Skip to content
Project 2025
Donate to support
diverse voices
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
Cargo containers piled on each other.

The Facts on U.S.–Canada Tariffs Nearly One Year Into Trump’s Plan

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

An illustration of two hands controlling a small person attached to strings.

Parallels and Patterns: George Orwell’s 1984, Hitler’s Nazi, and Trump 2.0

You're darn tootin': Fargo just revolutionized American elections

Opinion

You're darn tootin': Fargo just revolutionized American electionsplay icon
What Is Approval Voting?
www.youtube.com
By Caitlyn Alley Peña,
Caitlyn Alley Peña
See More Writings by author
Chris Raleigh
Chris Raleigh
See More Writings by author
Jul 21, 2020

Peña is operations director and Raleigh is advocacy director at the Center for Election Science, which advocates for the alternative election method known as approval voting.

Straightforward. Practical. Just trying to do the right thing. That's how we would describe the people we've met in Fargo.

North Dakota's largest city, with just above 120,000 people, has a small-town feel. The people smile at you as you walk down the sidewalk, and it seems that everyone knows everyone else. They love hotdishes, knoephla and community street festivals. They have pride in their city and pride in their identity as people from the Plains.

And it seems like that small-town, Great Plains attitude is part of what led Fargo citizens to overwhelmingly vote to implement approval voting in 2018. Voters could see that approval voting was just like them — straightforward, practical and trying to get it right.

The people of Fargo — people like Reform Fargo leader Jed Limke — knew there was something wrong with their elections. They saw candidates winning without broad support. They saw the voices of many people not being heard. And they knew this was wrong. So they didn't stop until something was done about it. They didn't stop until approval voting was passed.

A year and a half later — six week ago, on June 9 — Fargo voters participated in the nation's first-ever approval voting election. They got to experience first-hand just how straightforward, practical, and able-to-get-it-right approval voting is. It's no longer just a good idea. We now have real-world data to show the power of approval voting and why it can and should be used by everyone.

Approval voting proved itself to be straightforward. With approval voting, voters simply voted for all the candidates they supported, none they didn't, and the two candidates approved by the most voters won. That's it. No multiple rounds, formulas, or complicated ballots.

Approval voting made it clear who won and what the people wanted — the two winning candidates for the city council received approvals from 55 percent and 53 percent of voters. That's a far cry from the days when members of the City Commission were elected with small fractions of the vote. This time, the winners have a clear mandate to lead and implement needed changes for their city. What's more straightforward than that?

Even better, voters agree that approval voting is straightforward. In a poll we commissioned, 71 percent of Fargo voters said that approval voting was easy to use. That means that voters were able to have their voices truly heard, and it only required a small, easily understandable change. As our friends at Reform Fargo have said: Small change, big impact.

Approval voting is also practical. When the Fargo Elections Task Force looked into alternative voting methods to improve city elections several years ago, one of the reasons they eventually recommended approval voting is because implementing it wouldn't cost the city a cent. Their voting machines were already equipped to use approval voting — as are any other voting machines anywhere across the country. This is not the case with all voting methods, as some more complicated alternatives can require costly upgrades.

Strong democracy shouldn't be reserved for cities with big budgets. Voters in cash-strapped cities shouldn't have to wait for a software upgrade to have their voices heard. Approval voting is the practical, democratic option that's open to everyone — with no deep pockets required.

Finally, just like the people of Fargo, approval voting tries to get it right. We can see that in the results from last month. Voters were able to elect candidates who had broad support — more than half the voters cast votes for each winner from a field of six, incumbent John Strand and challenger Arlette Preston.

Approval voting allowed newcomers with new ideas to enter the race without fear of being a "spoiler." In the poll we conducted, 69 percent of voters said that approval voting helped them vote for their favorite candidate without worrying about spoiling the election. This means that more underdog candidates can have their voices heard and have a real shot at being elected.

Approval voting gave power back to voters by allowing them to share their opinion on each and every candidate on the ballot. Traditionally, political power lies with the candidates who are able to cater to the smallest possible base of support and squeak by on the margins. Not with approval voting. Now, voters are in charge.

And because approval voting gives power back to the people, it empowers communities who have historically been marginalized by our voting system to elect leaders who represent their interests. In St. Louis, where we're helping activists to implement nonpartisan, approval voting primaries, 74 percent of Black residents said they would be more likely to vote in city elections under approval voting. They see that approval voting will allow them to concentrate — not split — their political power, hold winners accountable, and make sure that elected officials represent their interests.

It may not have gotten a lot of attention, but people in our 223rd biggest city just did something historic. They held the first-ever approval voting election in United States history. They took an enormous step toward a stronger, more just democracy. A city that many of us don't think about outside of the universe of Coen Brothers movies just revolutionized the way their elections run.

And how'd they do it? They did it by sticking to their roots — straightforward, practical, and not stopping until they got it right. Maybe the rest of the world needs to be a bit more like Fargo.


Latest news

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem
Environment

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”
Ethics & Leadership

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift
Elections

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift

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
© Copyright 2026