Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Wyoming Democrats switch to a ranked-choice presidential caucus

Flag of Wyoming
Oleksii Liskonih/Getty Images

Democrats in Wyoming have decided to use ranked-choice voting for this year's final statewide presidential caucuses.

It's the smallest prize of any state, with just 14 delegates at stake, but the party says the switch could make the April 4 gatherings among the most impassioned and well-attended of the nominating season.

The decision also makes Wyoming the only one of the four caucus states where all participants will rank their choices. Nevada is debuting RCV in presidential politics in February, but for early voters only, not caucus goers.


Under the new plan, mail-in ballots allowing the ranking of as many as five candidates will be sent to everyone who has registered as a Democrat two weeks before the caucuses — not just those who ask for a ballot. As an alternative to voting by mail, party members can attend their local caucuses and fill in their RCV forms after the haggling and speechmaking.

Those receiving too few top-choice votes will be eliminated and their supporters' ballots will be redistributed to second-place or third-place choices until the field is culled to those named on at least 15 percent of the ballots, the threshold for sending a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee in July.

"These events are crowded, rowdy, and loud. And they're a whole lot of fun — but they can make it hard for every" member of the party to participate, Wyoming party Chairman Joe Barbuto said statement. "We made some changes to ensure we hear every Democratic voice from across the Equality State."

He also signaled that, starting in 2024, the party is likely to switch to a primary.

No matter how Democrats vote, though, President Trump is sure to win the state's three electoral votes in November. He carried the state by 46 percentage points in 2016, marking the 13th straight time it's been colored red on the presidential election map.


Read More

Five men sitting on one side of a table, as a panel at an event.

Harvard's Guy-Uriel Charles (left) listens to David Walker, Chair of the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation. Fellow panelists (L-R) are Michael Farris, Convention of States Project; Samuel Fieldman, Wolf Pack; and Jim Rubens, FFSA and American Promise.

Photo by Martha Stewart

Congressional Inaction Raises Constitutional Change Alternative

Voting is the anchor of democracy, as we are reminded every two years. But this anchor rests on unstable ground today, signaling that our political roots need examining too.

In the United States, the Constitution itself becomes the focus when serious problems prompt such foundational civic dives. Our current challenges may not be as severe as the Civil War or the excesses of the Gilded Age, which produced waves of amendments, but today’s erosion of our system of checks and balances requires us to revisit our constitutional underpinnings.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman putting savings in a white piggy bank.

America’s economy now rewards asset ownership over wages. A policy proposal: a $35,000 Birthright Account for every child, and how it could be funded.

Guido Mieth/Getty Images

The American Dream Needs a New Economic Operating System

It is, by now, not an exaggeration to state that the traditional American Dream—work hard, buy a house, raise a family, and retire securely—is failing. It was built for a labor-based economy in which steadily rising wages allowed ordinary families to accumulate wealth. But America has become an asset-based economy, and ownership of those assets is extraordinarily concentrated.

Since the 1980s, the returns from capital have far outpaced the returns from labor. Inflation-adjusted wages for ordinary workers have risen only modestly, while the real value of equities has multiplied many times over. Housing, education, healthcare and childcare costs have soared, employment has become less secure, and defined-benefit pensions have largely disappeared. Even two-income households with respectable jobs often struggle to buy a home, build savings and accumulate enough for retirement.

Keep ReadingShow less
Man wearing Trump hat watches Trump on TV

Trump’s 10-to-1 rule aims to cut red tape, but fewer regulations can mean weaker food safety, Head Start services, and checks on presidential power.

Wu Xiaoling/Xinhua via Getty Images

Trump’s 10-to-1 Rule Gives the Presidency Too Much Power

We only think about the plumbing in our homes when something goes wrong. The same is true for government bureaucracy. Rules, procedures, and bureaucrats operate largely out of sight, making sure food is safe, Social Security checks arrive, workplaces are safe, and children with disabilities receive the services promised to them by law. Yes, there is plenty of red tape in government, just as an old house can accumulate pipes that no longer serve much purpose. But ripping out pipes simply because there are too many of them is not much of a plumbing strategy. Yet the Trump administration has made the number of federal regulations it eliminates a measure of success. That raises a more important question: When does cutting bureaucracy stop making government more efficient and start making it less capable?

1. The Case for Cutting Red Tape

Keep ReadingShow less
US Capitol building
white dome building near body of water during daytime
Photo by José Matute on Unsplash

We The People

On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln concluded the Gettysburg Address with a vision of democracy that has endured for more than a century:

“That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Keep ReadingShow less