Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Plenty of warnings in the turnout numbers, even though voting surged

Record voter turnout

Record voter turnout included a doubling in the number of mail-in ballots, including this stack being counted in a school gym in Sun Prairie, Wis.

Andy Manis/Getty Images

To quote the great 1970s power ballad: Two out of three ain't bad.

That Meat Loaf gold record provides a good summation for the record-breaking turnout in the presidential election: It looks like almost exactly two out of every three eligible Americans voted.

That's an estimated 159.4 million adult citizens, 20.5 million more than the previous high four years ago. And it's the strongest turnout rate since 1900 — when, by the way, women still did not have the franchise and most Black citizens and other people of color were effectively blocked from the ballot box.

Why the "ain't bad" summary, then? Because the total nonetheless means nearly 80 million people who had the right to vote decided not to. Because this year does not change how the United States still ranks near the bottom of the world's developed democracies when it comes to election participation. And because while the youth vote increased significantly, half of the population younger than 30 still did not go to the polls for a presidential election highly consequential to their future.


The numbers, which will be finalized as results get certified in the coming weeks, give advocates for a more functional democracy plenty to celebrate but also lots to keep worrying about.

Bigger shares of people voted this year than in 2016 in every state. And in all but three states — Mississippi, Missouri and Oklahoma — the turnout was better than in 2008, when Barack Obama was elected president. That year saw the highest overall turnout (62 percent) of the past half century until now.

Made with Flourish

The largest increases over four years ago were in Hawaii at 12 percentage points, Arizona and Washington at 10 points, and Utah and Vermont at 9 points.

Hawaii had decided before the coronavirus pandemic to switch to elections almost entirely by mail, as Washington and Utah had done in time for the 2016 contest. Vermont was among the five states, plus D.C., that reacted to Covid-19 by mailing ballots to all active registered voters.

Turnout was 76 percent in the two other states where vote-by-mail was standard practice before this year, Colorado and Oregon, placing them in the top five for best civic participation along with perennial top-finishers Minnesota (80 percent) and Maine (79 percent) plus presidential battleground Wisconsin (76 percent).


Made with Flourish


Credit democracy reformers

To be sure, much of the turnout surge can be attributed to the heightened passions and polarizing politics of the presidential contest, which former Vice President Joe Biden has won with 306 electoral votes — and at least 5.8 million more popular votes than President Trump.

But dozens of groups in the world of good governance, which made problem-free voting during the pandemic their galvanizing cause this year, deserve credit as well.

"In an election in which our democracy itself really was on the ballot, the democracy reform movement had a major impact — especially in pushing back against voter suppression targeting racial minorities," Zachary Roth wrote in an assessment of turnout for the Brennan Center for Justice, a progressive think tank.

In the end, 34 states decided to make it easier to cast a ballot this fall — either voluntarily or as the result of a lawsuit, but always under pressure from an array of democracy groups. After asking for 10 times as much, they also persuaded Congress to send $400 million to the states to make voting during the pandemic easier and safer.

Four states expanded the availability of polling places ahead of Election Day, while most of the other changes encouraged voting by mail and eased the rules governing the completion of absentee ballots.

Beyond the six places that switched to universal vote-by-mail for this year only, 10 states encouraged the use of absentee ballots by sending all their voters an application form. A dozen effectively abandoned normal excuse requirements for not voting in person. Four decided to pay the postage on mailed ballots. Seven reduced or dropped requirements for a witness or notary signature on envelopes, while at least four others agreed to give voters a chance to fix (or "cure") missing signatures or other flaws instead of simply having the mailed ballots thrown out.

The result was 65.5 million valid absentee ballots returned through the mail or in drop boxes by Election Day — double the total four years before and about two of every five votes cast in the entire contest.

Registration is key

Law professor Justin Levitt of Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, an expert on voting, argued that while all the voting ahead of time (another 36 million ballots were cast in person before Nov. 3) eased some of the pressure on Election Day, it probably didn't cause much of an increase in turnout.

While no-excuse absentee voting boosts participation in low-turnout elections like off-year municipal races, he said, it has proved to have only a "fairly modest" effect on turnout in presidential and midterm years.

"But the single most important gateway to voting is registration," Levitt said by email. "So 21st-century registration reforms (like automatic and portable voter registration, with an election day registration failsafe) have reliably seemed not only to boost turnout, but to increase accuracy and reduce costs."

Nineteen states (plus D.C.) allowed residents to both register and vote on Election Day this year, and a couple more will soon join them. The National Conference of State Legislatures, citing multiple studies, says same-day registration adds an average of 5 percent to turnout.

But even a quarter of the people registered did not vote this time. The World Population Review, a company that aggregates demographic statistics, said 214.3 million people were registered to vote — meaning that turnout was 74 percent of those on the registration rolls.

Who didn't vote, and why

So what do those 80 million non-voters — including 55 million who signed up to vote — have to say for themselves? The politics site FiveThirtyEight worked with the pollster Ipsos on a survey released just before Election Day that looked at that question in a creative way.

Instead of just asking people why they don't vote, pollsters interviewed more than 8,000 eligible Americans and asked a series of questions about politics and voting. They were then able to match the names of 6,000 of those people to their voting histories and could analyze the attitudes associated with infrequent or never voting.

Generally, the non-voters were younger, poorer and less educated than people for whom voting is a regular practice — and also less likely to identify with a political party.

The attitudes associated with low-frequency or non-voters included the belief that:

  • They didn't like any of the candidates.
  • The system is too broken, so voting doesn't matter.
  • All candidates are the same, so why vote.
  • They don't believe in voting.
  • It doesn't matter if they vote.
  • No one is talking about issues important to me..

We're No. 30

Another sad statistic, unlikely to change too much even with the large jump in turnout this year, is how low the United States ranks in political engagement among developed democracies.

Based on the most recent national election figures before this year, the U.S. ranked 30th in turnout among 35 nations belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an international body focused mainly on boosting member economies and trade.

Compulsory voting in a handful of countries — Australia is the biggest credible democracy where exercising the franchise is mandatory — is one factor that contributes to higher turnout. And a 2003 study by Canadian election officials, of 151 elections in 61 democracies over more than a decade, found turnout was 10 points higher in countries that allowed voting by mail or in advance of the final election day.

One part of the turnout picture that again received a lot of attention was the effort to get more young adults to the polls — a quadrennial effort by civic activists and partisans alike, who say every time that younger voters are poised to cast the decisive vote in an election where they may have the most at stake. This time those efforts paid off, but only by some measures.

Half of citizens ages 18 to 29 voted this year (50 to 52 percent), and that rate may go higher when the tally is finalized, according to an estimate by Tufts University's Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, which focuses on the youth vote. That compares to an estimated 42 to 44 percent in 2016.

But even with this increase, turnout by young people was nowhere close to the 66 percent nationwide share. And the national exit poll pegged their share of the electorate at 16 percent, about in line with their share of the population but down 3 points from their percentage of all votes cast in 2016.


Read More

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less