Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Ranked-choice voting poised to return to Vermont's largest city

Burlington, Vt.

Voters in Burlington will give RCV a second shot.

James Buck/Getty Images

Tuesday was a big day for fans of alternative voting systems.

Two-thirds of voters in Burlington cast ballots in favor of restoring ranked-choice voting in Vermont's largest city. If Vermont's Democratic-majority General Assembly and GOP Gov. Phil Scott also sign off on the ballot initiative, ranked-choice voting will be used for city council elections starting next March.

And a rival method, approval voting, made its debut in St. Louis after winning its own approval last year.


With this latest win in Burlington, momentum for ranked-choice voting continues to build across the country. More than 20 cities or counties use RCV, and Alaska just joined Maine as the first states to implement the system. More than two dozen states have active campaigns advocating for RCV, but its biggest debut will be in the New York mayoral primary in June.

Burlington was an early adopter of ranked-choice voting in 2005, when voters chose to implement it for city council and mayoral elections. However, five years and two mayoral elections later, voters decided to revert back to traditional plurality voting after a controversial mayor was elected through RCV.

After a decade without ranked elections, the city council attempted to put an initiative to use RCV for all citywide elections on the ballot last November, but the effort was vetoed by Democratic Mayor Miro Weinberger. Council members then amended the initiative so RCV would only be used for council elections. The mayor approved this narrower use and the initiative was placed on the March 2 ballot.

The pro-RCV campaign Better Ballot Burlington was led by City Councilor Zoraya Hightower, a member of the Progressive Party, and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a Democrat.

Under this alternative voting system, voters rank candidates in order of preference. In the case that no candidate receives majority support, the election goes into an instant runoff in which the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and that person's support is redistributed to voters' second choices. This continues until one candidate crosses the 50 percent threshold.

Proponents say ranked-choice voting deters negative campaigning and supports more consensus-driven politics, while also boosting the election prospects of women and people of color. Opponents argue the system is confusing and doesn't necessarily lead to better representation.

While ranked-choice voting is probably the most widely known and used alternative voting method, it's not the only option. St. Louis used approval voting for the first time in its mayoral election Tuesday, becoming the second city to employ the system (after Fargo, N.D.).

This voting system allowed the city's voters to "approve" of as many of the four mayoral candidates as they liked. The two candidates who received the most votes, Tishaura Jones and Cara Spencer, will now advance to the April general election — guaranteeing the city will have its second female mayor.


Read More

Russia Tested NATO’s Airspace 18 Times in 2025 Alone – a 200% Surge That Signals a Dangerous Shift

Police inspect damage to a house struck by debris from a shot down Russian drone in the village of Wyryki-Wola, eastern Poland, on Sept. 10, 2025.

Russia Tested NATO’s Airspace 18 Times in 2025 Alone – a 200% Surge That Signals a Dangerous Shift

Russian aircraft, drones and missiles have violated NATO airspace dozens of times since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022.

Individually, many of these incidents appear minor: a drone crash here, a brief fighter incursion there, a missile discovered only after the fact.

Keep ReadingShow less
Crowd waving flags
Crowd waving flags
(Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

The Government We Value Is Fading

What's happening in our country? Americans are living through a political transformation we did not vote for, did not debate, and did not consent to — and it is happening in real time. [NPR]

America was built on a radical idea: that a diverse people could govern themselves, that power would be shared, and that no leader could ever place himself above the law. The framers designed a Constitution that divided authority, checked ambition, and protected the voices of ordinary citizens. They feared concentrated power. They feared silence. They feared exactly what we are witnessing today.

Keep ReadingShow less
Speak Now or Forever War

U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick (C along fence) listens as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a visit to the Fort Bragg U.S. Army base on February 13, 2026 in Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

Getty Images, Nathan Howard

Speak Now or Forever War

Trump may have just started the next forever war. If you were a casual listener of last week’s State of the Union, you’d have heard the president offer some forceful words about Iran without mentioning he had already amassed an armada outside Iran so big it is the largest show of U.S. naval power in the Middle East since Iraq. Only a few days later, against the counsel of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, despite having neither a clear rationale nor a plan for involvement, let alone presenting one to Congress or the American public, the U.S. began reckless and illegal strikes on Iran. For weeks prior, rumors had been circulating that Trump was considering a fully fledged, enduring conflict. Former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene’s response on X summed up what many of us were thinking: “Americans do not want to go to war with Iran!!!…And they voted for NO MORE FOREIGN WARS AND NO MORE REGIME CHANGE.” None of this registered with a President who had already bombed seven countries since returning to power. With Trump and Hegseth so hellbent on hellfire at our expense, we all must speak up to stop them. That’s why they’re coming after our freedom of speech–and starting with the troops on purpose.

The U.S. military’s weaponization of poverty presents a financial incentive to stay in line. By design, the military is one of the most foolproof ways in America to get education, healthcare, a steady paycheck, and even citizenship. In return, young servicemembers risk their lives while oligarchs profit. This is the military industrial complex, and it is not a secret. As long as Trump can extract and exploit, he doesn’t see a cost to war. He’s a draft dodger who has called fallen American soldiers ‘losers’ and ‘suckers’ and “finds the notion of military service difficult to understand, and the idea of volunteering to serve especially incomprehensible.” Those of us who have served or are serving see it differently. But unfortunately, when the consequences can be cuts to rank, pay, or benefits, dishonorable discharge, court-martial, or getting deported, what 18-year-old enlisted kid is prepared to disobey or speak out against the officers above them?

Keep ReadingShow less
President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressing congress, December 8, 1941.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressing congress, December 8, 1941.

Getty Images, Fotosearch

Four Freedoms: What We Are Fighting For

The record of the Trump 2.0 administration is one of repeated usurpations and injuries to the body politic: fundamentally at odds with the principles of democracy, without legal or ethical restraint, hostile to truth, and indifferent to human suffering. Our nation desperately needs a stout and engaging response from the party out-of-power. It’s necessary but not sufficient for Democrats to criticize Trump, rehearsing what they are against. If it is to generate renewed enthusiasm among voters, the Democratic Party must offer a compelling positive message, stating clearly what it stands for.

Fortunately, Democrats don’t need to reinvent this wheel. They can reach back to a fraught moment in our history when a president brought forward a timely and nationally unifying message, framed within a coherent, memorable, and inspiring set of ideas. In his address to Congress on Jan. 6, 1941 – a full 12 months before Pearl Harbor – Franklin Delano Roosevelt termed the international spread of fascism an “unprecedented” threat to U.S. security. He also identified dangers on the home front: powerful isolationist leanings and, in certain quarters, popular support for Nazi ideology. Calling for increased military preparation and war production (along with higher taxes), he reminded citizens “what the downfall of democratic nations [abroad] might mean to our own democracy.”

Keep ReadingShow less