When We All Vote is a non-profit, nonpartisan organization that is on a mission to increase participation in every election and close the race and age voting gap by changing the culture around voting, harnessing grassroots energy, and through strategic partnerships to reach every American. Launched in 2018 by co-chairs Michelle Obama, Tom Hanks, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Janelle Monae, Chris Paul, Faith Hill and Tim McGraw, When We All Vote is changing the culture around voting using a data-driven and multifaceted approach to increase participation in elections. In the months directly before the 2018 midterm elections, When We All Vote organized 2,500 local voter registration events across the country, engaged 200 million Americans online about the significance of voting, and texted nearly four million voters the resources to register and get out to vote. And we're just getting started. We're helping bring even more people into the voting process because when we all vote, we all do better.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
SDI Productions/Getty Images
Open Primaries Topic Creates a Major Tension for Independents
Jun 27, 2025
Open primaries create fine opportunities for citizens who are registered as independents or unaffiliated voters to vote for either Democrats or Republicans in primary elections, but they tacitly undermine the mission of those independents who are opposed to both major parties by luring them into establishment electoral politics. Indeed, independents who are tempted to support independent candidates or an independent political movement can be converted to advocates of our duopoly if their states have one form or another of Open Primaries.
Twenty U.S. states currently have Open Primaries for at least one political party at the presidential, congressional, and state levels, including Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. At least 15 states conduct "semi-closed" primaries, a middle position in which unaffiliated voters still have an option to choose to vote in one of the major party primaries.
There are admittedly different kinds of independent or unaffiliated voters. Some individuals essentially support our political system but are not consistently aligned with either the Democratic or Republican camps. Sometimes they vote for Democrats, and at other times, they vote for Republicans. Many are moderates, which explains why they might vote Democratic in one election or split their votes between Democratic and Republican candidates in a general election. In contrast, many independents are dissatisfied with both major parties and seek either a centrist political party or candidates who are more left-wing than most Democrats or more right-wing than most Republicans.
According to Thom Reilly, Jacqueline Salit, and Omar Ali in their book, The Independent Voter, most independents are anti-establishment and not ideologically aligned with either centrists, socialists, or libertarians. They are definitely not chiefly centrists or moderates, although many certainly are. Over 40% of all voters, according to Gallup surveys for over 10 years, do not identify with either major party.
It would be unfair to independents who are happy voting for Democrats and Republicans and not being committed to either party to discourage the passage of state laws that would create Open Primaries. At the same time, anti-establishment independents should not succumb to the temptation to vote for Democrats or Republicans if they are extremely dissatisfied and disillusioned with both parties, believing that establishment politics denies nearly half the public representation in Washington.
Reilly, Salit and Ali argue that most independents have a "mind-set" which sets them in opposition to our two party system, which is extremely polarized and fails to address many of the hard issues facing the country: climate change, the national debt, immigration, gun control, racial relations, child care and paid parental and medical leave, energy, and more.
There are other electoral reforms that are not biased in favor of our two-party system, notably ranked choice voting and impartial redistricting commissions. Each of these policies enables independent candidates for office to increase their chances of victory. With ranked choice voting (Maine uses this election mechanism, as do various counties and cities), independent centrists may ultimately surpass left-wing or right-wing candidates for office in a congressional primary.
An impartial redistricting commission can reduce the chances that extremist members of either party win their primaries because the individual districts will not be gerrymandered to make it nearly impossible for an independent, especially a centrist independent, to win a primary. Very red states and very blue states are well-known for having highly gerrymandered districts.
The Open Primary topic is much more complicated and provides a prism through which to conceptualize the tension within the entire group of independents in the United States.
There is no one block of independents. Over 60 million registered voters are classified as independents or unaffiliated voters, and they are divided between the pro-establishment and anti-establishment camps. Of the 80 million citizens who are eligible to vote but not registered to vote, approximately 30 million are also independents.
Is there a solution to this tension for independents in the United States? No, there is no solution. It is, however, important to recognize and understand the tension. Some observations may prove useful.
First, it is unlikely that either strategy can be dismantled.
Second, both paths will be pursued by independents, namely the path of fighting closed primaries and the path of supporting independent candidates for office, as well as an independent political movement.
Third, the first path may serve as a stepping stone to the second, but it is impossible to choreograph this process in advance. It definitely would not be a linear process.
Dave Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Lori Chavez-DeRemer, President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Labor Department, greets Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) as she arrives for her confirmation hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on February 19, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla
Senator Maggie Hassan Tops National Rankings for Cross-Party Work
Jun 27, 2025
Senator Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) is the most bipartisan member of Congress per the rankings of multiple organizations.
According to the Pew Research Center, 61 percent of Americans in 2023 stated that having political conversations with those who have different political beliefs are “stressful” and “frustrating,” a 10 percent increase from 2016. But Sen. Hassan said the best way she finds common ground with her colleagues, regardless of political affiliation, is to discuss what they are hearing from their constituents since she finds Americans across the country are experiencing many problems.
“The common concerns, hopes, and dreams of the American people are a great starting point for bipartisan work,” Sen. Hassan stated in an email.
Four different organizations have ranked Sen. Hassan among the most bipartisan members of Congress.
The Common Ground Committee ranked Sen. Hassan the most bipartisan member of the Senate along with the first to achieve a perfect score on their annual scorecard in 2024. The committee ranks all members of Congress and governors on a 0 to 100 scale based on how much elected officials find “common ground” with other politicians.
“She is the best example, the kind of politician we want to highlight, striving each day to find solutions for the biggest problems our country is facing,” Common Ground Committee Cofounder Erik Olsen stated in a press release.
Another organization calling Sen. Hassan one of the most bipartisan senators is The Lugar Center and Georgetown University’s McCourt School, according to the Bipartisan Index (BPI) findings from the first session of the 118th Congress in 2023. Sen. Hassan ranked third out of 100 senators, behind Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Gary Peters (D-Mich.).
Sen. Hassan said she gets her bipartisanship due to growing up in a family of Democrats and Republicans, as her mom grew up in New England and her dad in the Deep South. She said her family had “vigorous” but “good natured” arguments about the role of government.
Sen. Hassan added that her dad fought in World War II, including surviving the Battle of the Bulge, and reminded her members of his platoon that all differed “significantly” in their politics but shared their love of freedom.
She also said she is a mom of a son with “severe disabilities,” as he was born with cerebral palsy. Since disability can strike any family at any time, Sen. Hassan said there are people of “all political persuasions” who are able to come together and support families like hers.
“As long as we love our country, and share a commitment to freedom, we can solve any problem,” Sen. Hassan said.
Specifically, Sen. Hassan said she works to make bipartisan progress by “protecting” Americans from “surprise” medical bills and lowering the costs of outpatient care related to banning certain hospital facility fees.
In 2020, Sen. Hassan helped pass bipartisan legislation to stop surprise medical billing.
The No Surprises Act went into effect in 2021, and in its first year, it stopped nine million medical bills. She also “successfully” secured a provision in the end-of-year government funding bill to address the opioid epidemic and increase access to lower-cost medications in 2022.
First, a provision from the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act was added to increase access to addiction treatment by allowing medical practitioners to prescribe “life-saving medication assistance” for those with opioid use disorder. This bill was first introduced by Sen. Hassan along with Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Reps. Michael Turner (R-Ohio) and Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) in the House of Representatives.
For access and more transparency to lead to lower-cost medications, provisions from the Interchangeable Biologics Act, Biologies Market Transparency Act, and Enhanced Access to Affordable Medicines Act were made. All of these policies were introduced alongside a number of Republicans.
“The bipartisan measures I fought to include in the government funding bill will help us stand up to Big Pharma and lower health care costs for Americans by speeding up the FDA’s approval process for critical medications,” Sen. Hassan stated in a press release.
Besides healthcare, Sen. Hassan also works with “colleagues across the aisle” on lowering housing costs. Her policies include expanding the low-income housing tax credit along with introducing bipartisan legislation to restore and extend a tax cut for homebuyers with mortgage insurance.
Sen. Hassan has also led other bipartisan works, like holding hearings on reducing overlap in the government and introducing bipartisan legislation to reduce duplicative government programs found by the Government Accountability Office.
“We are citizens, friends, and neighbors who are, in a way, stuck with each other,” Sen. Hassan said. “So it’s easier and better if we learn to work together.”
Maggie Rhoads is a student journalist attending George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs. At The Fulcrum, she covers how legislation and policy are impacting communities.
Maggie was a cohort member in Common Ground USA's Journalism program, where Hugo Balta served as an instructor. Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum, and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. Learn more by clicking HERE.
Keep ReadingShow less
New legislation would convene Congress at Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, the site of the Declaration of Independence’s signing on July 4, 1776, for the 250th anniversary on July 2, 2026.
Getty Images, Douglas Rissing
Congress Bill Spotlight: Congress Meeting in Philadelphia on Declaration of Independence 250th Anniversary
Jun 27, 2025
Hopefully, Nicolas Cage wouldn’t steal it this time, like he did in 2004’s implausible adventure movie National Treasure.
What the bill does
New legislation would convene Congress at Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, the site of the Declaration of Independence’s signing on July 4, 1776, for the 250th anniversary on July 2, 2026.
Why not on July 4, the exact anniversary? Because in 2026, that date will fall on a weekend Saturday, when Congress would likely be out of session.
The legislation was introduced by Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA2), who represents the area of Philadelphia containing Independence Hall itself. The legislation does not appear to have an “official” title.
Context: outside D.C.
Congress has twice convened in cities beyond Washington, D.C. for special occasions.
On July 16, 1987, Congress met at Independence Hall for the 200th anniversary of the Constitution—not the entire Congress but 55 members of the House and Senate. C-SPAN broadcast the event on television.
On September 6, 2002, Congress met at Federal Hall in New York City for the one-year anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. Though more than half of Congress attended, around 300 members, that still fell short of the entire body. C-SPAN broadcast that event, too.
Context: the Declaration
Written by Thomas Jefferson, later elected as the third president, the Declaration of Independence detailed colonists’ grievances against King George III and explained why they declared a revolution against his rule. Jefferson’s opening phrase became one of the most famous in American history: “When in the course of human events.”
56 delegates to the Continental Congress signed the document, including some of the most prominent men of the era like Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. John Hancock famously signed his name extra large, reportedly so that the king could see it all the way from England.
Today, the document is on display to the public at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. and the signing is celebrated annually as the federal holiday Independence Day.
(Although recently, historian Andrew Roberts prompted something of a reconsideration when he argued in his 2021 biography The Last King of America that King George III wasn’t actually that bad.)
What supporters say
Supporters argue that it’s fitting to mark the entire origin point of the American experiment in the room where it all began.
“In 1776, Philadelphia was the birthplace of American democracy,” Rep. Boyle said in a press release. “It is only right that we celebrate our nation’s 250th anniversary in the very building where the Continental Congress signed the Declaration of Independence. Our bill will bring Congress together in Philadelphia once again for a historic special session to honor 250 years of freedom.”
What opponents say
The Fulcrum was unable to locate any explicit statements of opposition, but perhaps some could object to one of the lead Democratic sponsor’s seemingly anti-Trump arguments.
“Both abroad and at home, we are seeing threats to democracy today in a way which hasn’t been the case at any point in my lifetime,” Rep. Boyle told the Philadelphia Inquirer in 2024 upon introducing a prior version of the legislation. (His phrase “and at home” clearly referenced Donald Trump.) “So I think this takes on greater symbolic value to remind all of us of the spirit of 1776, what our founders achieved, and how precious it is in this generation that we don’t lose it.”
Odds of passage
The legislation has attracted 25 bipartisan cosponsors: 14 Democrats and 11 Republicans. Notably, more than half—or 13 of the 25—hail from Pennsylvania.
It awaits a potential vote in the House Judiciary Committee.
Rep. Boyle previously introduced a prior version of the legislation in late June 2024. It attracted a slightly larger 28 bipartisan cosponsors, 20 Democrats and eight Republicans, but never received a committee vote.
Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his weekly report, Congress Bill Spotlight, every Friday on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.
SUGGESTIONS:
Congress Bill Spotlight: National Garden of American Heroes, As Trump Proposed
Congress Bill Spotlight: Preventing Presidential Inaugurations on MLK Day, Like Trump’s
Congress Bill Spotlight: No Invading Allies Act
Congress Bill Spotlight: Suspending Pennies and Nickels for 10 Years
Keep ReadingShow less
Since the development of American mass media culture in the mid-20th century, numerous examples of entertainment media have tried to improve attitudes towards those who have traditionally held little power.
Getty Images, skynesher
Entertainment Can Improve How Democrats and Republicans See Each Other
Jun 26, 2025
Entertainment has been used for decades to improve attitudes toward other groups, both in the U.S. and abroad. One can think of movies like Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, helping change attitudes toward Black Americans, or TV shows like Rosanne, helping humanize the White working class. Efforts internationally show that media can sometimes improve attitudes toward two groups concurrently.
Substantial research shows that Americans now hold overly negative views of those across the political spectrum. Let's now learn from decades of experience using entertainment to improve attitudes of those in other groups—but also from counter-examples that have reinforced stereotypes and whose techniques should generally be avoided—in order to improve attitudes toward fellow Americans across politics. This entertainment can allow Americans across the political spectrum to have more accurate views of each other while realizing that successful cross-ideological friendships and collaborations are possible.
In this article, we document a brief history of entertainment used to improve the attitudes of other groups (along with some misfires, including when trying to portray White, working-class men). We then highlight those in the Arts and a few organizations including our own, More Like US, working to use entertainment to reduce perceived U.S. political divides. Despite promising initial work, many more groups and individuals are needed to contribute across many entertainment platforms.
Numerous successful U.S. entertainment efforts to improve attitudes toward groups with little historical power
Since the development of American mass media culture in the mid-20th century, allowing most Americans access to the same media, numerous examples of entertainment media have tried to improve attitudes towards those who have traditionally held little power. In this case, we mean any group other than straight, white men. This said, some entertainment media reinforced stereotypes, but at least there are many fairly successful examples that challenged stereotypes and likely changed attitudes among many in the American public.
This is perhaps most evident in the work of screenwriter Norman Lear, who was instrumental in improving misperceptions of these traditionally less-powerful groups, specifically women and Black Americans. Maude was centered around a woman, unique for sitcoms in the 1970s, and portrayed Maude as opinionated, strongly advocating for women’s liberation and civil rights, dispelling notions that women could not be politically involved or opinionated. Additionally, The Jeffersons, another Norman Lear sitcom from a similar era (1975-1985), was revolutionary in portraying a Black family as wealthy business owners, helping dispel common negative stereotypes of Black Americans.
Another example goes farther back in time to WWII. Beginning with a 1942 song, the Rosie the Riveter propaganda campaign, mainly remembered for its posters, worked to dispel notions that women could only be homemakers. Through its portrayal of Rosie, this campaign encouraged women to take part in the war effort in less traditionally feminine roles such as factory work.
In the late 1960s, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner portrayed an interracial couple in a positive light, at a time when only around 20% of Americans approved of interracial relationships and there was significant stigma around the presence of Black Americans in “White” society.
Will & Grace, a sitcom that began airing shortly before the turn of the 21st century, was deeply impactful on a different front. The show’s portrayal of Will as a gay man who seemed relatable and non-threatening helped to improve negative perceptions of gay men in contemporary America. Straight viewers without contact with gay people in real life saw straight characters positively interact with gay characters. As a result, 60% of viewers reported that “watching the show led to positive perceptions of gay people,” and 71% of viewers rejected the statement that “heterosexual relationships are the only ‘normal’ relationships,” compared with 45% of non-viewers, according to research cited by Bridge Entertainment Labs.
More recently, Marvel’s Black Panther franchise is notable for its unique portrayal of a Black society that was incredibly wealthy, powerful, and technologically advanced. The TV show Modern Family (2009-2020), meanwhile, positively portrayed non-traditional families and members of the LGBTQ+ community, winning over 20 Emmys for its work.
Despite all these generally positive portrayals of groups who have historically held less power, it would be a stretch to say that these groups have always been portrayed well or sufficiently. A reality show like Cops or scripted shows like The Wire often showed ethnically minority men as criminals, and movements like #OscarsSoWhite showed that non-White representation on film proceeded fairly slowly.
But thankfully, there are many portrayals in entertainment of historically less powerful communities that challenge dangerous misperceptions and help create more positive views of them.
Entertainment portrayals of white, working-class men have been pretty bad, though not uniformly terrible
In addition to looking at portrayals of groups historically without much power, we analyze portrayals of those historically with power, namely straight, white men. Because this is such a broad category, and we care about politics, we focus our attention on working-class white men. This group is defined as those without a college degree, often portrayed as working blue-collar jobs. According to 2024 NBC exit polls in 10 key states, white men without a college degree voted for Trump over Harris 69% to 29%, representing almost a fifth of the electorate in those states.
Many of these portrayals also inaccurately represent members of this traditionally more powerful group (though many in this group have experienced and/or felt loss of economic power and social status in recent decades). American media has consistently not been sufficient in portraying the struggles and humanity of working-class white men.
A clear example of this comes from a screenwriter praised earlier in this piece, Norman Lear. All in The Family (1971-1979) is one of the most well-known sitcoms of all time. Yet the main character, Archie Bunker, while humanized to some extent, is portrayed as uneducated and stereotypically bigoted, creating a mostly unflattering and one-sided picture of working-class white men.
Thinking of the cartoon sitcom The Simpsons, which is still running after more than 35 years, Homer never went to college, and he is largely portrayed as a stupid oaf, with infrequent bright spots in his character. On the same show, Cletus is portrayed even worse as a “slack-jawed yokel.”
A variety of reality shows do portray white, working-class men, but usually more as rural or brawny stereotypes than particularly well-rounded characters. This includes the Robertson family from Duck Dynasty (2012-2017) or those in reality shows including Ice Road Truckers (2007-2017) and the ongoing 20-year run of Deadliest Catch about Alaskan crab fishermen.
One of the few arguable bright spots in terms of portrayals of white, working-class men just went off the air. The character of blue-collar Dan Conner first appeared as the male lead in the TV show Roseanne (1988-1997) and then its spin-off The Conners, which aired its last episode in April after seven years on broadcast TV. Negative stereotypes are distinctly less pronounced in Dan Conner than in All in the Family’s Archie Bunker. Dan is portrayed as relatively traditional and hesitant about social change in both the original show and its spinoff, but he also shows vulnerability and commitment to family life in many cases, challenging some stereotypes of white, working-class men. Writer and Executive Producer of The Conners Dave Caplan has thought deeply about the importance of portrayals in entertainment and even has a graduate degree in media psychology.
In all, while sometimes functioning to humanize working-class white men, much entertainment misrepresents working-class white men as overwhelmingly bigoted and/or unintelligent in basically anything other than blue-collar skills, perpetuating harmful stereotypes. This largely has the opposite effect of many of the shows noted earlier in the article, many of which actively work to correct harmful stereotypes of those with traditionally less power.
International efforts show how attitudes toward two groups can be improved simultaneously
There does not need to be a negative portrayal of one group to create positive portrayals of another group. This is apparent in international efforts to improve negative portrayals of certain demographics.
One example is Radio La Benevolencija (RLB), which has worked in various countries, especially in Africa. We will focus on its work in Rwanda, which was created to reconcile differences, heal from the Rwandan Genocide, and prevent another genocide from happening. The programs within the project were created to be entertaining but informative and appeal to a wide variety of audiences.
In RLB’s main Rwandan program, New Dawn, two communities directly paralleling the Hutus and Tutsis lived side by side and were in conflict over a land shortage. The show directly parallels the lead-up to the genocide, as well as the aftermath, without directly referencing the genocide.
In a research paper on RLB, Elizabeth Levy Paluck argued that the program “did not change listeners’ personal beliefs but did substantially influence listeners’ perceptions of social norms.” These norms actually influenced behavior, as listeners changed their behaviors in terms of “active negotiation, open expression about sensitive topics, and cooperation.”
Radio La Benevolencija has made significant strides in healing misperceptions of different ethnic groups, proving the effectiveness of entertainment in concurrently reducing harmful stereotypes of more than one group. Another organization, Search for Common Ground, also has pursued similar efforts in countries including Yemen, Sierra Leone, and Nepal.
Current initial efforts to use entertainment to improve cross-partisan attitudes in the U.S.
To a certain extent, entertainment is already being used to reduce political misperceptions and subsequent divides in the U.S. An upcoming romantic comedy, The Elephant in The Room, tells the story of a progressive and a Trump supporter who try to bridge the gap between their worldviews as they date.
There is also an abundance of short-form content with this aim. In the YouTube video “Cats, Anyone? Finding What We Have in Common When Ideology Divides Us” from NationSwell, two Americans of opposing political viewpoints bond over a shared love for cats. And in the Heineken advertisement “Worlds Apart,” people with contradictory views on different topics find common ground before discussing their differences over a shared beer.
Several organizations are also using entertainment to bridge the gap between those of different viewpoints. Bridge Entertainment Labs, cited earlier for their research into the connection between entertainment media and misperceptions, is working to tell the stories of real Americans of a wide variety of backgrounds in order to contribute to national unity and create a sense of connections between Americans of different political affiliations. The work of Bridge Entertainment Labs, specifically in its whitepaper, aligns closely with the claims made in this article.
PopShift works with major Hollywood studios to connect producers and writers with experts in order to facilitate more accurate representations of those of diverse backgrounds and reduce misperceptions towards certain groups of Americans. Part of the work of Resetting the Table involves training those in Hollywood to have storylines with characters that have “investigated their differences openly and come out the other side,” using tools most influenced by Transformative Mediation, in order to ultimately create a more cohesive America. Braver Angels Music, meanwhile, trains songwriters and musicians to write songs that can bridge political divides, while also providing a space for songwriters to develop material and get to know each other.
The organizations listed above do essential work in bridging the gap between the perceptions Americans hold of those of different political affiliations and the true situations and beliefs of Americans of varying political affiliations. This work aligns with our organization’s, More Like US, initiative to re-CAST fellow Americans in a positive light as more complex, admirable, similar, and worthy of togetherness than expected.
Nevertheless, these efforts are currently small and scattered. Much more of this work is needed in such a large country as the U.S. In today’s decentralized and balkanized media environment, content that improves attitudes toward each other across politics needs to appear not only in TV and movies but in all sorts of entertainment, including social media videos, music, books, plays, and visual art.
Conclusion: Let’s learn from history to create entertainment that improves attitudes of each other across politics
There is a long history of entertainment being used to correct misperceptions of groups that have historically held less power. Entertainment media has proven time and time again its capacity to debunk harmful stereotypes and bridge gaps between people of different backgrounds. Entertainment has unfortunately also reinforced or exacerbated stereotypes in many cases, but these instances can be used as counter-examples of what to generally avoid going forward.
This history serves as an essential guide to fixing modern problems. Americans hold exaggerated negative views of those of different political affiliations. Entertainment media is essential in closing the gap between the truth and these exaggerated negative views. Initial efforts are going in the right direction, but many more people across many entertainment mediums need to create vastly more content. By correcting misperceptions and promoting connection and collaboration between those of different viewpoints, entertainment has the potential to reduce perceived partisan divides and create a more unified America.
James Coan is the co-founder and executive director of More Like US. Coan can be contacted at James@morelikeus.org
Sara Weinstein is a current intern at More Like US.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More