Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Our troops deserve the chance to take the first big shot at voting online

Opinion

U.S. soldiers in Germany

More than 200,000 troops are stationed overseas — including these soldiers in Germany — but only 7 percent of our eligible military and overseas voters cast ballots.

Lennart Preiss/Getty Images
Interiano is head of government relations at Aurora Innovation Inc., which makes software to operate self-driving vehicles, and an advisor to Voatz Inc., which makes a mobile voting app.

The promise of technology, like almost everything this year, has become more polarized.

Still, there's reason to be hopeful. Working in the technology industry, I certainly have my biases. The outsized impact of technology on the way isolated or distant communities can interact with the world colors my every view.

It allows individuals globally to foster real-time connections — the true potential of which we've seen, as never before, in the six months since the coronavirus compelled most business and personal communication to become remote. And it empowers disabled individuals to live more independent and full lives. I'm currently working on self-driving cars, and I'm excited about how the technology will help expand the mobility of the elderly and visually impaired.

To me, the unifying thread of the adoption of technology is access: facilitating activities and engagement that were previously impossible.

The explosion of technology-driven options driven by the pandemic promises to level the playing field for many types of individuals, and we are just starting to tap its potential.

With so many of us relying on technology today to connect with our families, conduct touchless financial transactions and educate our children, it's surprising there is so little faith in technology when it comes to elections.

I understand the apprehension. But we have to acknowledge our great democracy has significant blind spots and gaps — and many voters have limited access to their ballots. First on the list are a group of voters we cannot afford to leave voiceless: those risking their lives around the world to protect our freedom and our great democracy.

More than 200,000 troops are stationed overseas across four continents, serving Americans and our interests. All the arguments against integrating technology into our election don't seem to take into proper account this reality: The options they currently have for exercising the franchise — using the mail, a fax machine or their email — are all vulnerable to the risks that have been solely ascribed to new, online technology. Election officials are able to identify who submitted a ballot, and that leaves our people in uniform without a private ballot or a secure way to anonymously vote.

Traditionally, we rely on our overseas Americans' ability to cast ballots by mail. But in the middle of a pandemic, where mail was not being delivered to the United States from more than 70 countries as of the end of July, filling out a ballot may be more a symbolic gesture than something that actually affects the races for president, Congress and the statehouses.

It's little wonder that, even with only the obstacles in place before the Covid-19 outbreak, only 7 percent of our eligible military and overseas voters vote. And that compares to roughly 60 percent turnout of eligible voters back home. When so many issues on the ballot can have an outsized impact on their lives, this number is representative of a failure.

There's resistance — from cybersecurity researchers and vote-by-mail advocates — to using new technology that allows private, secure access to elections for our overseas military and citizens, arguing that the risks of hacking or failure are too high. When you view the current ways that they are voting (or, in the case of international mail, not voting) can we really argue that the security and privacy around the status quo is any better?

There's evidence that these technologies work, are secure and are welcomed by the communities that they serve. West Virginia is a prime example. Two years ago it pioneered platforms that allow their men and women overseas to vote on their mobile phones. Another is Utah, a vote-by-mail state, that uses app-based voting for military personnel and people with disabilities.

I'm not advocating for the rapid adoption of this new technology to the general public. This is too critical for that. What I'm advocating for is to implement advanced, up-to-date technologies used in most recent pilots to provide markedly better options to vote than by email or fax. We are already using smartphone technology, in most of our critical work including national security.

Now is the time to deploy advanced technology to identify, and then close any gaps, for groups of people abroad who qualify under federal law to return ballots through email and fax.

Such a step is how we will build a stronger electoral system that ensures access to voting for those who need it the most. This is how technology marches forward for social good. With purpose and strategy, with careful tests and ongoing experimentation, followed by a thoughtful implementation for the most disenfranchised.

Not doing so shuts out people who need a voice at the ballot booth, especially this year.


Read More

A male senior stands in the shadow of a Social Security card with bite missing.

Social Security faces automatic cuts in 2032 and Medicare in 2033. New polling suggests that gives Democrats a powerful election issue. Here’s the case.

DNY59 / Getty Images

Will the Debt Crisis Engineered by Republicans Succeed in Cutting Social Security and Medicare?

Overview

The Republican Party’s long game to reduce administrative state entitlement spending centers on creating a debt crisis to provide an excuse for limiting such spending. It may soon pay off. That strategy involved a quarter-century of engineered tax cuts responsible for the stunning rise in sovereign U.S. debt, threatening an eventual economic crisis.

Social Security benefits are projected under current law to be automatically cut in 2032. And Medicare benefits are projected to be automatically cut in 2033. Congressional Republicans intend for those automatic cuts to occur, opposing new taxes to prevent cuts. And they are using the ballooning national debt as an excuse to also oppose new general revenue spending to prevent benefit cuts.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Chinese President Xi Jinping (L) and U.S. President Donald Trump followed by Chinese first lady Peng Liyuan and U.S. first lady Melania Trump arrive for a state dinner at the White House.

Chinese President Xi Jinping (L) and U.S. President Donald Trump followed by Chinese first lady Peng Liyuan and U.S. first lady Melania Trump arrive for a state dinner in the East Room of the White House on September 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

When Leaders Disagree, Ceremony Plays an Important Role

When Chinese President Xi Jinping arrived at the White House on 24 September, the U.S. welcomed him with an elaborate display of ceremony. The Army Herald Trumpets sounded a fanfare, the Chinese and American national anthems were played, and the Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps performed. A military review was followed by a flyover involving a B-2 bomber and four F-22 fighter jets, according to the White House. It was an extraordinary production for two countries that still disagree on some of the most important issues in international politics.

Talks between President Donald Trump and Xi touched on trade, artificial intelligence and Taiwan. The visit was marked by warm words and some signs of cooperation, but it did not erase the fundamental competition between the United States and China. So why was all this ceremony staged? It is tempting to dismiss political pomp as mere window dressing: an expensive historical relic surrounding the serious business taking place behind closed doors. As a music historian, however, I think this misunderstands what ceremony does. Ceremony can become particularly valuable when words alone are not enough.

Keep ReadingShow less
Americans Voting in an Election

Americans Voting in an Election

Getty Images

Voting Is Not Just a Privilege It Is Every Citizens’ Responsibility

Despite the consistent determinations that US elections are secure across the country and there is virtually no evidence of non-citizens voting, in reports released as recently as September 2026; President Trump has doubled down on his claims that voter fraud is a major problem in America and on October 20th, he announced a new $25 Million Fraud Whistleblower program to be administered by the Department of Justice.

This announcement achieves a variety of the president’s goals: (i) It intentionally perpetuates the misinformation, that voter fraud is a serious problem in the United States; (ii) it undermines the trust in the voting systems, as well as in the states administering the elections; (iii) it fosters distrust amongst neighbors, who are more likely to suspect people of color and report them for a reward. This has the concomitant benefit of (iv) intimidating people who are in fear of going to the polls and (v) It gives the illusion that the federal government is prepared to give away more free money (along with the Tariff rebate checks, the Trump Accounts, the DOGE dividend, the direct payments for healthcare and the $5,000 for supporting GOP midterm candidates.)

Keep ReadingShow less
Capitol building with American flag behind it

Political Polarization and Extremism

Getty Images

Both Parties Have Forgotten How to Lose: It’s Time for Guardrails

On November 3 Americans vote in the midterm elections, and the most important question may be whether the losers accept the result. A Pew survey this summer found that just 55 percent of Americans are confident the midterms will be run fairly and accurately, down from 64 percent in 2022. The partisan detail is more revealing. Since 2024, Republican confidence has risen and Democratic confidence has fallen from 77 percent to 58 percent. Trust in the referee now depends on who holds power.

Democracy rests on a kind of sportsmanship agreement. The theologian Reinhold Niebuhr put it well: man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but his inclination to injustice makes it necessary. B. R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of India’s constitution, called democracy a method of bringing revolutionary change without bloodshed. Both understood that the system works only if the losing side agrees to try again next time instead of burning down the field. Americans in both parties are forgetting how to do that.

Keep ReadingShow less