ACE

Category: Election Policy

  • Is Online Voting the Future? Pros, Cons, and Key Considerations

    Is Online Voting the Future? Pros, Cons, and Key Considerations

    Introduction

    As internet technology advances and digital literacy increases, more daily activities such as shopping, learning, and bill paying are moving online. While online voting is currently unavailable for most voters in the United States, experts and researchers are debating its viability. Online voting is conducted remotely from the user’s own device, often through a third-party application. 

    Who Uses Online Voting?

    There are several examples of online voting abroad, especially in Estonia, Switzerland, and Australia. In Estonia, about half of registered voters choose to use the online platform to cast their ballot. Estonian online voting is only available for early voting, and includes the option for voters to change their choice up until the voting deadline.

    Within the U.S., 10 states allow remote voting reserved for specific groups of people. Voters living abroad gain the right to vote remotely through the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), and several states allow voters with disabilities to cast their ballots online as well. Recently, several states opened remote online voting options for local elections in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Pros of Online Voting

    Proponents of online voting say that it would make elections more accessible, and therefore increase voter turnout. Online voting decreases the amount of time it takes to vote—both by removing travel time for those who choose that option, and shortening lines at polling places for those who still opt to vote in person. This in turn has the potential to increase turnout, because long lines at the polling place negatively impact turnout. 

    Advocates contend that online voting will increase flexibility and privacy for voters with disabilities who would normally vote by mail—especially for those with impaired vision. Additionally, online remote voting platforms allow voters to cast their ballots from their own devices, and research suggests this would convince some people to vote who would not do so were the online option unavailable. Indeed, one study shows a 3.5% increase in voter turnout (and another an 8.2% increase) when the online option for voting is available.

    Online voting also has the potential to reduce the costs of elections for governments and voters. One study found online voting to be the most cost-effective form of voting, based on data from Estonian elections. According to the study, since usage of online voting decreases the time people take to vote, it also decreases indirect cost in terms of lost wages from time taken off to vote. As online voting is conducted remotely, it also gets rid of transportation costs from voters physically getting to the polling place. Online voting would also reduce the number of printed ballots needed, which reduces the cost of elections for the government. 

    Online voting could remove some human error from the election process. Supporters argue that online voting could prevent “messy elections” like the 2000 presidential election. There would be no uncertainty from physical counting errors, like the ones that arose in the 2000 election with “hanging chads.” Supporters say that online voting, without confusing physical aspects, would result in higher accuracy. 

    Online voting could also ensure election results are available more quickly to the public, as software and online platforms can count votes nearly instantly, unlike human counters, who require more time. Lastly, online voting could prevent voters from misunderstanding and spoiling (or even mistakenly invalidating, in the case of mail-in voting) their own ballots, therefore streamlining the election process.

    Cons of Online Voting

    The main concern of opponents of online voting is the overall security of an election, chief among these concerns being election fraud. Internet technology is complex and rapidly developing, and cybersecurity measures are often reactive and do not develop as fast as the innovations of hacking themselves. Many are concerned that elections without a paper trail are more vulnerable to election fraud, and that casting ballots over the internet would make recounts (in the event that they are needed) futile, as there would be no physical ballots to recount. Without physical proof of any particular voter’s ballot, it is possible that election fraud could occur and not be noticed, because of the lack of sufficient security protocols. Because of this, there is the possibility that hackers could change votes to manipulate election results. These vulnerabilities raise privacy concerns as well as fraud concerns. Voters’ ballots would also no longer be confidential.

    Opponents are also concerned with the involvement of third-party voting software companies in the election. Online voting is often run by for-profit companies who may value profit over election security. There is evidence of voting software companies lacking adequate security, which would compromise the integrity of an election. There is also the added potential of system failure, in which a crash of the voting software would prevent people from voting, or even invalidate their votes.

    A final potential drawback of online voting is the lack of trust that people have in the results produced from such a platform. Recently, there has been a decline in trust in U.S. elections, and online voting could exacerbate the issue because of the concerns surrounding security, privacy, and accuracy due to the threat of fraud. In the current climate of uncertainty, many believe it may be beneficial to stick with familiar voting methods.

    The Future of Online Voting

    The current election system is not without fault, but would adding online voting to the equation make things better or worse? Despite concerns, more than 300,000 registered U.S. voters used an online platform of some sort to vote in the 2020 elections, and many states have plans to increase the number of voters eligible to vote online in the coming years.

  • Biden Ends Re-election Campaign: Democratic Race Reopens

    Biden Ends Re-election Campaign: Democratic Race Reopens

    After weeks of calls to step down following his presidential debate performance in June, President Joe Biden has decided not to run for re-election in 2024.

    In this not-so-unexpected turn of events, the American people are in for an interesting and unprecedented August as the Democrats decide who will be their nominee to face off against former President Donald Trump.

    On Sunday afternoon, in his letter to the American people informing them of his decision to step down, the President began by addressing the accomplishments of his administration.

    He wrote, “Today, America has the strongest economy in the world. We’ve made historic investments in rebuilding our Nation, in lowering prescription drug costs for seniors, and in expanding affordable health care to a record number of Americans. We’ve provided critically needed care to a million veterans exposed to toxic substances, passed the first gun safety law in 30 years, appointed the first African American woman to the Supreme Court, and passed the most significant climate legislation in the history of the world. America has never been better positioned to lead than we are today.”

    He continued, “It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as your President. And while it has been my intention to seek re-election, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to step down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term.”

    In a statement later, Biden endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to be the Democratic presidential nominee. He wrote, “My fellow Democrats, I have decided not to accept the nomination and to focus all my energies on my duties as President for the remainder of my term. My very first decision as the party nominee in 2020 was to pick Kamala Harris as my Vice President. And it’s been the best decision I’ve made. Today I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year. Democrats — it’s time to come together and beat Trump. Let’s do this.”

    However, even though President Biden endorsed Harris, it does not mean she will be the Democratic nominee.

    So, what happens now?

    Now that President Biden has decided not to run for re-election, the delegates who were bound to their electoral outcome with Biden as the winner are now released, allowing them to vote for and nominate whomever they choose at the convention.

    This means that all 3,896 delegates President Biden received from winning each state primary will no longer have allegiance to him, making room for an open convention.

    The same rules still apply at the Democratic National Convention.

    There are an estimated 4,672 delegates up for grabs in 2024. Of these, 3,933 are pledged delegates and 739 are superdelegates. 

    Whichever candidate reaches the 1,968 pledged delegate threshold, clinches the nomination. 

    The DNC rules also state that the Vice President is nominated first, adding an interesting twist to an already unprecedented convention. 

    Pundits immediately began to speculate as to who the next nominee might be. After his statement, Bill and Hillary Clinton released a statement endorsing Harris to be the next president, as did California Governor Gavin Newsom.

    Former President Barack Obama also released a statement; however, he did not endorse Kamala Harris to be the nominee. He emphasized his confidence in the leaders of the party to “create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges.”

    The “Biden-Harris” Campaign has officially become the “Harris Campaign,” with all funds being diverted to Harris, making her the most equipped candidate with a formidable campaign apparatus to run for president in just over two months.

    Republican Reactions 

    Former President Trump immediately responded to Biden’s decision to step down. In a post on TruthSocial, he wrote, “Crooked Joe Biden was not fit to run for President, and is certainly not fit to serve – And never was!… We will suffer greatly because of his presidency, but we will remedy the damage he has done very quickly. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

    He then turned the attack to his possible next opponent, writing “Kamala Harris is just as much of a joke as Biden is…. Harris has been the Enabler-in-Chief for Crooked Joe this entire time. They own each other’s records, and there is no distance between the two. Harris must defend the failed Biden Administration AND her liberal, weak-on-crime record in CA…And during this entire term, Kamala Harris – as well as every other Democrat in Washington, sat by and did NOTHING. They are all just as complicit as Biden is in the destruction of our once-great Nation, and they must all be thrown out of office.”

    In the wake of the announcement, some Republican lawmakers have come out criticizing Biden for stepping down after the primary process, calling his move “undemocratic.”

    Speaker of the House Mike Johnson issued a statement writing, “At this unprecedented juncture in American history, we must be clear about what just happened. The Democrat Party forced the Democrat nominee off the ballot, just over 100 days before the election.”

    He also called for Biden to immediately resign, saying, “If Joe Biden is not fit to run for President, he is not fit to serve as President. He must resign the office immediately. November 5 cannot arrive soon enough.”

    Between the attempted assassination attempt on former President Trump and President Biden deciding not to run for re-election, it looks like October surprises came early this year. The American people are in for an interesting end of their summer, as the 2024 political landscape drastically changes before their very eyes.

    President Trump will now have to focus his efforts on a new opponent, and Kamala Harris will have to shore up support among her fellow Democrats to lead the fight against him. The Democratic National Convention starts August 19, leaving just about three weeks for potential nominees to start wooing delegates in their favor.

    It is going to be an exciting August. Stay here for constant updates without the spin. Stay engaged, stay critical, stay informed.

    Questions to ask yourself after reading:

    Do I agree with President Biden’s decision to not seek re-election?

    Should Kamala Harris be the Democratic nominee? If not, who?

    Should there be a debate between now and the Democratic National Convention for possible candidates?

    Who matches up best with former President Trump?

  • A Guide to the Republican National Convention: Day 4

    A Guide to the Republican National Convention: Day 4

    Day 4 of the RNC Convention marks the final day and featured one of the longest acceptance speeches in history. The event included speeches from various Republican delegates and speakers, such as well-known wrestler Hulk Hogan and Linda McMahon, wife of the former CEO of WWE. Common themes among the speeches were the need for America to regain its strength, the belief that Donald Trump was saved by divine intervention from an assassination attempt, and the idea that the American dream needs to be saved, with Donald Trump being presented as the person capable of doing so. Below is a summary of some of the speakers’ speeches, presented in a non-partisan, unbiased manner.

    Diana Hendricks – ABC Supply Owner
    Diana Hendricks, the owner of ABC Supply, expressed her concern for what she sees as the “American dream under threat.” She stated that under the Biden administration, prices, taxes, and regulations have increased. As a business owner, Diana shared her worries for aspiring entrepreneurs, noting that high interest rates make it difficult for them to secure loans. She emphasized the need for a “builder” in the White House and believes that person is Donald Trump.

    Linda McMahon- Former Small business Administrator Of The USA

    Linda McMahon, former Small Business Administrator of the United States, voiced her dissatisfaction with the Biden administration’s handling of small business affairs. She believes that the current administration aims to “penalize” small businesses by raising taxes. In contrast, she highlighted Donald Trump’s promise to make tax cuts permanent if re-elected, along with other proposed policies such as no taxes on tips and increased tariffs on China. McMahon called Trump the “champion of the forgotten man and woman” and urged listeners to vote for him.

    Mike Pompeo- Former Secretary Of State

    Mike Pompeo, former Secretary of State, expressed his displeasure with the Biden administration’s handling of foreign affairs. He said that under Trump’s administration, religious freedom was secure, the people of Israel were protected, and there was progress towards an honorable exit in Afghanistan. Pompeo criticized Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, the security of the southern border, and the handling of conflicts in the Middle East and the war between Russia and Ukraine. He accused the Biden administration of “selling out citizens, security, and sovereignty” and emphasized his belief that Donald Trump will put America first.

    Tucker Carlson- Host of “Tucker on Twitter”

    Tucker Carlson, host of “Tucker on Twitter,” expressed his belief that Donald Trump is the leader the country needs. He described a leader as someone who is “the bravest of men,” and praised Trump for demonstrating this bravery, particularly in light of the assassination attempt he survived. Carlson emphasized that a leader’s duty is “to his people, his country, and to no other,” and asserted that Trump exemplifies this principle. He criticized the Biden administration’s performance and urged voters to support Trump in the upcoming election.

    Hulk Hogan- Former Wrestler & Entertainer 

    Hulk Hogan, former wrestler and entertainer, voiced his support for Donald Trump and expressed dissatisfaction with the past four years under the Biden administration. Hogan highlighted what he saw as successes during the Trump administration, including a “thriving economy, strong borders, safe streets, and peace and respect around the world.” He contrasted this with what he perceives as a deterioration of these conditions under Biden. Hogan asserted that Donald Trump is the person capable of addressing these issues and improving the country.

    Dana White- CEO of UFC

    Dana White, CEO of UFC, conveyed his belief that Donald Trump is deeply committed to helping people. White criticized the media for promoting a narrative about Trump that he considers false, describing Trump as a fighter who “fights harder the higher the stakes.” He noted that Trump’s decision to run for president again was driven by his love for America, rather than necessity. White urged voters to support Trump in the upcoming election.

    Donald Trump- Presidential Candidate 

    Donald Trump, the presidential candidate, accepted his nomination for President of the United States. He expressed gratitude to the American people for their support following his assassination attempt, and extended his thoughts and prayers to the victims of the incident—one of whom passed away, and two others who were critically injured but are now recovering. Trump reflected on the assassination attempt, asserting that he felt divine support and reaffirmed his unbroken resolve to continue his campaign. He called for national unity, emphasizing that “now is the time to remember that we are all fellow citizens.” Trump criticized Democrats for what he perceives as the weaponization of the justice system and the labeling of political opponents as “enemies of democracy.” He expressed enthusiasm for his newly announced running mate, J.D. Vance, and praised him as a great choice for Vice President.

    Trump promised that, if elected, he would secure borders, boost the economy, and address the illegal immigration crisis. He described the current administration as leading a nation in decline and pledged to tackle inflation, reduce interest rates, and lower energy costs. He also vowed to end international conflicts he believes the current administration has created.

  • A Guide to the Republican National Convention: Day 3

    A Guide to the Republican National Convention: Day 3


    Day three of the RNC convention featured speeches from Texas Governor Greg Abbott and the newly announced vice presidential candidate, J.D. Trump. These speeches shared several common themes, including concerns about national security, border control, energy policies, and the current administration’s approach. This event marked the first public appearance of the newly announced vice presidential candidate, J.D Vance, and his wife, Usha. Below is a summary of key points from some of the speakers, presented in a non-partisan manner.

    Jim and Sue Colton – Arizona Residents
    Jim, a fifth-generation rancher from Arizona whose property lies along the Arizona-Mexico border, expressed significant concerns about border security during his speech. He emphasized, “Joe Biden’s open border policy is our country’s greatest national security threat,” and cited incidents including “our house being broken into twice” and “a border control agent being shot five times by drug smugglers on our ranch.” Jim noted that during the Trump administration, construction of a border wall on his property was nearing completion but was halted under the Biden administration, which he claimed led to a reported five-fold increase in unauthorized crossings.

    Peter Navarro
    Peter Navarro, former U.S. Trade and Manufacturing Policy Director, was recently imprisoned in Miami for defying a subpoena. He claimed that Joe Biden and his Department of “Injustice” were responsible for his imprisonment. Navarro warned, “If they can come for me, if they can come for Donald Trump, be careful, they will come for you.” He expressed his disappointment in the Biden administration, criticizing what he perceives as corruption in all three branches of government, as well as Biden’s border policy, economic management, and belief in the “Green New Scam.”

    David Lara
    David Lara, an Arizona resident, expressed concern over border control, stating that “small towns like mine bear the brunt of the chaos.” He called for the Biden-Harris administration to put “Americans first” and criticized them for neglecting his town of San Luis, saying, “They have done nothing to stop it, and everything to make it worse.” Lara expressed appreciation for Donald Trump visiting his town and “believing in borders.”

    Greg Abbott
    Greg Abbott, governor of Texas, expressed his views on border security. He believes that “America needs a president that will secure our border” and that the president’s most sacred duty is to secure the country. He criticized Joe Biden’s border policy, stating that it has allowed “rapists, murderers, and terrorists” into the country. Abbott mentioned his initiative to bus illegal immigrants to D.C. until “we secure the border,” and expressed confidence that Donald Trump will enforce immigration laws, including arresting or deporting illegal immigrants.

    Sarah Phillips
    Sarah Phillips, a petroleum engineer, expressed her support for Donald Trump’s energy policies. She stated, “Trump is high energy and supports energy, while Biden is low energy and is against energy.” Phillips criticized Biden’s approach, referring to the Green New Deal as a “scam” and accusing Biden of declaring “war” on the oil and gas industry from day one. She emphasized the importance of fossil fuels, stating, “Our society and standard of living could not exist without fossil fuels.” Phillips believes that under Trump’s administration, “America’s great economic revival will be powered by American energy.”

    Trent Conaway
    Trent Conaway, governor of East Palestine, Ohio, criticized what he perceives as Joe Biden’s lack of response and action when a train derailed, spilling chemicals in his town. He stated that the White House was silent on the matter and that he did not hear from Vice President Kamala Harris. Conaway praised Donald Trump for visiting and “caring” and “listening to us,” while contrasting this with Joe Biden’s visit, which he described as “forced and scripted.” He labeled the Biden administration as a “train wreck” and called for action, stating, “Before President Biden derails our nation, we need to act.”

    Kimberly Guilfoyle
    Kimberly Guilfoyle, Trump campaign advisor and fiancée of Donald Trump Jr., views the upcoming election as pivotal for the future of the United States. She argues that the choice is between “safety and chaos,” urging voters to elect Donald Trump for what she describes as his vision of ‘American greatness’ versus Joe Biden’s ‘visions for American weakness.’ Guilfoyle criticizes Biden’s leadership capabilities, claiming he ‘cannot even lead himself off of stage.’ She opposes what she perceives as the indoctrination of children in schools and the inclusion of ‘“biological men” in girls’ sports, advocating instead for a return to national pride, where “freedom of speech is respected” and “cancel culture is ended”.

    Shabbos Kestenbaum
    Shabbos Kestenbaum, a first-generation Jewish Harvard alumni, is a plaintiff in a lawsuit against Harvard, alleging a failure to combat anti-Semitism. He contends that Harvard students are taught “not how to think but what to think.” As a registered Democrat, Kestenbaum expresses concern that “the far left has abandoned not only the Jewish people but also the American people.” He criticizes what he sees as ideological poisoning within the Democratic Party, particularly impacting young American students. Kestenbaum denounces what he terms as ‘radicalism’ on American campuses and streets, asserting that such movements lack legitimacy.

    Michael Waltz
    Michael Waltz, the first Green Beret ever elected to Congress and former White House advisor, highlighted differences between administrations in his speech. He praised the Trump administration for its actions against ISIS, policies towards Iran, and support for Israel. He contrasted this with what he sees as President Biden’s focus on issues such as pronouns, base renaming, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and military technologies like electric tanks. Waltz criticized Biden’s decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, calling it ‘disgraceful’ and a “stain on our national conscience.” He emphasized his belief in achieving peace “through American strength” during the Trump administration.

    Donald Trump Jr.
    Donald Trump Jr., son of Donald Trump, expressed his admiration for his father, describing him as having “a heart of a lion” and showing resilience after an assassination attempt. He honored the life of Corey Compertore, who died during a recent rally. Trump Jr. criticized the Democrats, accusing them of lying about Joe Biden’s fitness for office and Hunter Biden’s laptop. He claimed that under the Biden administration “nothing is built, nothing is back, and nothing is better.”

    J.D. Vance
    J.D. Vance, the vice presidential candidate, shared his belief that Donald Trump did not need to run again, stating that “he didn’t need the politics, but the country needed him.” He posed a question to the audience about the importance of being governed by a party that debates ideas and seeks the best solutions. Vance accepted the vice presidential nomination and shared personal details about his childhood, including being raised by his grandmother in a small rural town, enlisting in the Marines after 9/11, attending Ohio State University, and then Yale Law School, where he met his wife. He emphasized the need for a leader who “fights for the people who built this country” and opposes the Green New Deal. Vance concluded his speech by expressing his hope for the nation to “thrive for centuries to come.”

  • A Guide to the Republican National Convention: Day 2

    A Guide to the Republican National Convention: Day 2

    On the second night of the Republican National Convention, the theme “Make America Safe Again” resonated throughout the evening, but the underlying message of unity was unmistakable. The night saw a series of powerful speeches from key Republican figures, all rallying behind former President Donald Trump. They addressed various issues from economic policies to national security, emphasizing the need for a cohesive Republican front to ensure a return to the White House.

    Ted Cruz: The Border Crisis

    Senator Ted Cruz delivered a poignant address focusing on the border crisis. He painted a vivid picture of the human cost associated with illegal immigration, citing numerous tragic examples of Americans who had suffered due to crimes committed by illegal immigrants. Cruz emphasized the magnitude of the crisis by comparing the influx of illegal immigrants to filling 639 arenas, each holding about 18,000 people.

    Cruz passionately stated, “Every day Americans are dying… This is evil and it’s wrong. And it is happening every damn day.” He blamed the Biden administration’s policies for this crisis and asserted that under Trump, the border was secure. Cruz called for a return to strict border enforcement to protect American lives and restore safety.

    Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA): Critiquing the Biden Administration

    Rep. Steve Scalise (LA-1) offered a sharp critique of the Biden administration’s handling of the economy and energy policies. Scalise highlighted the stark differences between the current administration and Trump’s tenure, focusing on job losses and energy dependence.

    He pointed out that while President Biden approved the Nord Stream pipeline for Russia, he canceled the Keystone pipeline in the U.S., leading to thousands of lost American jobs. Scalise also criticized Biden for allowing Iran and Venezuela to export oil while hindering American natural gas exports. He stressed, “President Biden waived taxes on Chinese solar panels, but he raised taxes on Americans.”

    Scalise underscored the need to re-elect Donald Trump to restore American energy dominance and make the Trump tax cuts permanent. He also touched on border security, promising that a Republican majority would pass H.R.2 to secure the border and finish building the wall.

    Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA): Law and Order

    House Speaker Mike Johnson emphasized the Republican Party’s commitment to law and order. He announced an immediate investigation into the assassination attempt on Donald Trump, portraying the Republicans as staunch defenders of American values and the rule of law.

    Johnson stated, “We in the Republican Party are the law and order team. We always have been and we always will be the advocates for the rule of law.” He stressed the importance of a united Republican Party to safeguard the nation’s foundational principles, asserting that the country was at a crossroads where basic American values were under threat.

    Businessman Vivek Ramaswamy: A Call to Traditional Values

    Vivek Ramaswamy’s speech focused on what he described as a national identity crisis. He urged a return to the foundational values of 1776, calling for policies that emphasize merit and the rule of law. Ramaswamy criticized the current administration for what he viewed as a departure from these core values, replacing patriotism, hard work, and family with race, gender, sexuality, and climate as primary concerns.

    Ramaswamy argued, “What does it mean to be a Republican in the year 2024? What does it mean to be an American in the year 2024?” He stressed the importance of sealing the southern border on day one and reducing the influence of unelected bureaucrats. He portrayed Donald Trump as the leader who would revive these American ideals, emphasizing that success and excellence are unifying forces.

    Former South Carolina Governor and Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley: The Unifying Voice

    In perhaps the most critical speech of the night, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley took the stage amidst mixed reactions. Haley began by expressing her strong endorsement for Donald Trump, which eventually garnered a standing ovation. Haley emphasized the importance of unity within the Republican Party and the need to expand its base by welcoming people with diverse backgrounds and experiences.

    Haley highlighted her tenure as Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations, praising his foreign policy achievements. She contrasted Trump’s strong stance with the current administration’s approach, noting that under Trump, Vladimir Putin did not invade Ukraine and Iran was significantly restrained. “A strong president doesn’t start wars; a strong president prevents wars,” Haley declared.

    On immigration, Haley criticized the Biden administration’s handling of the border crisis, emphasizing the influx of migrants and the associated security risks. She argued that Trump’s policies had kept the border secure and that a return to these policies was essential for national security. “Under Donald Trump, we didn’t have the border disaster we have today,” she asserted.

    Haley also reached out to Republicans who might have doubts about Trump, acknowledging that she herself did not always agree with him. She stated, “You don’t have to agree with Trump 100% of the time to vote for him. Take it from me. I haven’t always agreed with President Trump. But we agree more often than we disagree.” Haley’s message was clear: while Republicans may not always agree with Trump, they share a common goal of keeping America strong and safe. She called for Republicans to unite and work together to save the nation, highlighting that no president can fix all problems alone. “Together as a party, let us come together as a people, as one country strong and proud,” she concluded.

    Florida Governor Ron DeSantis: Echoing the Sentiment

    Florida Governor Ron DeSantis followed Haley, echoing her sentiments about the stark differences between life under Trump and the Biden administration. DeSantis criticized Biden’s handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal and border security, reinforcing the call for unity and the re-election of Trump to restore national security and prosperity.

    DeSantis highlighted the affordability of life under Trump, stating, “Life was more affordable when Donald Trump was president. Our border was safer under the Trump administration and our country was respected when Donald Trump was our commander in chief.” He emphasized that a strong and unified Republican Party was essential to reversing the current administration’s policies.

    Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders: Personal Endorsement

    Sarah Huckabee Sanders shared personal anecdotes to illustrate Donald Trump’s character and leadership. She praised Trump’s policies on crime, education, and China, and called for his return to the White House to ensure a better future for the next generation. Sanders emphasized Trump’s resilience and unwavering commitment to American values.

    She recounted a personal story of President Trump supporting her during challenging times in her role as White House Press Secretary, and she underscored his compassionate side, saying, “That’s the kind of leader he is, courageous under fire, compassionate towards others.” Sanders concluded by expressing her belief that with Trump back in the White House, America could reclaim its greatness.

    Dr. Ben Carson: Faith and Resilience

    Dr. Ben Carson reflected on Trump’s resilience in the face of numerous attacks. He encouraged daily prayers for Trump’s protection and emphasized the need for a moral base in America. Carson’s speech was a call to action for Americans to uphold their values and re-elect Trump to maintain the nation’s greatness.

    Carson invoked a sense of divine protection over Trump, saying, “No weapon formed against you shall prosper.” He highlighted the various challenges Trump had faced, from attempts to ruin his reputation to assassination attempts, and praised his continued resilience. Carson’s message was one of faith, hope, and perseverance in the face of adversity.

    Florida Senator Marco Rubio: The People’s Movement

    Senator Marco Rubio highlighted how Trump had transformed the Republican Party by giving a voice to everyday Americans. He stressed the importance of putting America first and criticized the Biden administration for its economic and security failures. Rubio’s speech was a rallying cry for unity and action to protect the American dream.

    Rubio emphasized the importance of addressing the concerns of ordinary Americans, saying, “These are the Americans who wear the red hats and wait for hours under a blazing sun to hear Trump speak.” He called for policies that prioritize American jobs, secure borders, and a strong national defense, arguing that these are not extreme demands but fundamental expectations of the American people.

    Lara Trump: A Personal Appeal

    Lara Trump provided a heartfelt perspective on the personal sacrifices made by the Trump family. She highlighted Trump’s achievements during his presidency, including economic gains and national security. Lara urged Americans to remember the positive changes under Trump and to support his return to office.

    She recounted the emotional experience of witnessing the assassination attempt on Trump, emphasizing his resilience and determination. “Donald Trump is a lion. He is bold, he is strong, he is fearless, and he is exactly what this country needs right now,” she said. Lara’s speech was a personal appeal to voters to see beyond the headlines and recognize Trump’s commitment to America.

    You could feel the energy at the RNC Night 2, bringing together political foes, with unity as the central message. The speakers emphasized the importance of coming together to ensure a safe, strong, and prosperous America under Donald Trump’s leadership. Whether this message of unity will remain throughout the campaign remains to be seen. We are here to give you a non-partisan look at presidential politics so you can make decisions based on the facts we present. Stay critical, stay engaged, and stay informed.

    Questions to Ask Yourself After Reading:

    Do I think the Republican party is more unified now?

    Will this unity message last through November?

  • Trump Selects J.D. Vance as 2024 Running Mate

    Trump Selects J.D. Vance as 2024 Running Mate

    After what may be the best-kept secret in modern presidential politics, Donald Trump has finally chosen J.D. Vance, the senator from Ohio, to be his running mate in the 2024 election.

    J.D. Vance was born in Middletown, Ohio, to a working-class family. Raised mostly by his maternal grandparents due to his parent’s divorce and his mother’s alcohol and drug abuse, Vance enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps after graduating from Middletown High School in 2003. He deployed to Iraq and fought in the Iraq War.

    After his service, Vance attended The Ohio State University, earning a bachelor’s degree in political science and philosophy. He then studied at Yale Law School, obtaining his JD. Post-law school, Vance worked for the law firm Sidley Austin LLP and various investment firms nationwide.

    Vance gained fame in 2016 with the publication of “Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis,” which detailed his upbringing and painted a bleak picture of rural life, describing poverty as a “family tradition” for many. The book quickly became a bestseller, making Vance a sought-after political commentator.

    In 2016, Vance moved back to Ohio to start a nonprofit aimed at helping disadvantaged children and addressing issues such as drug addiction and the opioid epidemic. Although the organization eventually folded, he later started an investment firm in Cincinnati.

    In 2021, when Rob Portman announced he would not seek reelection, Vance entered the race to fill his Senate seat. With an endorsement from Donald Trump, Vance was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2022. In the Senate, Vance serves on the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee; the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee; the Joint Economic Committee; and the Special Committee on Aging.

    Where J.D. Vance Stands on the Issues:

    Immigration:

    In one of his first Senate campaign advertisements, Vance released a video blaming Joe Biden for the border crisis and its effects on Ohio communities. He said, “Joe Biden’s open border is killing Ohioans. With more illegal drugs and more Democrat voters pouring into this country.” Vance supports finishing the border wall, opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants, and advocates for a merit-based system for legal immigration. He has also expressed concerns about immigrants being a source of cheap labor, suggesting, “If you cannot hire illegal migrants to staff your hotels, then you have to go to one of the seven million prime-age American men who are out of the labor force and find some way to re-engage them.”

    Abortion:

    Initially favoring a 15-week ban, Vance has recently supported leaving the decision to the states. In a “Face the Nation”, he stated, “I am pro-life. I want to save as many babies as possible. And sure, I think it’s totally reasonable to say that late-term abortions should not happen with reasonable exceptions. But I think Trump’s approach here is trying to settle a very tough issue and actually empower the American people to decide it for themselves.”

    Ukraine:

    Vance has long opposed funding for the war in Ukraine. In an op-ed for the New York Times, he argued, “Ukraine needs more soldiers than it can field, even with draconian conscription policies. And it needs more matériel than the United States can provide. This reality must inform any future Ukraine policy, from further congressional aid to the diplomatic course set by the president.” He accused President Biden of failing “to articulate even basic facts about what Ukraine needs and how this aid will change the reality on the ground.”

    Middle East:

    Vance has staunchly supported Israel throughout its war in Gaza, defending their wartime policies. 

    He led the effort to consider and vote on aid to Ukraine and Israel in separate packages. In a memo circulated among Republicans, he stated, “Israel has a clear plan, and we have a clear means of helping them to fulfill that plan — by providing very specific munitions to enable Israel to conduct a limited operation with a view to neutralizing the threat Hamas poses to Israel. We have no such plan for the Russia-Ukraine War.”

    2020 Election:

    Vance believes the 2020 election was stolen from Trump and has suggested there were significant problems that require political solutions. He stated in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, “If I had been vice president, I would have told the states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia, and so many others, that we needed to have multiple slates of electors and I think the U.S. Congress should have fought over it from there. That is the legitimate way to deal with an election that a lot of folks, including me, think had a lot of problems in 2020.” He has dismissed Trump’s role in the January 6 events, saying on CNN, “Look, Jan. 6 was a bad day. It was a riot. But the idea that Donald Trump endangered anyone’s lives when he told them to protest peacefully, it’s just absurd.”

    Economy:

    In his “Face the Nation” interview, Vance called for broad-based tariffs on imports, particularly from China, to protect American industries from unfair competition, which he attributes to slave labor rather than superior workers. He said, “…we need to apply some broad-based tariffs, especially on goods coming in from China and not just solar panels and EV stuff. We need to protect American industries from all of the competition. Because here- here’s the thing, Margaret, the reason China beats us, it’s not because they have better workers, it’s because they’re willing to use slaves–”

    Environment:

    While acknowledging climate change, Vance doubts its anthropogenic causes. He supports drilling for oil in the U.S. and criticizes the Biden administration for subsidizing alternative energy sources and demonizing reliable power sources. In a speech to the American Leadership Forum in 2022, he stated, “I’m skeptical of the idea that climate change is caused purely by man. It’s been changing, as others pointed out, it’s been changing for millennia…”

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Although Vance was not always a Trump supporter, his perspective has evolved. Initially “Never Trumper,” Vance criticized Trump harshly in 2016 calling him a “terrible candidate” and even saying he was “America’s Hitler.” However, he has since reversed his stance, praising Trump’s presidency and working diligently to secure his second term.

    Former President Trump praised Vance in his announcement on TruthSocial, highlighting Vance’s military service, academic achievements, bestselling memoir, and business career. Trump emphasized Vance’s commitment to American workers and farmers and his dedication to upholding the Constitution and supporting the troops.

    He wrote “After lengthy deliberation and thought and considering the tremendous talents of many others, I have decided that the person best suited to assume the position of Vice President of the United States is Senator J.D. Vance of the great state of Ohio. J.D. honorably served our country in the Marine Corps, graduated from Ohio State University in two years, Summa Cum Laude, and is a Yale Law School graduate, where he was the editor of the Yale Law Journal and President of the Yale Law Veteran Association. J.D.’s book “Hillbilly Elegy” became a Major Best Seller and Movie as it championed the hard-working men and women of our country. J.D. has had a very successful business career in technology and finance, and now, during the campaign will be strongly focused on the people he fought so brilliantly for, the American workers and farmers in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Minnesota, and far beyond. As Vice President J.D. will continue to fight for our Constitution, stand with our troops and we’ll do everything he can to help me MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. Congratulations to Senator J.D. Vance, his wife, Usha who also graduated from Yale Law School and their three beautiful children. MAGA2024!”

    As we approach the 2024 election, the choice of J.D. Vance as Trump’s running mate adds another layer of complexity to an already dynamic race. Vance’s background and clear positions on critical issues like immigration, abortion, Ukraine, and the economy will significantly influence the political landscape. As election season heats up, it’s essential to stay informed on all matters. Seek out the facts and form your own opinions. This platform aims to provide clear, unbiased information, empowering you to draw your own conclusions. Stay engaged, stay critical, and stay informed.

    Questions to Consider After Reading:

    Do you think J.D. Vance was a good choice for Trump’s VP?

    Should Trump have chosen someone else? Why?

    Is J.D. Vance the strongest candidate to help Donald Trump beat Joe Biden?

  • A Guide to the Republican National Convention: Day 1

    A Guide to the Republican National Convention: Day 1

    In the wake of the assassination attempt on presidential candidate Donald Trump this past Saturday, the Republican National Convention is underway. Taking place in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the main event on the agenda for the convention’s first day is officially nominating Donald Trump as the Republican presidential candidate. 

    Monday afternoon, Trump was nominated in a roll call vote in which delegates from each state were pledged to Trump. His son, Donald Trump, Jr. announced Florida’s 125 delegates for Trump, pushing Trump past the 1,215 delegate threshold to officially gain the GOP presidential nomination. 

    During the roll call vote, Trump announced on the social media platform, Truth Social, that he had selected Senator JD Vance as his running mate. Vance is a first-term senator from Ohio. He has previously served in the Marine Corps and is best known for writing his best-selling memoir, Hillbilly Elegy, which describes his experience growing up in rural poverty and being raised on Appalachian values. He once was a strong critic of Trump. In 2016, he stated he was a “never Trump guy” and referred to Trump as “America’s Hitler.” But he has since changed his stance, becoming a supporter of Trump after gaining Trump’s endorsement in 2021 for the Ohio senate seat. JD Vance appeared on the convention floor a couple of hours after the vice presidential announcement, greeting supporters and taking photos before being officially nominated as the Republican vice presidential candidate. 

    Key Speakers:

    Marjorie Taylor Green, Representative from Georgia

    Green began her speech by condemning the assassination attempt on Trump and offering prayers and support to Corey Comperatore, who lost his life during the assassination attempt at the rally in Pennsylvania. She then moved to reiterate her stance on immigration, criticizing “open borders” and blaming “illegal aliens” for a poor economy and loss of American jobs. She also criticized the aid to Ukraine, claiming that American’s tax dollars would be better used funding a border wall before ending her speech by reiterating her support for Trump, stating “Trump is the president America deserves.”

    Wesley Hunt, Representative from Texas

    Hunt criticized the economy and rising inflation rates under Biden. He claimed that under Trump. families had “more money in their pockets” and were living through the “greatest economy” before ending his speech with the message: “Trump will make America great again.”

    John James, Representative from Michigan

    “If you don’t vote for Trump, you aren’t black.” James began his speech praising his time at West Point and service in the army, calling his life story the “American Dream” story before attacking Joe Biden and the Democrats, stating that they have “given up on the American Dream” and instead intend to use American tax dollars to fund “their woke agenda and the Green New Deal.” He then praised Trump for securing the borders and fostering a strong economy, claiming that under Trump families will be able to go from poverty to riches in “one generation.”

    Katie Britt, Senator from Alabama

    Britt attributed the rising price of groceries, gas, electricity, mortgage rates, and rent to the failings of the Biden administration. She stated that Trump will instead deliver “strong borders” and “strong families and communities.” Her speech reiterated the republican message of American exceptionalism and promised Trump would bring “limitless opportunities” by fixing the current state of the economy.

    Tim Scott, Senator from South Carolina

    Scott criticized Biden’s ability to perform his presidential duties, claiming Biden is “asleep at the wheel” and that “America deserves better.” He then stated, “America is not a racist country,” praising conservative values for fostering unity while claiming democratic cities incite racial poverty. He stated that tax cuts granted by Trump will provide opportunities for growth and praised Trump’s ability and commitment to securing the border. The crowd then broke out in a chant for “four more years” after Scott declared that the Republican party was the party of “Fredrick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Regan, and Donald Trump.”

    Glenn Youngkin, Governor of Virginia

    “Joe must go!” Youngkin addressed the increases in mortgage rates, gas and grocery prices, and inflation which he claimed the Biden/Harris campaign was responsible for. He praised Trump’s position as an “outside businessman” and commended Trump’s tax cuts, “slashing of red tape,” and credited Trump with creating new jobs within Virginia. He reiterated the Trump campaign’s message of “high growth and low taxes” will “lift up all Americans.”

    Kristi Noem, Governor of South Dakota

    Noem first compared the Trump presidency to the Biden presidency, stating that Trump allowed her to “do her job” under COVID. She praised Trump for allowing her to run her state without federal oversight in comparison to Biden. Noem portrayed Trump as a fighter, calling the impeachments, current charges against him, and the assassination attempt as mere obstacles Trump has fought to overcome. She then cites Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, calling for a unity of people amongst great division as she urged her fellow Republicans to win the “hearts and minds” of the people.

    Byron Donalds, Representative of Florida

    Donalds first targeted public school education systems, stating that parents should be able to choose what was being taught in their child’s schools and that under Trump “all America’s children” will get the chance to choose which schools they wish to go to. He then claimed that the Biden/Haris administration enabled rising inflation rates under Biden’s “American Rescue Plan,” ignoring Donalds’ warning about the plan. He then urged that the people must come together under Trump in order for the economy to “boom again” and to “make America wealthy again.”

    Charlie Kirk, Turning Point Action Founder

    “The American Dream has become a luxury item for the wealthy and elite.” Speaking to the Millennials and Generation Z, Kirk blames Biden for the younger generations’ inability to “purchase a house” or “start a family.” He claims that under Trump’s economic platform, the American dream will become within reach again.

    Marsha Blackburn, Senator of Tennessee

    Blackburn claims that when Biden first entered office, “gas was $2.49 a gallon” and today “gas is $3.54,” arguing that “Bidenomics” has caused the rising gas prices and will only continue to raise taxes. In opposition, she claims Trump created “the largest tax cuts in history” and when reelected will make those tax cuts “permanent.” She also claimed that Biden and Harris hired “85,000 IRS agents” to “harass” small businesses, but Trump will fire those workers. She vows that Trump will return the country to “economic greatness.” 

    Amber Rose, Model and TV Personality

    “The best chance we have to give our babies a chance at a better life is to elect Donald Trump.” She once was a Democrat but after meeting with Trump and his base, she switched her support for Donald Trump, claiming that “it’s all love” and “these are [her] people” after feeling lied to by the media. She also cited rising gas and grocery prices as her main causes of concern. 

    After Senator Blackburn’s appearance, Trump made an appearance wearing a bandage over his ear, entering the convention to the cheers of the crowd. The crowd then began chanting “We want Trump” throughout the rest of the convention’s night.

    Finally ending on the crowd’s chants of “We want Trump,” the convention was adjourned until 5 pm central time on Tuesday. 

    Day 1 of the RNC began with the nomination of Donald J. Trump and JD Vance and the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates for the GOP. After the nominations were official, the convention adjourned until later that evening. Night 1 of the RNC saw a selection of Republican congresspeople and voters who spoke in support of Trump and his reelection campaign. The main points the speakers hit were criticizing the current state of the economy, rising inflation rates, and border and job security. The general consensus was that a second term of Trump would boost the economy, provide massive tax cuts, and protect Americans from illegal immigrants and the far-left agenda. Then, towards the end of the first conference day, Trump entered the convention hall and sat with his running mate until the meeting was adjourned. Trump is expected to give a speech Thursday, the last day of the RNC.

  • Could Joe Biden Be Replaced as the Democratic Party Presidential Nominee?

    Could Joe Biden Be Replaced as the Democratic Party Presidential Nominee?

    After his performance in the first debate of the 2024 presidential election, President Joe Biden is now facing calls from those in his own party to step down as the Democratic nominee.

    These calls to step down come after months of Republican lawmakers criticizing the president’s mental ability and stamina, as well as Special Counsel Robert Hur’s decision not to pursue charges against Biden in his classified documents case due to his “poor memory” and old age.

    In the Special Counsel’s statement not to pursue charges, Hur wrote, “…at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him… It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him–by then a former president well into his eighties–of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

    Since then, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and other top Biden administration officials have been vigorously defending the President and his ability to do the job, saying Hur’s report does not “[live] in reality.”

    But on Thursday, Americans were able to get a rare glimpse of an unscripted and unprompted Joe Biden, and their reaction was all but positive.

    Now, with one in three Democrats saying Biden should not run for re-election, top Democratic officials have to juggle whether they stick with their nominee or make a last-ditch effort to defeat Donald Trump.

    Never before has an incumbent President been removed at a party convention or stepped down due to an inability to do the job. 

    In these unprecedented times, it can be tough to get the facts and your questions answered. Here’s all you need to know without the spin:

    Can there be a new Democratic Nominee?

    There are two possibilities in which there can be a new 2024 Democratic nominee.

    The first: President Biden decides to step down from the presidency on his own, releasing all the delegates bound to him and allowing a new vote for new candidates at the convention in late August.

    The second: A split convention.

    There are an estimated 4,672 delegates up for grabs in 2024. Of these, 3,933 are pledged delegates and 739 are super-delegates, who have no allegiance to any electoral outcome. Super-delegates are not permitted to vote on the first ballot for president at the convention but can vote on the second if no candidate reaches the 1,968 pledged delegates needed to clinch the nomination.

    After sweeping every state in the Democratic primary, President Biden has received 3,896 delegates. This means that, by all metrics, he should easily clinch the nomination on August 22. But there’s a catch.

    The 2024 DNC Rules clearly state, “All delegates to the National Convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”

    The phrase “good conscience” indicates that delegates are not legally bound to the electoral outcome of the primary election results they represent.

    Therefore, technically, if enough delegates were to defect from their electoral outcome to support another candidate, a split convention could occur, opening the door for unbound super-delegates to vote and for last-minute challengers to emerge in the following rounds of voting.

    Who would replace Biden?

    Ever since the debate ended, political pundits have been speculating about who could replace Biden if he were to step down.

    The names most frequently mentioned include Vice President Kamala Harris, California Governor Gavin Newsom, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, and former First Lady Michelle Obama.

    But how would these candidates fare against Donald Trump?

    In a post-debate poll conducted by Reuters/Ipsos, Trump and Biden remain in a dead heat at 40% each.

    All considered rising stars and the future of the Democratic party, in a hypothetical matchup against former President Trump, Kamala Harris loses by 1, Newsom by 3, Whitmer by 5, Beshear by 4, and Pritzker by 6.

    The only Democrat polled who beat Trump was Michelle Obama with a staggering 11-point advantage over the former president. However, the former First Lady has been adamant about her resistance to political life.

    In March, her director of communications told NBC News, “As former First Lady Michelle Obama has expressed several times over the years, she will not be running for president. Mrs. Obama supports President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris’ re-election campaign.”

    Does Biden want to step down?

    Seems like no. Despite his debate performance, President Biden immediately agreed to the next debate hosted by ABC in September.

    At a campaign rally the following day in North Carolina, Biden addressed the crowd, saying, “Folks, I might not walk as easily or talk as smoothly as I used to. I might not debate as well as I used to. But what I do know is how to tell the truth.”

    On a Wednesday call with top allies and advisors, Biden was clear about his desire and ability to remain in the race.

    NBC White House Correspondent Gabe Gutierrez reported on X, “President Biden on call with staff just now: ‘Let me say this as clearly as I possibly can, as simply and straightforward as I can: I am running. No one is pushing me out. I’m not leaving. I’m in this race to the end and we’re going to win.’”

    However, there have been reports that Biden is “weighing his options” on whether to pull out.

    According to the New York Times, “President Biden has told key allies that he knows the coming days are crucial and understands that he may not be able to salvage his candidacy if he cannot convince voters that he is up to the job after a disastrous debate performance last week.”

    The article continued, “‘He knows if he has two more events like that, we’re in a different place’ by the end of the weekend, said one of the allies, referring to Mr. Biden’s halting and unfocused performance in the debate.” This ally spoke anonymously.

    The most recent post-debate New York Times/Siena Poll of registered voters nationwide has Biden losing to Trump 49% to 43%—a six-point bump for the former president from the same poll conducted just a week earlier.

    Questions to ask yourself after reading:

    Should Biden be replaced as the Democratic Nominee?

    Can any other candidate beat Donald Trump?

    Can a person run for president and win in two months?

    What qualities in a president are most important to me?

    • Do any of these alternatives possess those qualities more than the presumptive nominees?

    Would I feel more inclined to vote if one of these alternatives was on the ballot instead of Joe Biden?

    Would an alternative Democratic nominee change the party of the president I plan to vote for? 

    With less than two months until the Democratic National Convention, Democrats are on the clock in deciding whether or not to replace their nominee.

    While some may seem like more formidable candidates than Biden, there is one thing Democrats don’t have that can’t be bought with any amount of money in the world: time.

    If there were to be a new Democratic nominee, they would have just over two months to convince a majority of Americans that they should be their president. That would be unprecedented, but these are unprecedented times.

  • Understanding the Primary Reform Debate

    Understanding the Primary Reform Debate

    In the U.S., elections typically start with party primaries, where members of each political party select their candidates for the general election. There are two main types of primaries: closed and open. In closed primaries, only registered members of a party can vote in its primary. Open primaries, on the other hand, allow all voters to participate, regardless of their party affiliation. Within these primary systems, when members of a single party dominate the electorate — in heavily Democratic cities, for instance, or mostly Republican rural areas — primaries can effectively decide contests, because the general election (with only one candidate from each party) is uncompetitive. 

    Critics of the existing primary system propose a variety of reforms to make results more responsive to the electorate as a whole. One such reform is the top-two primary. Jurisdictions with a top-two primary system hold a single primary election for all candidates and all voters, and the candidates with the top two vote shares — regardless of party — advance to the November general election. The reform aims to increase voter choice, reduce incentives for political polarization and extremism, and make winning candidates more reflective of the broad electorate. 

    California and Washington are the lone states to use the top-two primary system for state and congressional elections. (Nebraska also uses it for state legislative elections, which are nonpartisan in the state.) Proponents have led efforts to institute it in various other states, including Florida, Maryland, and Oregon, but none have been successful.

    Arguments in Favor

    A central goal of top-two primaries is to increase the share of the electorate that casts meaningful votes. Primaries generally see lower turnout than general elections — per one analysis, on average, primary turnout between 2000 and 2020 was under 30%, while general election turnout exceeded 60%. Since primaries can be decisive in jurisdictions that are less competitive between parties, this difference in turnout means that a lower percentage of the electorate tends to vote in the elections that matter. According to the Unite America Institute, the results of 83% of congressional elections in 2020 were determined by primary elections that just 10% of Americans voted in.

    In top two-primaries, the top two candidates that advance to the general do not necessarily represent both major parties. In 2022, for example, top-two primaries in six heavily Democratic congressional districts in California chose two Democrats (rather than candidates from both parties) to advance to the general election. Traditional primaries in those districts might typically yield a Democratic nominee strongly favored in the November election and a Republican candidate with a very low probability of winning. Instead, voters in the higher-turnout general could choose between two candidates who garnered significant support in the primary, increasing the chance that more voters have a meaningful say in the race.

    Moreover, in this example, a Republican minority with little potential impact in a traditional primary could now express its preferences between two viable (Democratic) candidates. Some advocates say partisan primaries, especially closed ones, effectively “disenfranchise” voters by preventing voters of one party from having a say in the elections that matter. Proponents of the top-two primary argue that more voters’ choices affect the result in the system.

    Many also argue that the top-two primary helps more moderate candidates win and thus discourages extremism. In the traditional primary system, candidates must appeal to voters within their party first, before moving on to others in the general election. When the general election is an afterthought (as it is in races dominated by a single party), this can encourage candidates — including incumbents — to adjust their positions to appeal to a more partisan audience rather than the broader scope of the general electorate, fueling political polarization. Top-two primaries, advocates argue, take this effect out of play by eliminating single-party primaries. In addition, if two candidates of the same party advance to the general election, they have an incentive to appeal to voters from the minority party in that race, pulling them towards the center ideologically. A London School of Economics analysis found that candidates in such races are “more likely to talk about partisanship and policy in ways that seek support from voters outside of their own party base.” A University of Southern California study showed that instituting top-two primaries in California consequently “reduced ideological extremity among legislators” elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from the state between 2003 and 2018.

    In typical general elections after party primaries, three or more candidates can split the electorate, resulting in winners with well under 40 percent support. In these traditional contests, so-called “spoiler candidates,” those with small shares of support, can determine close races despite their low chance of winning. Because only two candidates can appear on the ballot in a general election under the top-two system, these November elections serve functionally as runoffs, ensuring that the winner receives more than 50% of the vote without adding an extra election and its associated costs.

    Arguments Against

    A key critique of the top-two primary system is its vulnerability to political gamesmanship, particularly through the phenomenon of primary spoilers. In this system, the sheer number of candidates from one party can drastically affect the outcomes. For instance, in a predominantly Democratic district, if multiple Democratic candidates split the vote while a single Republican candidate consolidates their party’s vote, the Republican could advance to the general election. Despite this advantage in the primary, such a Republican candidate would typically face slim chances of winning in the November general election. Candidates can exploit these peculiarities. In one prominent example, Rep. Adam Schiff, running against two other Democrats for Senate in California this year, ran ads implicitly favoring Republican candidate Steve Garvey so he could compete with a Republican instead of a Democrat in November. Garvey came in second place after Schiff, advancing to the general election, making Schiff’s race no longer competitive according to news outlets.

    Since top-two primaries include candidates from all parties, some opponents argue top-two primaries act as a first-round general election with lower turnout. This shifts political power to low-turnout primary elections that still often decide elections — voters in the other 44 California congressional districts advanced a Republican and a Democrat to the 2022 general election, for instance, unchanged from the results of a traditional party primary. One study also found that parties’ incentives to field few candidates in primaries (to ensure general-election advancement) reduces voters’ additional choices in top-two primaries. At the same time, turnout might be discouraged in general elections as well: Minority-party voters may not have a candidate they strongly support, and so are less likely to vote. The overall outcome might be lower turnout without much increase in choice.

    Many opponents of top-two primaries say the system disenfranchises minority-party voters in any given jurisdiction, because when two candidates of the same party advance to the general election, minority-party voters are prevented from voting for a candidate of their party. On the other hand, if their party’s candidate would have little chance of winning the election, choosing between two candidates of the other party might give them a greater ability to influence the result in a direction they prefer. Another notable problem with the system is its consequences for third parties. The runoff form of general elections (in which only two candidates can compete) makes it difficult for third parties to advance past the low-turnout primary, limiting their exposure. 

    ConclusionTop-two primaries could have wide implications for American electoral politics: according to advocates, they offer a strong alternative to polarizing partisan primaries; opponents say they would make the system even more restrictive than it already is. State-level electoral reforms have mainly focused on other proposed systems, like ranked-choice voting, in recent years, but top-two primaries remain a compelling and significant option to address the problems of traditional primary elections.

  • Understanding the Ranked-Choice Voting Debate

    Understanding the Ranked-Choice Voting Debate

    In the United States, voters typically choose single candidates on their ballots, and the candidate who receives the most votes wins. In a ranked-choice election, voters instead rank candidates in order of preference. After the election is over,  only first-choice votes are counted. The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated from consideration, and the votes for that candidate are reassigned to the candidate’s supporters’ second choices. This process is repeated until a single candidate has more than fifty percent of the vote, ensuring majority support.

    Jurisdictions in the U.S. have increasingly implemented ranked-choice voting (RCV) for various contests, including for federal elections in Alaska and Maine. Prominent local elections, including in New York and San Francisco, also use the system. The precise rules of the system vary from state to state. Alaska, for example, allows four candidates to advance to general elections and selects among them using RCV. Maine, on the other hand, uses RCV in both traditional party primaries and the November general election.

    How could RCV be a good policy?

    Ranked-choice voting is meant to ensure that winning candidates command majority support in the electorate. In plurality-based races without RCV — sometimes called “first-past-the-post” elections — three or more candidates can split the electorate, resulting in winners with well under 40 percent support. Moreover, in these traditional contests, so-called “spoiler candidates” with only small shares of support can also determine very close races even while they have little chance of winning themselves. In RCV elections, such candidates would be eliminated and their votes reassigned if no candidate receives a majority of votes, guarding against the influence of spoilers in narrow contests. A 2023 study showed that by a variety of measures, RCV elections are less affected by spoiler candidates than plurality ones. At the same time, RCV can encourage more candidates to run in the race, precisely because concerns about acting as spoilers are minimal. More people might choose to run for office when prospective candidates no longer worry about unintentional adverse results of their participation, potentially increasing the number of options for voters.

    Proponents of RCV argue that the system has positive impacts beyond its simple mechanics. When candidates are campaigning for second- and even third-choice votes, they might have stronger incentives to appeal to broader sectors of the electorate, thereby promoting moderation and depolarization. FairVote, an RCV advocacy group, cites the 2022 elections in Alaska as an example of this effect: Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola, two moderates who endorsed each other, won on the same ranked-choice ballot; FairVote writes that the result reflected Alaska’s “ideological diversity.”

    There is also evidence that RCV can encourage candidates to conduct more civil campaigns. When candidates rely on secondary support, there is a higher cost to alienating opponents’ voters, so attacks against competing candidates lose appeal. A 2021 analysis of campaign communications in local elections across the U.S. found that examples from races using RCV used more positive language than those from plurality races, supporting the civility theory.

    What are the downsides of using RCV?

    RCV is not always simple to implement. Results in RCV elections generally face delays compared to those for plurality ones, which can be tabulated more quickly; for example, Alaska’s Division of Elections did not release any ranked-choice returns for 15 days after its 2022 elections. Some argue there is a higher risk of error in more complex RCV tabulation. In a high-profile example, the New York City Board of Elections accidentally included 135,000 “test ballots” in results for the 2021 mayoral race before catching its mistake, causing widespread confusion. Moreover, introducing RCV could burden local bodies already straining to conduct elections.

    Voting in RCV elections is also more complicated for voters than in single-choice ones, which some argue can increase the risk of mistakes on ballots that disqualify votes. Less informed voters who do not take advantage of the opportunity to rank multiple candidates can be disadvantaged if their ballot is eliminated (and therefore not counted), a situation known as “ballot exhaustion.” Some opponents say this results in systematic disparities, but evidence on the subject is mixed. Many advocates recommend voter education efforts to ensure voters take advantage of RCV and to minimize the risk of ballot exhaustion.

    There is also a risk that the electorate views results of RCV elections as less legitimate than those of traditional first-past-the-post ones, especially when the winner is not the candidate who receives the most first-place votes. A George Washington University study found that these “come-from-behind victories” lead to greater voter dissatisfaction. More generally, voters can perceive RCV elections as less transparent, since determining winners relies on a less intuitive process than they are used to. There are already signs of mistrust in some examples. In the 2021 New York mayoral race, some allies of the eventual winner, Eric Adams suggested that the system was perpetrating “voter suppression” of minority voters when it appeared that another candidate might overtake Adams’s early lead in later rounds of tabulation.

    Alternatives and variants

    Runoff elections between the top two vote-getters in a given election aim to solve many of the same problems as RCV, and according to the George Washington University study, are often seen as more legitimate by the public. Nevertheless, proponents argue that RCV is more efficient and reliable, especially since runoffs often have lower turnout rates than general elections. RCV is sometimes called instant-runoff voting, because it eliminates lower-performing candidates and evaluates top performers immediately rather than requiring another election to do so.
    Ranked-choice voting is not identical in every jurisdiction: Distinct forms include the four-candidate ranked-choice system in Alaska and various ranking and tabulation methods for races in which multiple candidates win. Its use is only growing. According to a Ballotpedia count, 31 states have introduced legislation concerning RCV, and the use of RCV will itself be on the ballot in three states in 2024. Advocates say the system is a democratic reform that will improve consensus, while others view it as inefficient and unfair. Either way, ranked-choice voting is increasingly a part of the political conversation in the U.S.