Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Veterans, politics and primaries

Veterans, politics and primaries

Retired four-star general George Casey spoke about the need to be apolitical while leading the military at an event yesterday.

Chip Somodevilla /Getty Images

General George W. Casey spoke at an event on October 19, 2022 to a group of veterans and national security advisors. Casey, a retired four-star general who served as the 36th Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, spoke of his 41 years of military service and the absolute need to be apolitical while leading the military. Following his retirement, he noted his process in unlearning his apolitical stance, and he asked himself how he could best continue to serve the nation.

Ultimately, he decided on nonpartisan activities through political acts of service like encouraging veterans to participate and follow their conscience. He volunteered to be a poll worker. He speaks about politics with few clues to his voting record. That’s not his point. General Casey’s point is to continue serving our nation in ways that are aligned with our personal values of liberty and justice for all; continuing to uphold the Constitution as all military personnel pledge upon joining the armed services.


The event was hosted by Veterans for Political Innovation, a group that advocates for electoral reform, primarily what’s known as Final Four/Five and Ranked Choice Voting. Each state offers a different set of rules for primary voting. One challenge veterans face in voting is being blocked from voting in primaries in closed or partially closed primary states.

  • Closed primaries: Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington DC.
  • Partially closed primaries (party can allow independent voters): Connecticut, Idaho, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah
  • Partially open primaries (voter can choose up to election day to change affiliation or join a party): Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Tennessee, Wyoming
  • Open to unaffiliated voters (i.e. declared partisans cannot vote on opposing party ballot): Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, West Virginia
  • Open primaries (voters may select a partisan ballot on election day without registering for that party): Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin
  • Top-Two primaries (all partisan candidates are on one ballot, the top two advance regardless of party affiliation): California, Washington
  • Other primary processes:
    • Louisiana runs all candidates on the general election ballot without a primary election. If no candidate received more than 50%, a runoff election is held six weeks after the general election.
    • Nebraska uses a nonpartisan election system common to local offices for all elections. All candidates appear on the same primary ballot without party designation and all voters select from the same ballot.
    • Alaska recently adopted a top-four primary system.

To recap, voters have open primary ballot access in 26 states, but are blocked by partisan legislators in 24 states and Washington DC.

Partisans see the choice differently, asking people to join their party to participate in the party candidate selection process. The taxpayer picks up the tab for all primary elections; not the parties.

Closed primary elections disenfranchise more than 20 million Americans, including the close to 50% of veterans who do not identify with either major political party. Open primaries, on the other hand, offer state-selected solutions for top-two, final four or final five voting choices, regardless of party affiliation. Currently in Nevada, ballot measure 3 would shift all state legislative, state executive and federal elections to final five voting. This will open up voting access in the 2024 election cycle to all voters, not just partisans.

Read More

AI chip
a computer chip with the letter a on top of it
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

We Should Regulate AI to Make It Grow Faster

The debate over artificial intelligence has become divided between two powerful ideas: that we need a “moratorium” to slow AI until we can make it safe, and that regulating AI will slow the innovation we need for our economy and national security. Both concerns are legitimate. But “moratorium” and “slowing AI growth” are divisive terms: they reassure those concerned about AI's safety, economic and environmental consequences while alarming those who see AI competition and national security as urgent priorities. We need a different starting point—meaningful regulation that provides the safeguards necessary to protect people, communities and the environment while creating the conditions for AI to continue growing. The experiences of Europe and China challenge the assumption that regulation must slow AI.

China has combined increasingly detailed, technology-specific AI regulation with substantial government support for AI development. Recent studies provide evidence that this approach can promote innovation. One 2026 study of Chinese companies from 2017 through 2023 found that the creation of national AI innovation and development pilot zones significantly increased corporate digital transformation, in part through increased research and development, human capital and reduced transition costs. Another 2026 study, covering Chinese manufacturing companies from 2014 through 2024, found that the same policy significantly promoted the adoption of intelligent technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

A Brief History of Prevention Through Deterrence

The U.S. Border Patrol agency has evolved greatly over the years, shifting its focus to address changing national security concerns. It was originally established in 1924 to restrict illegal immigration by Chinese and European immigrants before moving to restrict alcohol smuggling during Prohibition. The agency adopted its current focus on illegal immigration from Mexico during the 1970s, when immigration pressures coincided with a severe economic recession in the United States. In 1994, the Border Patrol released a strategy document with the support of the Clinton administration which introduced an approach to immigration known as Prevention Through Deterrence. This tactic aimed to discourage border crossings by funneling immigrants through border entry points with harsh terrain, in contrast with previous policies based on arrest and apprehension post-entry.

Successful Prevention Through Deterrence is measured by fewer encounters and apprehensions at the border, indicating that illegal attempts to enter the country have been prevented and deterred. Barriers to entry are policed by a range of physical infrastructure like fences, vehicle barriers, and other blockades designed to stop illegal foot and vehicle traffic. These measures are supported by camera- and thermal-based surveillance systems as well as measures like deportation and criminal charges which impose legal consequences on migrants. The focus of Prevention Through Deterrence operations themselves is twofold: establishing control of high-traffic border sectors and using security measures to enable the seizure of contraband.

Keep ReadingShow less
A microphone in the foreground and a crowd, blurry in the background.

INC ‘26 gathered independent leaders in D.C. to unveil a seven-candidate slate, a Fulcrum Caucus strategy and new tools for corruption-free governance.

Getty Images, uschools

Independent Movement Unites at INC ’26 to Build National Power

From September 23–25, leaders from across the American independent political movement gathered at the JW Marriott in Washington, D.C., for the fourth Independent National Convention (INC ’26). Produced by United Independents, the event brought together hundreds of participants representing political reform organizations, independent campaigns, alternative parties, civic initiatives and grassroots organizing efforts.

The gathering reflected the breadth of activity outside the traditional two-party system while addressing a persistent challenge: translating America's large independent constituency into greater political representation, institutional capacity, and coordinated action.

Keep ReadingShow less
Meeting, handshake and business people with deal in office for funding approval and success.

Four Reds and four Blues reached unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration, then presented them to Reps. Fitzpatrick and Suozzi. Here’s how it worked.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

On Immigration, Common Ground May Be Closer Than We Think

Immigration has become one of the issues pulling Americans apart. Earlier this month, at a constituent conversation in Bristol, Pennsylvania, I watched eight Americans with very different political views offer a glimpse of how it does not have to stay that way.

Four “Reds” and four “Blues” — terms used for participants on the political right and left — sat across from Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), the Republican and Democratic co-chairs of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, to present something increasingly unusual in our politics: unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration developed through an earlier Common Ground Workshop.

Keep ReadingShow less