Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Your Take: Cross-party voting

Your Take: Cross-party voting

We asked for your take on cross-party voting – when do you vote party line? And when might you mix your vote? Our take is that cross-party voting is a signal that more and more Americans are putting country before party. And yet, some people believe loyalty to their political party is the best solution – and the patriotic one.

Here’s what you shared with us. Responses have been edited for length and clarity.


I voted Republican in every presidential election until 2016. My conscience wouldn’t let me vote for Donald Trump and I wasn’t crazy about Hillary Clinton, so I voted third party, putting country over party. During the Trump years, seeing the horrific decline of the Republican Party, I became an independent. I voted for Biden in 2020 and I am happy I did. - RH Shallenberg

I used to vote along party lines. It's how I was raised. However, I now always put country before party. Iit's important to look at the issues and individuals independent of party. - Mark Pommerville

Every time I vote. My country, my state, my city and county come first. I choose the best qualified candidate – Hillary Clinton, for example. The party usually has been irrelevant. Of course in 2020 and 2022, and perhaps the foreseeable future, it is dangerous to democracy (it's capitulation to authoritarianism) to allow any Republican to win. Their party is promoting Donald Trump's Big Lie, using their power to appoint anti-democracy judges, pushing laws that endanger the lives as well as the freedom of women with difficult reproductive situations. So in this case the party is terribly relevant. Supporting my country means rejecting the Republican Party. -Janet Basu

I take voting seriously. I have been voting for 50-plus years. I have rarely voted for an incumbent, mainly because I do not see them doing anything meaningful for the people (schmucks like me, the 99 percent). So, to answer your question, I have always put the “99 percent” over all politics. Unfortunately our “leaders” don’t. They put themselves above all. -Mike Dugdell

I've always put country over party. For me, party is only relevant because most local elections and all the way up to the level of senator or president are decided in the primaries in my state, as in far too many other parts of our country. I'm delighted that No Labels is producing a moderate alternative, as I feel far too many loyal Americans have been duped by parties and media to either join the extremists or leave the parties, and thus often waste their votes. -Mike O.

I am fundamentally an independent. I like to consider myself a Weld Republican. However, with the possible exception of Mitt Romney. I have voted for Democrats. My intention is to put the country first. I simply believe in fiscal responsibility. However, I believe in being socially responsible as well. -Craig Lindell

I have voted “the other side” many times in my life, but not once in this century. I did not feel vilified until then. The party wasn’t lockstep until then. I vote for, not against, but since that time I have not found myself for anything that party seemed to almost unanimously endorse. And as time goes by, that party is less for anything and totally against anything not proposed by them. I feel abandoned by half the politicians in the country. -Jeanene Louden

I'm sorry to say that since 2020 I will no longer consider any GOP candidate since the GOP no longer permits divergence within its ranks. This does not mean that I am satisfied with the Democrats either. They have also been drifting toward financial corruption for some time. At this point I think that ranke- choice voting has the best chance for salvaging any real democracy in the USA. -Bill Carr

I have always voted as an independent. That changed about 10 years ago when I noticed a need to vote in early primaries and retain Democratic leaders in our area. Then in 2016, I chose to vote for a third party because I didn't want Trump or Clinton to have my vote. I have had people tell me that my voting for a third party hurts but in the incident with Clinton, I believe the Electoral College screwed her. -Pamela Haddock

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one of the founding documents of the United Nations. Sadly, the United States has shown hypocrisy in failing to practice what it has preached to the rest of the world for a significant part of the 20th century. So, yes, I have voted for third parties since I want real political parties instead of the sham elections and parties presented in the United States. It was interesting to watch how African leaders in nations with one-party systems would react to the U.S. criticism of their systems. But Julius Nyerere was correct when he said: “The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them.” -Micheal Bannerman

I have voted on both sides of the aisle from state representative races down to local races. I choose based on character and on issues that candidates represent in alignment with my personal views. I have always voted Democratic for the House, Senate, and president (50 years). My most recent campaign contributions were to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, and in both cases I put country over party (we don’t agree on many cultural issues, but both have good character and share respect for democracy and the law – a scarce and valuable combination that should be rewarded). - George Felt

Of course I've voted for "the other side" Because I had to register as something, I chose Republican and have seldom if ever voted straight-ticket. And I certainly won't this November. Only a person incapable of thinking for themselves would do that in my opinion. An a** is an a** and both the Democrats and Republicans have an abundance. -Lorine Nolte

Until about five years ago, I could be counted on to vote reliably for candidates from one party. It was easier to assume that the party was doing a good job vetting candidates than to do the work myself. As I became involved in Mormon Women for Ethical Government, I came to see that sort of straight party voting as problematic and have since left my party and taken on the identity of a principled voter. Like so many other MWEG members, it has been enormously freeing to stop letting a political party take away my power by making my choices for me. I am much better informed about the issues, I am very strategic about which candidates I vote for, and I regularly vote for candidates from both major parties. I can’t imagine going back to relying on partisan interests to pick my candidates for me. -Emma Petty Addams


Read More

AI chip
a computer chip with the letter a on top of it
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

We Should Regulate AI to Make It Grow Faster

The debate over artificial intelligence has become divided between two powerful ideas: that we need a “moratorium” to slow AI until we can make it safe, and that regulating AI will slow the innovation we need for our economy and national security. Both concerns are legitimate. But “moratorium” and “slowing AI growth” are divisive terms: they reassure those concerned about AI's safety, economic and environmental consequences while alarming those who see AI competition and national security as urgent priorities. We need a different starting point—meaningful regulation that provides the safeguards necessary to protect people, communities and the environment while creating the conditions for AI to continue growing. The experiences of Europe and China challenge the assumption that regulation must slow AI.

China has combined increasingly detailed, technology-specific AI regulation with substantial government support for AI development. Recent studies provide evidence that this approach can promote innovation. One 2026 study of Chinese companies from 2017 through 2023 found that the creation of national AI innovation and development pilot zones significantly increased corporate digital transformation, in part through increased research and development, human capital and reduced transition costs. Another 2026 study, covering Chinese manufacturing companies from 2014 through 2024, found that the same policy significantly promoted the adoption of intelligent technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

A Brief History of Prevention Through Deterrence

The U.S. Border Patrol agency has evolved greatly over the years, shifting its focus to address changing national security concerns. It was originally established in 1924 to restrict illegal immigration by Chinese and European immigrants before moving to restrict alcohol smuggling during Prohibition. The agency adopted its current focus on illegal immigration from Mexico during the 1970s, when immigration pressures coincided with a severe economic recession in the United States. In 1994, the Border Patrol released a strategy document with the support of the Clinton administration which introduced an approach to immigration known as Prevention Through Deterrence. This tactic aimed to discourage border crossings by funneling immigrants through border entry points with harsh terrain, in contrast with previous policies based on arrest and apprehension post-entry.

Successful Prevention Through Deterrence is measured by fewer encounters and apprehensions at the border, indicating that illegal attempts to enter the country have been prevented and deterred. Barriers to entry are policed by a range of physical infrastructure like fences, vehicle barriers, and other blockades designed to stop illegal foot and vehicle traffic. These measures are supported by camera- and thermal-based surveillance systems as well as measures like deportation and criminal charges which impose legal consequences on migrants. The focus of Prevention Through Deterrence operations themselves is twofold: establishing control of high-traffic border sectors and using security measures to enable the seizure of contraband.

Keep ReadingShow less
A microphone in the foreground and a crowd, blurry in the background.

INC ‘26 gathered independent leaders in D.C. to unveil a seven-candidate slate, a Fulcrum Caucus strategy and new tools for corruption-free governance.

Getty Images, uschools

Independent Movement Unites at INC ’26 to Build National Power

From September 23–25, leaders from across the American independent political movement gathered at the JW Marriott in Washington, D.C., for the fourth Independent National Convention (INC ’26). Produced by United Independents, the event brought together hundreds of participants representing political reform organizations, independent campaigns, alternative parties, civic initiatives and grassroots organizing efforts.

The gathering reflected the breadth of activity outside the traditional two-party system while addressing a persistent challenge: translating America's large independent constituency into greater political representation, institutional capacity, and coordinated action.

Keep ReadingShow less
Meeting, handshake and business people with deal in office for funding approval and success.

Four Reds and four Blues reached unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration, then presented them to Reps. Fitzpatrick and Suozzi. Here’s how it worked.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

On Immigration, Common Ground May Be Closer Than We Think

Immigration has become one of the issues pulling Americans apart. Earlier this month, at a constituent conversation in Bristol, Pennsylvania, I watched eight Americans with very different political views offer a glimpse of how it does not have to stay that way.

Four “Reds” and four “Blues” — terms used for participants on the political right and left — sat across from Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), the Republican and Democratic co-chairs of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, to present something increasingly unusual in our politics: unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration developed through an earlier Common Ground Workshop.

Keep ReadingShow less