Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

NYT goes all in for RCV

The New York Times office
mizoula/Getty Images

Advocates for ranked-choice voting have picked up a crucially important ally. The New York Times, which has one of the most influential editorial pages in the country, delivered a full-throated endorsement Thursday for the most popular alternative to the current voting system.

Under the simple headline "The Primaries Are Just Dumb," the Times laid out a compelling case for both political partied to embrace RCV in their presidential primaries four years from now.


Calling it a "straightforward and elegant solution," the editorial board argued that ranked-choice votingwould guarantee that presidential nominees enjoy support from a majority of the primary voters, would increase civility in elections and would encourage candidates to reach beyond their core supporters.

"It is effective in any multicandidate race, but it's ideal for making sense of a large and fractured pool of candidates," the paper said.

This is not the first time the Times has backed RCV, but on this occasion the editorial board is making the case for a national rollout to replace the current system for selecting presidential nominees. In October, the Times endorsed an ultimately successful ballot initiative to install RCV for future city elections in the Big Apple.

Read the full editorial.

Read More

Entrance Sign at the University of Florida

Universities are embracing “institutional neutrality,” but at places like the University of Florida it’s becoming a tool to silence faculty and erode academic freedom.

Getty Images, Bryan Pollard

When Insisting on “Neutrality” Becomes a Gag Order

Universities across the country are adopting policies under the banner of “institutional neutrality,” which, at face value, sounds entirely reasonable. A university’s official voice should remain measured, cautious, and focused on its core mission regardless of which elected officials are in office. But two very different interpretations of institutional neutrality are emerging.

At places like the University of Wisconsin – Madison and Harvard, neutrality is applied narrowly and traditionally: the institution itself refrains from partisan political statements, while faculty leaders and scholars remain free to speak in their professional and civic capacities. Elsewhere, the same term is being applied far more aggressively — not to restrain institutions, but to silence individuals.

Keep ReadingShow less