozen states now have some form of undergraduate civics course requirement, and Iowa has recently enacted a two-course requirement for undergraduates entering four-year programs at its three public universities beginning in 2028. As more states adopt these requirements, faculty and lawmakers need workable models for putting them into practice.

Keep ReadingShow less