Reform Elections Now is a nonpartisan organization of professionals concerned about the current political dysfunction that prevents government from working to solve the nation's biggest problems. We feel election reform is the key. Our mission is to facilitate election reform through education and engagement, with practical solutions that will enhance informed discourse, increase voter participation and motivate better representation by our elected officials. In addition to preparing 'white papers' on various reform initiatives, we hold monthly sessions open to all on timely relevant topics.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
LeoPatrizi/Getty Images
What our nation needs is a broad-based, pro-democracy civic movement
Nov 25, 2024
After Donald Trump was elected president in 2016, informal groups popped up almost everywhere. They often attracted people who had not been involved in politics before. Stereotyped in the media as suburban white women, these citizens were informally named “The Resistance.” About a half-million of them attended the Women’s March in Washington on Jan. 21, 2017, with another 5 million marching in their home communities.
But the #resistance in 2017 proved evanescent because the nascent groups mainly encouraged their members to support other organizations.
Inboxes filled with urgent fundraising appeals for national organizations. For example, 350,000 people donated to the ACLU in just one weekend during Trump’s first month as president. People also shared and encouraged each other to follow news from national outlets, and digital subscriptions for The New York Times and The Washington Post tripled under Trump. Finally, many people gave money and time to Democratic candidates in 2022.
None of this generosity built power for the new groups themselves, and most — although not all — have faded away. For instance, donations to the ACLU funded essential legal advocacy but didn’t support much grassroots engagement. According to the Tufts Equity in America survey (which I co-led), just 1.5 percent of Americans “identified with” or “actively supported” the ACLU in 2020.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
As Erica Chenoweth and Zoe Marks observe, many committed and skilled activists emerged, yet we have “no established, organizational infrastructure that can facilitate sustained collective action across a multiracial, multiclass constituency.”
How to Build Power
Imagine if the 350,000 people, instead of focusing on giving to one large entity, formed 1,000 new local groups with an average startup budget of $24,000 and had set about raising enough additional funds and recruiting enough additional members to put 1,000 paid organizers at the service of half a million active volunteers in 1,000 American neighborhoods and towns. Our situation would be totally different today.
In 2020, while 9.2 percent of survey respondents in the Tufts Equity in America survey said they had donated money to any advocacy organization, just 3.6 percent said they had “volunteered or worked for a political party, issue, or cause.” We need that last number to grow to protect and improve democracy. Local groups must raise and control resources to recruit, train and deploy volunteers, so that many more people work for issues and causes important to a healthy democracy
Trump was legitimately elected, and we don’t know how he will act. We should not announce a movement to save America from Trump but instead focus on a movement to protect democracy and civil rights from anyone who might threaten those values, now or later.
The Structures We Need
This movement must be based on durable, self-sufficient, democratic organizations that work together effectively. They need financial autonomy, accountable leaders, paid staff and federated structures.
When friends or neighbors are alarmed, they should decide whether they already have an organization that can join the #resistance or whether they need a new structure. A relevant existing organization could be a religious congregation, an activist group or a union local, among others. It may need a new steering committee for its #resistance work.
However, most people do not belong to any entity that could seriously commit to politics, and they will have to consider incorporating new 501(c)4 organizations. This process starts with an online IRS form. A new group also needs bylaws so that it is clear who is responsible for what. There are free sample bylaw documents that anyone can download.
Although structures can vary, some people should be elected to offices with limited terms so that the rest of the group can decide whether to reelect them. Someone’s job should be to develop agendas, facilitate discussions and clarify the decisions that have been reached. Someone else should keep and share notes so that conversations can proceed from one meeting to another instead of cycling through the same issues. Someone should keep the accounts. Someone is responsible for the membership list.
These groups should raise money from their own members or through bake sales and the like. They should not seek grants or large gifts from non-members, because they need autonomy.
If a group can grow to 100 or so members who donate or raise an average of $8,000 per year, it can hire a full-time organizer with a budget. Even if these amounts are unrealistic, every member should be required to contribute money or specific amounts of volunteer time — with the requirements set low enough that anyone can join. Failure to contribute should cost you a seat at the table, but people should be encouraged to contribute in different ways.
Hiring organizers is crucial because we need some people to be organizing full-time, and because paid employment allows individuals to develop skills and networks that are essential in the longer term.
Growing to Scale
If a group gets much bigger than 100, it should consider splitting. The Black women who formed the Women’s Political Caucus in segregated Montgomery, Alabama, in the 1950s launched a new chapter every time one of their existing groups breached the 100-person limit, so as to keep all members fully engaged in their own chapters. Depending on their economic resources, a group of 100 may be able to employ, or at least share, paid staff; and affluent groups should support needier ones.
It’s fine for groups to work “in coalition,” as people use that phrase nowadays — i.e., communicating with each other and periodically coming together for events. But loose coalitions will not really suffice for building power. Aligned groups should consider federating. This means incorporating a new entity for a region or state, with its own bylaws and budget, that has formal relationships with its affiliated groups.
For instance, each participating local group might get one seat on the larger organization’s board, might be expected to contribute some money to the umbrella organization for state-level work and might be able to claim a portion of funds raised by the larger organization. Again, it may be possible to redirect an existing organization rather than forming a new nonprofit for a region or a state, but that will still require written agreements and bylaws.
Unity and Disagreement
Since groups and alliances need as much support as possible, they should avoid purity tests. A basic tip for anyone who drafts a statement of principles is to keep it short and simple, because unnecessary details offer individuals reasons to opt out. In fact, groups should generally avoid issuing statements, which have relatively little impact. They should affirmatively welcome internal dissent and hold robust discussions for their own members.
Nevertheless, their charters should clearly communicate their mission, and they should look for opportunities to speak in a single voice when that can make a difference. In short, the movement should aim for both unity and pluralism.
For those who are prone to reject broad-based movements as too moderate, I commend Bayard Rustin’s prophetic 1965 article, “From Protest to Politics: The Future of the Civil Rights Movement”:
“[The] effectiveness of a swing vote depends solely on ‘other’ votes. It derives its power from them. … Thus coalitions are inescapable, no matter how tentative they may be. … The issue is which coalition to join and how to make it responsive to your program. Necessarily there will be compromise. But the difference between expediency and morality in politics is the difference between selling out a principle and making smaller concessions to win larger ones. The leader who shrinks from this task reveals not his purity but his lack of political sense.”
What Should People Do?
Protests are appropriate, but the #resistance is not a set of protest actions. In fact, seasoned organizers often view a public protest mainly as an opportunity to identify supporters who can then be recruited for more consequential tasks. So what should people actually do?
- One-to-one interviews with residents who may or may not share the principles of the movement. These conversations may persuade some neutral or even hostile people and can help to recruit new active volunteers and potential leaders. In 2000, 2.2 percent of our respondents told us that they had “worked as a canvasser — having gone door to door for a political or social group” within the past year. That represents a substantial number, especially during a pandemic, but it needs to grow; and we need genuine conversations rather than quick pitches for political candidates.
- Filling the vacuum created by the collapse of local professional journalism and combatting propaganda. This means collecting reliable information from published sources, conducting original research, and monitoring institutions and sharing the results with the public in credible forms — social media channels, email lists, teach-ins and the like.
- Forming relationships with established institutional leaders (elected officials, corporate CEOs, small-business owners, clergy, college presidents, philanthropists, celebrities) and asking them to take steps that are appropriate for their roles. For example, a university cannot and should not take a partisan position, but it must protect its own undocumented students, the intellectual freedom of its students and employees, and its own projects that address contested issues, such as climate change. It may need a nudge to do those things. Similarly, a Republican member of the House will not vote to impeach Trump but might privately bury a terrible bill.
- Registering and educating voters, including people who turn 18 or who naturalize as U.S. citizens.
- Endorsing candidates in primaries and general elections. A 501(c)4 organization is allowed to endorse, but its primary activity may not be assessing and endorsing politicians. In any case, political endorsements are more meaningful when they come from civic groups that mainly work independently. Their members can choose to volunteer for candidates or parties if they want to.
- To a limited extent, fundraising for other entities, such as organizations that can mount legal strategies. However, there is a risk of sharing so much of a group’s own resources that it becomes a mere conduit.
- Periodically organizing confrontational actions, such as boycotts, sit-ins and occupations, sheltering fugitives and strikes. These methods must be used sparingly and strategically or else they will wear people out. But they certainly belong in the repertoire of any social movement.
A Broad-Based Civic Movement
We need a pro-democracy movement for the kind of people who are “normies” in the eyes of deeply committed activists. This will not be a movement that requires the modes of organizing that are favored (and perhaps necessary) on the radical left. For example, some long-term antiracist organizers keep their groups highly decentralized and avoid uplifting prominent leaders because so many high-profile leaders of color have been prosecuted or murdered in the past. And some pacifists, deep environmentalists (and others) repudiate ordinary bourgeois American lifestyles.
I honor these people as contributors to our overall political culture, but they alone will not protect the republic as it currently stands. For that purpose, we need many millions of much less committed and much less radical people to operate effectively in response to each new threat.
Building civic organizations is a deep American tradition. The urgent task is to revive it.
Levine is the associate dean of academic affairs and Lincoln Filene Professor of Citizenship & Public Affairs in Tufts University's Jonathan Tisch College of Civic Life.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
wildpixel/iStock/Getty Images
Making sense of the 2024 elections as a 21st century paradigm shift
Nov 25, 2024
Where do we go in the aftermath of our recent elections? As MAGA forces mobilize to swiftly implement Donald Trump’s agenda, the Democrats are counseled to look in the mirror to understand how they ceded the working class to Trump’s now bigger-tent Republican Party.
The thing is, one cannot truly comprehend today’s new political landscape without historical context, since the forces that are fighting for prominence today have a rich history. Specifically, the very philosophies underlying our bitter polarization are in fact derivative of the first American schism in the last quarter of the 18th century. Further, these same viewpoints have been omnipresent in much of history, even as they mutated considerably across this 250-year period.
For most of the 20th century, the dominant axis motivating partisan divisions is usually referred to as the “left-right” continuum, in which the central determinants pertain to the degree of prescribed government intervention in the political economy. Movements toward the right are associated with a belief in laissez-faire capitalism as the true driver of prosperity in an economy, and are extremely circumspect of government interventions.
On the left side of the continuum, two main philosophies have driven the call for a more active central government. On one hand, economists counsel that the government must assume an active role to address the inevitable market failures (providing public goods, addressing externalities and limiting monopolistic power). The other philosophy underpinning the movements on the left relate to redistributive efforts, such as the creation of a safety net for those whom capitalism leaves behind.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Regrettably, this entire framework is no longer so helpful in understanding where we are today.The paradigm has shifted. The left-right continuum is still relevant, but it has been eclipsed by a new ideological clash driven not primarily by economic philosophy, but instead by core questions regarding where the authority to govern lies in the first place. So much has been written recently about the reciprocal disdain between the elite establishment — those responsible for the governing policies for the last half-century — and populist forces representing tens of millions of working class Americans who have been irreparably hurt by these same policies. In the MAGA era, the pent-up working class rage towards the elites that has accumulated erupted in a reckoning by “throwing the bastards out,” and in hopes of dismantling the elite set of institutions that have been built over decades.
While understanding the dynamics behind yesterday’s left-right continuum required a solid grounding in political economics, to comprehend the current elite-populist divide we need to understand our history. Interestingly, the origin of this latter divide goes back much further before the modern economy, to our founding era, when two very distinctive and conflicting visions of the new nation vied for prominence. In my book “American Schism, I provide a retracing of today’s divisions back to these roots. Moreover, I illustrate how this elite-populist tension regarding the authority to govern has continually lurked under the surface during our most difficult periods. Furthermore, I posit that at times during certain eras we developed a “magic formula” to best navigate these challenging periods that resulted in better outcomes.
In the original schism, the two distinctive visions proposed conflicting governing structures for the young republic. On one hand, founders like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton believed that designing the mechanisms of governance was an enormously complicated task that required the dutiful dedication of the best and the brightest. At the time, this model was referred to as an “aristocratic republic” and its proponents eschewed democracy fearing the tyranny of the mob. In the other camp were Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine, who believed that the only sustainable form of republic was a representative democracy in which the people selected delegates to advocate for their interests. This later model favored decentralized governance where decisions were closer to the dispersed communities versus centralized loci of power.
The fight between these two factions became quite bitter and drove the formation of the first political parties in our country, Hamilton’s Federalists, and Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans. Had it not been for the incredible skill and foresight of James Madison, who bridged the two groups, we might never have succeeded in drafting and ratifying our beloved U.S. Constitution.
Much of American history has been a pendulum-like swing between these two poles: ftAer 30 years of Federalist dominance, the Jacksonian movement ushered in a new era of populism. Later, as the country industrialized in post-Civil War America, the elites in the Northeast — railroads, oil, banking — were confronted by the populist forces of the Farmers’ Alliance, a bottom-up populist movement to educate and empower independent farmers in the South and West. Despite limited success, the tremendous wealth created in the nation pushed the pendulum towards the elites by the turn-of-the-century Gilded Age, and populists’ demands were not addressed until the progressive era of the 1920s. Later in the 20th century, we witnessed big pendulum swings: After the cohesive post-World War II era led to a huge expansion of the middle class, a long span of elite dominance emerged at the end of the century. And today, formidable populist forces look to dismantle much of the elite infrastructure recently built since the middle of the 20th century.
Therefore, if we are going to make sense of this year’s election cycle, we need to look into a rear view mirror and see the complexity of the elite-populist schism in its rich context. As Jefferson and Adams corresponded in their later years before they died (on the same day), they seemed to reconcile that both the elite and populist models had elements to contribute in rendering our republic exceptional. In the book, I illustrate how at times in our history, we deployed a “magic formula” for balancing these two conflicting visions of our governing model. This raises a key set of questions: Over our history, what mechanisms did we use in this “secret sauce”? How exactly did these approaches allow us to achieve superior outcomes when compared to others? How did we successfully leverage elite expertise when required to solve complex problems, whilst also ensuring that egalitarian forces kept the elites in check?
Tragically, in today’s environment, this same analysis points to a grim reality — these tools have been abandoned and replaced futile polemics. Sure this new paradigm of counter-productive citizen engagement can be entertaining at times, and it certainly allows the media world a rich business model. But if we want to solve the very real problems we face (e.g. immigration, climate change, an education crisis), we might be better advised to examine some historical, more pragmatic approaches.
Indeed, history can act as a salve for our wounds if only we would apply it.
Radwell is the author of“American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation” and serves on the Business Council at Business for America. This is the fourteen entry in what was intended to be a 10-part series on the American schism in 2024.
Keep ReadingShow less
John Lund/Getty Images
A prayer for civility and uplift
Nov 25, 2024
This year's electoral rhetoric exposed the deep fissures in our body politic, leaving many feeling disillusioned and even fractured. In this moment of potential discord, people of faith have a profound opportunity to model a different path forward — one anchored in the timeless principles of civility, justice and a fierce commitment to our nation's highest ideals.
In all their glorious diversity, many religious traditions share a common bedrock: the inherent worth and dignity of every human being, created in the image of the Divine. This sacred truth must be the north star guiding interactions, especially with those we disagree with. Civility isn't about avoiding the tough conversations or pretending our differences don't exist. It's about engaging in those conversations with respect, empathy, and an open heart and mind. It's about recognizing that our political opponents aren't our enemies but fellow travelers on this Earth, deserving of our compassion and understanding.
But make no mistake, my friends, civility is only the first step. Justice is the backbone of any truly moral society and demands our unwavering commitment. The Hebrew prophets railed against injustice, Jesus lifted the marginalized and Muhammad taught that true belief compels us to desire for others what we want for ourselves. These aren't dusty relics of the past; they're a blazing call to action in the present.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
In a post-election America where many feel their voices have been silenced or their rights threatened, people of faith ought to model righteousness. People of faith are expected to advocate for policies that promote equity, accessibility and the common good. An imperative of major faith expressions is to stand in solidarity with the vulnerable, poor and estranged. Remember that justice isn't a zero-sum game, where one person's gain requires another's loss —and creating a world where all can flourish, as the prophets envisioned.
Yet justice, even paired with civility, still needs a shared commitment to the nation's social contract. A contract, enshrined in our founding documents, is a sacred trust between generations — an agreement to uphold the principles of liberty, democracy and the rule of law. It is the glue that binds us together as one people, “E pluribus unum,” even as we celebrate our differences.
In the aftermath of an election, this contract is tested. It is easy to feel tempted to retreat into our respective corners and question the legitimacy of those who disagree with us. However, people of faith are bound by different ethics. Accountable to a higher call and standard. A model committed to upholding the social contract, even when it's hard. We must engage in the political process with integrity and respect the outcomes even as we continue to advocate for our values. We are reminding ourselves and others that a single election doesn't define our national identity but our enduring ideals.
That is why all are invited to pray. Pray for the grace of civility. Pray for the courage to pursue justice for the vulnerable and champion the marginalized. Pray that we may remain one people united by our shared commitment to liberty, democracy, and the rule of law. In the aftermath of this election, let us not be a force for further division but a balm to the nation's wounds. For in doing so, we may help bring about the beloved community that has always been America's promise — a community where all can thrive, where justice rolls down like a mighty stream, and where every person, regardless of their beliefs or background, is treated with the dignity and respect they deserve as children of God.
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.
Keep ReadingShow less
Parker Johnson/Unsplash
Yes, elections have consequences – primary elections to be specific
Nov 25, 2024
Can you imagine a Republican winning in an electoral district in which Democrats make up 41 percent of the registered electorate? Seems farfetched in much of the country. As farfetched as a Democrat winning in a R+10 district.
It might be in most places in the U.S. – but not in California.
Republican Rep. David Valadao won re-election in California's 22nd congressional district, where registered Republicans make up just shy of 28 percent of the voting population. But how did he do it?
It hasn't been easy. He won election in 2022 with 51.5 percent of the vote. This year, he kept his seat with 53.4 percent of the vote. There are, however, a number of variables at play as noted in the Politico piece, "How does Rep. David Valadao keep winning?"
One, he keeps a low profile. He is not out to get "Fox News famous," as one GOP strategist noted. The same strategist also noted that (2) he isn't extreme. "He’s focused on getting the work done."
Notably, Valadao is one of two Republicans who won re-election in 2024 that voted to impeach Donald Trump after the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill riot – something that resulted in many Republicans who did the same losing their seats as a result of being primaried out.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
And still, Valado prevails. This highlights the most consequential variable: California's nonpartisan primary system.
(Primary) Elections Have Consequences
Voters hear the phrase "elections have consequences" a lot these days, but in truth most general elections aren't that consequential. Roughly 90 percent of U.S. House races in 2024 were decided before a single ballot was cast in the November general election.
This is because most districts are safe for one of the two major political parties in the U.S. as a result of partisan gerrymandering which secures districts for a party or because of voter self-sorting (meaning voters move to be with like-minded people).
The phrase that should be more normalized in the U.S. political ecosystem is "primary elections have consequences" because the primaries are the most critical stage of the publicly funded and administered elections process.
These are the elections that matter most, and where candidates actually win their seats.
Most are conducted under a partisan primary structure in which voters are immediately divided between a Republican ballot and a Democratic ballot. Candidates are incentivized to appeal to the voters who participate, which in many cases means only party members.
And historically, these elections do not draw a high turnout. Even among registered party members, it's a fraction of the total.
Due to the small voting pool and limited candidate options (only candidates of a single party), this allows party bosses, aligned special interests, and even ideological movements to weaponize these elections against politicians.
Toe the line – or else
Right now, for example, there is a question of how much pushback President-Elect Donald Trump will get from members of his own party on more controversial decisions, like appointing Matt Gaetz as Attorney General or his proposed policy on tariffs.
“If legislators get out of line, he (Trump) will threaten to support a primary challenge to them in two years. That threat will quiet many possible critics," said Darrell West, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
And threats have already been made.
"If you voted for [Merrick] Garland and won’t vote for Gaetz, you will face an immediate primary challenge," wrote conservative activist and Turning Point USA Founder Charlie Kirk on X.
Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville warned his colleagues on Fox Business that they can challenge Trump on Gaetz if they want, but if they do, "we’re going to try to get you out of the Senate, too, if you try to do that.”
Those who operate within the system know the consequences of primary elections. They don't just elect most members of Congress but shape the political landscape to be filled with elected officials who put personal and partisan interests first.
And when candidates entrench themselves deeper behind their party's brand, it widens the division between both sides each election cycle, raising the stakes of elections that are defined only by winners and losers.
Why California Is Different
In most other states, a Republican running in a D+10 district would not be treated as a serious contender in the general election. Just like no one would pay much attention to a Democrat running in a R+10 district.
But in the Central Valley in California, party labels don't always matter – especially as the electoral landscape continues to shift in the region.
California's 22nd congressional district is 41 percent Democrat, 28 percent Republican, and 23 percent No Party Preference (NPPs), a substantial chunk of the electorate that can shift the campaign environment entirely under a nonpartisan system.
Under California's Top Two election model, Rep. David Valadao doesn't run in a primary for the 28 percent of the voting population that is registered Republican. He runs in a primary open to all candidates and the entire registered electorate.
This means that from the start he doesn't have to shift his messaging much from the primary to the general election, nor does he have to cater only to a handful of voters who are part of the political minority.
He can keep a low profile. He can be less extreme. He can vote his conscience on the floor of the U.S. House and not be threatened with being primaried because he can draw support from voters outside his party's base.
Remember, Valadao was one of two Republicans who voted for Trump's impeachment after Jan. 6, 2021. The other was Rep. Dan Newhouse of Washington. Guess what California and Washington have in common.
That's right. They both use a nonpartisan Top Two primary system.
Valadao won re-election with 53 percent of the vote, something he could not have done without support from registered Republicans, NPPs and other voters outside the two major parties, AND moderate Democrats who are satisfied with his job performance.
This is the consequence of a primary election system that puts accountability above party loyalty and why nonpartisan election reformers stress the importance of primary reform to give every voter, especially independent voters, an equal voice in the process.
Griffiths is the national editor of Independent Voter News, where a version of this story first appeared.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More