VerifiedVoting.org is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that advocates for legislation and regulation that promotes accuracy, transparency and verifiability of elections. We believe the integrity and strength of our democracy relies on citizens' trust that each vote be counted as cast. Our primary concern lies in ensuring that the means for verifying election outcomes are in place and used for that purpose. We also focus on the reliability and security of voting systems. We connect those who are making and implementing policy that shapes how we vote to those who understand the particular risks associated with the emerging digital landscape, particularly online and electronic voting.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
Aug 04, 2026
This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.
Part 2 — The Untold History
An amendment proposed for the Bill of Rights that twice came within a single state of ratification should not simply disappear from a nation’s memory, but Article the first did. To understand why, we have to follow its inverted word from Part 1 out of the enrolled parchment and into the state legislatures that had to reckon with the resulting formulaic defect. That word — “more” where the House had written “less,” a change inexplicably introduced by the conference committee in the frenzied final days of the first session, in September 1789 — had turned an intended floor beneath the House’s size into a second ceiling. That reversal was no considered choice. Read literally, the new clause set a ceiling below its own floor — an impossible formula, as Part 1 showed — and the founders, having already approved a coherent version in both chambers, would not knowingly have put such an absurdity in its place.
This was an unintended defect, not a decision. And “less” was the word the era expected — the coherent version was the one the press had previously reported. It was up to the states’ legislators to detect the flaw and then contend with it.
The first Article came remarkably close to ratification. By the end of 1791, ten states had ratified it — one short of the eleven then required for three-fourths of the fourteen states in the union. The following June, Kentucky became the eleventh state to ratify — but its admission as the fifteenth state that same month raised the threshold to twelve, and the amendment fell one short once more. Then the ratifications stopped. The last ten proposals became the Bill of Rights; the first of the twelve — the one about the size of the people’s House — was left behind, and faded almost entirely from public memory.
The most remarkable reason it stalled is buried in its arithmetic. The defective clause capped the House at one representative for every fifty thousand people — which, for any national population between roughly eight and ten million, works out to fewer than 200 seats. Yet the same clause forbade any House smaller than 200. For that entire range of populations the nation was about to reach, the amendment set a maximum House size below its own required minimum. A ceiling beneath a floor is not a difficult formula; it is an unsolvable one. The defect did not merely make the amendment awkward to apply; it would have made implementation impossible three decades hence.
That contradiction did not go unnoticed at the time. The surviving legislative records are fragmentary, but our reconstruction of the state deliberations has turned up several statehouses where legislators recognized the formula was defective and could not make it work — the fullest surviving record among them from Pennsylvania.
When its lower house took up the first Article for a second time, in September 1791, the proposal found a formidable champion in Albert Gallatin — a young legislator later regarded as one of the sharpest analytical minds of his generation, and eventually the longest-serving Treasury secretary in the nation’s history. Gallatin argued for the amendment with a set of figures intended to demonstrate its viability. But his figures quietly smoothed over the very flaw at issue, assuming the clause behaved sensibly precisely where, read literally, it did not.
It fell to a far less celebrated colleague, Richard Wells, to read the words exactly as written. Wells took Benjamin Franklin’s well-known model of American population doubling and carried it forward: By about 1820, he reckoned, the country would hold some nine million people — a figure that landed squarely inside the impossible range. On that basis, he declared that the proposal “bore a contradiction and an absurdity in the very face of it.” He was right, and the arithmetic bore him out on schedule: The 1820 census counted 8,969,878. Had the defective amendment been the law, no valid apportionment of the House could have been derived from that census.
Stranger still, the illusion was not a modern phenomenon. It was already at work at the very moment of the amendment’s creation — the same quiet correction that the National Archives and today’s AI models would perform two centuries later was operating on the amendment’s own contemporaries. The mind restored “more” to “less” in 1791 exactly as it does in 2026. Wells, who had labored through the arithmetic, was the rare reader to break the spell.
This history corrects a reflex that has since hardened into conventional wisdom — the assumption that the states, in declining the first Article, were rejecting the very idea of a much larger House. The record shows nearly the reverse. Many of the state ratifying conventions had demanded a House guaranteed to grow with the population; it was among the assurances they had wanted in exchange for the Constitution itself. What they later refused was not a larger House, but a text that failed to deliver one — a proposal whose only binding promise was a feeble floor of 200 representatives, and whose formula was mathematically broken. The states were not rejecting a bigger House. They were rejecting a broken promise of one.
What the founders actually intended is not in doubt. The surest proof that perpetual growth was widely embraced is the vote it took to advance it: Proposing a constitutional amendment requires the concurrence of two-thirds of each chamber, and the House and the Senate each gave that supermajority to its own version of the first Article — both versions coherently worded to guarantee a House that expands proportionately with the population in perpetuity. The House’s version set a floor of one representative for every fifty thousand people. The expectation behind that design was explicit. Federalist 55 anticipated that the House would roughly double each generation, reaching four hundred members by the 1840s and, following the same “computed rate of increase,” further out, “six or seven thousand” eventually. And for half a century the government behaved accordingly: From 1790 through 1830, Congress sized the House as the intended, floor-bearing version prescribed — treating the coherent proposal, in practice, as though it were the law the defective text had failed to become.
But then the founding generation passed from the scene, and their design went with them. By the founders’ own arithmetic, the 1840 census should have produced a House of at least four hundred. Instead, Congress apportioned 223 seats — a decrease of seventeen from the previous decade. The chamber would not exceed four hundred for another seventy years, reaching 435 in 1913; in 1929, Congress froze it there, and there it has remained.
The point worth holding onto is this: A House that grows with the people was never a fringe proposition or a modern reform-movement invention. It was the founders’ documented design — drafted twice, in both chambers, and honored in practice for the republic’s first five apportionments — abandoned not by the people or the states, but by later Congresses with their own reasons for keeping the chamber small. Recognizing that the growing House was the original plan, and not a radical departure from it, is the first step toward reclaiming it.
Which leaves the question that the final part will answer. If the founders wanted a House that grows with the nation, and the one amendment written to guarantee it is a dead end — defective beyond rescue even if it were somehow revived — then what, today, can actually enlarge the House? The answer, as explained in Part 3 of this series, requires no constitutional amendment at all.
Second of three parts, condensed from a fuller treatment, “The Enduring Textual Illusion of “Article the First,”” at Thirty-Thousand.org.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama speak onstage at a stakeholders event at the Obama Presidential Center on June 16, 2026 in Chicago, Illinois.
(Photo by Pablo Martinez Monsivais-Pool/Getty Images)
The America We See — And the One We Can Reclaim
Aug 03, 2026
Who would believe that in America in 2026, race is still an issue? And yet it is — not because we lack laws or progress, but because too many people still refuse to accept one another as human beings, equal in dignity and worth. Our founding promise declared that “all people are created equal,” but we have never fully lived up to that ideal. The hostility directed at Barack and Michelle Obama is proof that the old hierarchies have not disappeared. They have simply found new ways to express themselves.
This is not about politics. It is about the moral difference between cruelty and character — and the choice Americans must make about which future they want to reclaim. Those forces were already present in American life. But the president opened the door wider. He elevated them. That is how you end up with a UFC fighter publicly calling Former First Lady Michelle Obama a man — a dehumanizing insult rooted in racism and misogyny. Americans must reject that kind of cruelty.
Black Americans and other people of color — Latinos, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and many others — have contributed immeasurably to this country. Millions of Americans know this and honor it. But some remain trapped in old hierarchies, in the mindset of Jim Crow, in the belief that leadership and brilliance come in only one color. Barack Obama’s excellence challenged those assumptions. His intelligence, calm, dignity, and global respect threatened the worldview of people who believed themselves superior by default. And instead of rising to meet that moment, some chose resentment and cruelty.
Maya Angelou captured this truth with devastating clarity: “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” The president has shown us who he is. The cruelty is not accidental. The obsession is not incidental. And yet, as Angelou also wrote, people like Michelle and Barack Obama rise above it — “You may shoot me with your words… but still, like air, I’ll rise.” Their grace in the face of hatred is a reminder of what true character looks like.
For ten years, the president has remained obsessed with Barack Obama. It is not political disagreement — it is fixation. He has worked to dismantle Obama’s legacy, from weakening the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to withdrawing from the Iran nuclear agreement and amplifying baseless claims about investigations. His actions reveal a refusal to accept Obama’s leadership and the respect he earned.
And what did it say about his loyalists in Congress who allowed all of this to happen? They watched the ACA be dismantled and said nothing. They watched DEI programs be gutted and said nothing. They watched the cruelty, the insults, the dehumanization — and said nothing. Their silence was agreement. Their inaction was consent.
Americans see this. One Floridian told me he misses having a president who can speak without demeaning someone — a longing shared by millions who want professionalism, stability, and a country that feels united again.
Americans also see the corruption — the lies, retaliation, election interference, and a president who abuses his oath and ignores the Constitution. They see a leader who concentrates power, disregards court orders, hides evidence, and enriches himself while families struggle. Most people, especially people of color, know the truth in what they see, hear, and live. They see no-bid contracts, taxpayer‑funded vanity projects, and a president who has even sued the government he leads. And they hear him warn that if Democrats are elected, “they will find a way to impeach me” — an admission that he knows he is abusing his power and has a Congress too afraid to check him.
And yet, even in a moment defined by cruelty and corruption, Americans still remember what healthy leadership looks like. In June, as Americans watched the opening of the Obama Presidential Center, they saw a different America — a celebration of inclusion, not exclusion; a moment with no divisions, no insults, no cruelty. Just Americans, all colors and backgrounds, standing together in unity, dignity, and respect. Even people who were not invited felt included, and those watching from home felt they belonged. For a brief moment, we saw what we have been missing — and what we can reclaim: an America for all people, regardless of race, cultural background, or socioeconomic status. A leader who welcomed everyone and earned the respect of millions.
Unity cannot be reclaimed without truth. A better America requires acknowledging the contributions of all people and embracing the diversity that has always defined us. Race cannot be ignored, and history cannot be erased. As painful chapters disappear from school curricula, families must teach the truth at home — not out of anger, but out of pride in the resilience of their ancestors. Slavery is part of the American story, and refusing to hide it is an act of dignity.
Cultural heritage months — Black History Month, Mexican Heritage Month, and others — exist because they honor experiences that shaped this nation. Yet as the 250th anniversary approached, the president declared that “Black history is not distinct from American history.” It sounded inclusive, but it functioned as denial — a refusal to face the cruelty of slavery or acknowledge the reality of white nationalism. Millions may avoid conversations about race, but the president’s actions speak loudly.
Americans hear his views clearly in the dismantling of DEI, the weakening of the ACA, the elimination of OBBBA, and legislation and voter interference that disproportionately harm communities of color. He may not always voice racist remarks aloud, but the tone is unmistakable — projected through policies, priorities, and silence. A country cannot heal when its leaders deny its past. Honesty, courage, and a willingness to confront the truth together are the only path forward.
A functioning democracy depends on checks and balances — leaders who respect institutions, uphold the Constitution, and understand that their power comes from the people. The president opened the door to cruelty, division, retaliation, and corruption, but Americans can close it. They want stability. They want competence. They want leaders who listen, who surround themselves with experts, and who work to unify rather than divide.
Americans must be the ones to stop the cruelty — and refuse to imitate it. We must insist on leaders who value dignity over dominance, truth over spectacle, and service over self‑promotion. And we must model the country we want to live in — in our language, our choices, and our treatment of one another.
Above all, we reclaim it by voting. Checks and balances only work when the people participate. Democracy is not preserved by anger or exhaustion. It is preserved by citizens who refuse to surrender their character, even when cruelty is loudest.
A better America will not simply appear. It must be reclaimed by the people who still believe in it. The America we long for is not gone. It is waiting for us to reclaim it.
_______________________________________________________________________
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and former principal who has spent her career advancing civic responsibility, equity, and public engagement. She writes about democracy, leadership, and the values that strengthen American communities.
Keep ReadingShow less
Federal investigators spent eight months reviewing the Allied Pilots Association election, examining ballot secrecy, observer rights, election records and transparency before allowing the results to stand.
Jeremy Poland/Getty Images
What a Federal Investigation of a Union Election Can Teach Us About Democratic Trust
Aug 03, 2026
For eight months, federal investigators examined allegations involving ballot secrecy, observer rights, election records and reporting procedures in a contested union election before allowing the result to stand.
Following a disputed election within the Allied Pilots Association (APA), complaints led to a formal review by the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Labor-Management Standards. Investigators spent months going through election records, audit logs, witness testimony and technical documentation before reaching their conclusion.
The review extended into highly specific questions and investigators examined whether a mail ballot voter's identity could be connected to a ballot because only one mail ballot was counted during part of the election. They reviewed how encryption keys were managed, whether vote records could be linked to individual voters, whether observers had meaningful opportunities to review portions of the election process and whether election records supported the procedures that had been followed.
Questions around election integrity are not unique to union elections. Similar issues surface whenever organizations are asked to demonstrate that established procedures were followed and that outcomes can be independently reviewed.
The challenge facing democratic institutions
Institutions across society operate in an environment where public confidence has become harder to maintain. Social media accelerates the spread of allegations and AI-generated content can amplify misinformation, allowing for competing narratives to emerge before a full set of facts becomes available.
Many people no longer accept assurances at face value, particularly when those assurances come from organizations directly involved in the process being questioned. Records, documentation and transparent procedures carry increasing weight when institutions are asked to explain how decisions were made and whether established processes were followed. Election challenges often hinge on whether claims can be evaluated using documented evidence and established procedures.
In 2026, the Department of Labor required ATU Local 26 in Detroit to rerun an election after some members were not properly notified and others were unable to vote. A year earlier, APWU Local 1201 in Florida was required to rerun an election after ballot mailing errors prevented eligible members from receiving voting materials. Both cases involved questions about election administration and whether election procedures had been followed as required.
The questions examined during the APA investigation extend well beyond organized labor, because institutions increasingly operate in environments where allegations can spread quickly and confidence can erode just as fast. Under those conditions, the ability to verify procedures and evaluate claims becomes increasingly important.
Election challenges place institutions under a microscope. Procedures that receive little attention during routine operations suddenly become central to determining whether members, voters and stakeholders continue to view the outcome as legitimate.
Why union elections offer lessons beyond organized labor
Union elections occupy an important place within American democracy. They are governed by federal requirements, often involve highly engaged constituencies and determine the leadership of organizations responsible for representing thousands of workers.
Recent trends have increased the pressure on election administration with workforces becoming more geographically dispersed and election disputes potentially requiring months of review. Internal governance questions that may once have remained local can now trigger lengthy investigations which come with significant legal costs.
The APA investigation touched on many of the same issues that are popping up in election disputes across every sector. Investigators reviewed observer access, voter eligibility procedures, election certifications, audit records, ballot secrecy protections and claims that election records contained inconsistencies. Some allegations were dismissed quickly, while others required months of interviews and analysis of election documentation before investigators reached a conclusion.
Election administrators often focus on running a successful election, while investigations typically focus on how decisions were documented and whether procedures can be independently reviewed months later. The ability to answer those questions increasingly shapes how organizations respond when outcomes are challenged.
Building institutions that can withstand scrutiny
Democratic governance has always depended on public confidence, but maintaining that confidence has become more difficult as information moves faster and skepticism toward institutions grows. Organizations cannot eliminate election disputes, because competitive elections create disagreement and participants will continue to challenge outcomes.
Questions around election integrity became the focus of the APA investigation only after the election ended, with issues that received little attention during routine administration becoming central months later when investigators began examining what occurred.
The APA election ultimately remained in place after investigators completed their review, but it took time. Election systems should operate with that reality in mind, and remember that challenges are a normal part of democratic governance. Organizations that preserve records, document procedures and provide meaningful transparency are better prepared when those reviews occur.
Shai Bargil is co-founder and CEO of Sequent, a provider of end-to-end verifiable digital voting technology used by governments, municipalities, unions and organizations around the world.
Keep ReadingShow less
From FIFA to federal agencies, politics is reshaping institutions once guided by expertise. How Trump v. Slaughter could redefine presidential power.
Aitor Diago/Getty Images
The Politicization of Everything
Aug 03, 2026
A red card is supposed to be one of the few things in public life a president cannot fix.
Not anymore, apparently. During the World Cup, U.S. striker Folarin Balogun received a red card and an automatic one-game suspension. President Trump called FIFA President Gianni Infantino, who lifted the suspension. Whether the decision was right or wrong is beside the point. Another line separating politics from ordinary life had been crossed.
If this were an isolated incident, it would be little more than an odd World Cup footnote. It isn't. Americans increasingly find politics intruding into places once governed by professional judgment, expertise, or simply a respite from partisan conflict. Schools, libraries, universities, corporations, museums, public health agencies, and now even sports have become ideological battlegrounds.
The instinct to treat every institution as another arena for political influence has become one of the defining features of modern American public life.
Political scientists have spent the better part of a decade documenting this phenomenon. In her 2018 book, Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity, political scientist Lilliana Mason argued that partisanship has evolved into a "mega-identity," shaping not only how Americans vote but how they view themselves, their opponents, and institutions far removed from elections.
More recently, Ezra Klein and other journalists have brought these findings to a broader audience, showing how politics increasingly colors institutions and experiences that were once largely insulated from partisan conflict. Politics no longer merely influences public life. It increasingly claims territory once governed by expertise, professional norms, and civic trust.
The Supreme Court's recent decision in Trump v. Slaughter may prove to be another milestone in that transformation. The Court did more than resolve a dispute over the dismissal of a Federal Trade Commission commissioner. It strengthened the president's constitutional authority over independent agencies.
Congress recognized that some governmental functions, including protecting consumers, regulating financial markets, and overseeing labor relations, require continuity and professional expertise that should not swing with every election.
The Court’s reasoning is that because the president is charged with faithfully executing the laws, he must have broad authority to supervise and, when necessary, remove the officials who carry them out. In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court concluded that the president's Article II authority outweighed Congress's effort to shield leaders of certain independent agencies from removal. The ruling does not abolish independent agencies, but it narrows Congress's ability to insulate them from presidential control.
The significance of the decision lies less in today's controversies than in tomorrow's incentives.
Constitutional rules shape political behavior.
As presidents acquire greater authority to reward loyalty and remove dissent within independent agencies, the pressure to align professional judgment with political priorities will only increase. What scholars have identified as a growing social phenomenon may now become an institutional one.
Democracy depends on politics. It depends on spirited elections, vigorous debate, and sharp disagreements over the nation's future. But it also depends on institutions that citizens trust to carry out their responsibilities according to law, expertise, and professional judgment rather than partisan loyalty.
A referee should not have to answer to a coach.
An independent regulator should not have to answer to a president.
The greatest danger posed by Slaughter is not that one administration gains more influence over independent agencies. Administrations come and go. The greater danger is that Americans gradually lose the expectation that some institutions should stand apart from politics altogether. Once that expectation disappears, every election becomes a struggle not only over public policy but over the operation of every institution that shapes our daily lives.
The health of a constitutional democracy is measured not only by the vigor of its politics, but also by the strength of the boundaries that keep politics in its proper place.
Referees are expected to enforce the rules of the game, not favor one team over another.
In our constitutional order, Supreme Court justices occupy a similar role. Their decisions inevitably shape politics, but they also determine where politics ends and constitutional government begins. If those lines continue to blur, America may discover that the greatest casualty is not any single agency or administration, but the public's faith that some institutions still answer to rules rather than politics.
Robert Cropf is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Louis University.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More