Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Another Survey Highlights Public’s Desire for a Government Makeover

Add another poll to the growing evidence that more and more Americans are dissatisfied with the federal government and want the political system revamped.

The pessimism has gotten so strong that one in eight voters is ready to start from scratch.


The survey released last week — by the University of Chicago and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research — found 54 percent think that major changes are needed to the U.S. system of government. Another 32 percent said either minor or no changes are needed.

And a remarkable 12 percent of those surveyed, including 22 percent of independents, said we need to dump the current system and come up with an altogether different system.

Other findings in the survey of 1,003 people include:

  • 70 percent say people like them have too little power and influence in Washington.
  • More than 70 percent say the government should have a lot of responsibility for issues such as terrorism, economic growth and crime, but few believe it handles such issues very well.
  • Only 13 percent say they trust the government in Washington to do what is right always or most of the time.

"The poll reveals that voters do not trust government to follow through, and it's not meeting their expectations. This lack of trust and lack of performance relates to larger concerns about the state of American democracy," said William Howell of the Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy.

"There's a real opening here for political candidates to address people's desire for systemic change."

Democrats were more likely than Republicans to believe major changes are needed to the government. They also had more critical views of government performance than their GOP counterparts, and more think that people like them have too little power and influence compared to Republicans.

A Gallup poll conducted in January found that Americans' trust in the federal government's ability to handle problems had fallen to the lowest point in almost 20 years.


Read More

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. House Republicans

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Democrats Gerrymandered David Valadao’s District. Did It Backfire?

GOP US Rep. David Valadao has never won his seat in Congress on Republican votes alone because too few Republicans live in the district where he was raised, lives, and runs his family farm.

- YouTube youtu.be

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less