SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " partisanship " 82 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Spencer Cox Talks Polarization, Outrage Politics, and the Future of Bipartisanship at IOP
Governor Spencer Cox (R-Utah.) spoke to Institute of Politics (IOP) Founding Director David Axelrod about his efforts to promote collaboration and debate across party lines at International House on Monday. This past year, Cox published Off Ramp: How To Be A Peacemaker In An Age Of Contempt, a book outlining his blueprint for depolarization in...
‘And I beat them:’ Former U.S. Rep. Bob Livingston on ‘a politically motivated prosecution’
The former top leader in the U.S. House talks about his new book, Trump, and partisanship in Congress.
‘And I beat them:’ Former U.S. Rep. Bob Livingston on ‘a politically motivated prosecution’
The former top leader in the U.S. House talks about his new book, Trump, and partisanship in Congress.
‘And I beat them:’ Former U.S. Rep. Bob Livingston on ‘a politically motivated prosecution’
The former top leader in the U.S. House talks about his new book, Trump, and partisanship in Congress.
Why Americans Identify as Republicans and Democrats
Many don’t consider themselves Republicans or Democrats. Instead, they're independents or something else – though they often “lean” toward a major party.
White nationalism’s appeal runs deeper than partisan politics
Nearly 1 in 7 white men under 30 in the US support white nationalism, and partisanship alone doesn’t explain who’s drawn to it.
White nationalism’s appeal runs deeper than partisan politics
Nearly 1 in 7 white men under 30 in the US support white nationalism, and partisanship alone doesn’t explain who’s drawn to it.
White nationalism’s appeal runs deeper than partisan politics
Nearly 1 in 7 white men under 30 in the US support white nationalism, and partisanship alone doesn’t explain who’s drawn to it.
White nationalism’s appeal runs deeper than partisan politics
Nearly 1 in 7 white men under 30 in the US support white nationalism, and partisanship alone doesn’t explain who’s drawn to it.
White nationalism’s appeal runs deeper than partisan politics
Nearly 1 in 7 white men under 30 in the US support white nationalism, and partisanship alone doesn’t explain who’s drawn to it.
New report shines a light on bipartisanship in Minnesota politics
A new report is shining a light on the bipartisan work that's continuing to be done in the Minnesota legislature.
Why Hispanic Americans are losing faith in the American Dream
A public opinion researcher explains why this group’s declining faith goes beyond partisanship and reflects a fundamental question about its sense of belonging.
What actually killed the ClarityAct? Politics, says Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong
Scott Melker sits down with Coinbase (COIN) CEO Brian Armstrong, who explains how politics, not legislation, killed the Clarity Act. According to Armstrong, the bill had 95% of what both sides wanted, but bipartisanship was lacking; now the ball is in the FFC and CFTC court. "The Daily Wolf with Scott Melker" airs every day at 12:00 p.m. Tune in for your daily dose of all things crypto.
Iowa’s Republican Senate candidate not attending JD Vance event
A spokesperson for Rep. Ashley Hinson, who is campaigning on bipartisanship, cited previously scheduled events but declined to say what they are.
WATCH: Steve Bannon says 'we have to rise' above partisanship to address AI 'hinge in history'
Michigan voters really 'just want results' from Washington, says U-M political expert
Beyond the polarizing partisanship and rhetoric, most voters really just want results—and maybe some relief—from Washington.
The Young State Lawmakers Who Might Fix Our Polarization Problem
Gen Z and millennial legislators are more open to bipartisanship and compromise than many might think.
‘Politics of contempt’: Republican Utah governor joins Pa. Gov. Shapiro to push back against hateful rhetoric and partisanship
The governors said political disagreement is essential to democracy, but warned that dehumanizing rhetoric is contributing to violence and eroding trust.
Poll: A polarized America unites behind deep concerns about AI
Worries about AI transcend age, race, education, partisanship and other typical dividing lines, according to a new NBC News Decision Desk Poll powered by SurveyMonkey.
Local leaders reflect on life, legacy of longtime South Bend politician
Longtime South Bend politician John Voorde died Sept. 2. Local leaders said he'll be remembered for his dedicated public service and bipartisanship.
Ted Cruz names ‘most powerful Democrat’ as he warns socialist rise has paralyzed bipartisanship
Sen. Ted Cruz claims Chuck Schumer is "truly terrified" of the extreme left, warning that progressive momentum is paralyzing bipartisan work.
Nancy Landon Kassebaum Baker dies at 94
Known for her bipartisanship, the three-term U.S. senator supported the Equal Rights Amendment, abortion rights and a ban on assault weapons.
Nancy Kassebaum swung open the door for Kansas women in politics
Kassebaum’s legacy is one of moderation, bipartisanship and paving the way for Kansas women to ascend to high office in Kansas. Kassebaum died Aug. 21, 2026, at the age of 94.
Kansas political trailblazer Nancy Landon Kassebaum Baker dies at 94
Kassebaum was known as a moderate with an appreciation for bipartisanship on domesic and international affairs during 18 years in Washington, D.C.
Kansas political trailblazer Nancy Landon Kassebaum Baker dies at 94
A champion of bipartisanship and common sense, former U.S. Sen. Nancy Landon Kassebaum Baker, dies.
Governors Promote 'Dignity in Politics'
The new director of the National Governors Association is emphasizing bipartisanship and civility at a time of growing division.
Kelly Purvis: A path to nonpartisan politics
A paid political endorsement letter from Dawn Richards In sharp contrast to Coronado’s longstanding tradition of nonpartisanship, our city government has recently experienced an increase in partisan politics. This shift […]
We proved bipartisan health care reform works in North Carolina. Let’s bring it nationwide
“North Carolina proved that pragmatism can beat partisanship,” write Mandy Cohen and Kody Kinsley.
Govs. Kevin Stitt and Wes Moore say civility can win general elections but primaries promote partisanship
Stitt and Moore both said social media contributes to negativity and polarization in politics and urged more in-person connections.
You think U.S. politics have never been worse? It has, says this Utah professor and podcaster.
Rabic partisanship and fake news are not new ideas in America, a Utah Valley University professor argues. He explains why in his new book.
Arkansas’ smoking ban just turned 20. Can the state find common ground on public health again?
COMMENTARY: Last week marked the 20th anniversary of Arkansas' indoor smoking ban taking effect. The law is a testament to bipartisanship and the work of Arkansas public health leaders. It’s also a model for how Arkansas policymakers can address the state’s public health concerns today.
When facing allegations of bad behavior, are there red lines for politicians?
In the post-#MeToo era accusations of sexual misconduct have increased. But while some politicians have ended their campaigns or resigned, others have survived such allegations, raising questions about how voters evaluate charges and the impact of partisanship.
The Quintessential Trump-era Politician
In 2020, I wrote an article about collaboration and collaborators. The title was History Will Judge the Complicit, and it started with the story of two famous East Germans, Markus Wolf and Wolfgang Leonhard, who both landed in East Berlin just after the end of the war. Although they came from very similar backgrounds, the former stuck with the regime, eventually becoming its spy boss; the latter, horrified by the brutal reality of Soviet-style communism, escaped. By way of juxtaposition, I also wrote about Lyndsey Graham and Mitt Romney. These two men also made very different decisions when confronted by Donald Trump’s assault on the ideals that they had both grown up believing: A glance at their biographies would not have led many to predict what happened next. On paper, Graham would have seemed, in 2016, like the man with deeper ties to the military, to the rule of law, and to an old-fashioned idea of American patriotism and American responsibility in the world. Romney, by contrast, with his shifts between the center and the right, with his multiple careers in business and politics, would have seemed less deeply attached to those same old-fashioned patriotic ideals. Most of us register soldiers as loyal patriots, and management consultants as self-interested. We assume people from small towns in South Carolina are more likely to resist political pressure than people who have lived in many places. Intuitively, we think that loyalty to a particular place implies loyalty to a set of values. But in this case the clichés were wrong. It was Graham who made excuses for Trump’s abuse of power. It was Graham—a JAG Corps lawyer—who downplayed the evidence that the president had attempted to manipulate foreign courts and blackmail a foreign leader into launching a phony investigation into a political rival. It was Graham who abandoned his own stated support for bipartisanship and instead pushed for a hyperpartisan Senate Judiciary Committee investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden’s son. It was Graham who played golf with Trump, who made excuses for him on television, who supported the president even as he slowly destroyed the American alliances—with Europeans, with the Kurds—that Graham had defended all his life. By contrast, it was Romney who, in February, became the only Republican senator to break ranks with his colleagues, voting to impeach the president. “Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office,” he said, is “perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.” In the wake of Graham’s unexpected death on Saturday, I wrote about him again. He was, in many ways, the quintessential politician of Trump’s Washington, a man who shifted 180 degrees. Graham had been a fervent American patriot, proud reserve officer and military lawyer; he became one of the most important defenders of a president who believes soldiers are “suckers and losers” and shows no respect for law of any kind. As his politics changed, his language grew coarser and his behavior grew worse: He urged Israel to “level the place” in Gaza, and insulted the Danish prime minister in Munich, prompting a colleague, Senator Elissa Slotkin, to issue an apology. Here’s an excerpt from the article, which you can read in The Atlantic (gift link here) Like his close friend John McCain, Graham believed that America should stand at the center of a broad democratic alliance. The few times I met him were in that context, at the Munich Security Conference or at other European-American gatherings, which he once attended with great regularity. He also took seriously the practice of American democracy at home. In a 2014 conversation with The Atlantic, he described himself as a pragmatic politician who eschewed populist slogans. “I know Washington is broken, but what’s broken about it is everybody yelling and nobody trying to fix it,” he said. “I’m trying.” When Donald Trump first appeared in U.S. politics, Graham recognized him immediately for what he was: the spokesman for an alien ideology, one radically different from the idealistic patriotism that Graham had practiced and preached since childhood. Trump privately mocked the military that Graham loved as nothing but “suckers and losers.” He put falsehoods, cynicism, and personal greed at the center of his politics, while expressing disdain for transparency, accountability, and democracy itself. In 2015, Graham described Trump as a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot” who should “go to hell.” Also as a “nutjob.” When Trump won, Graham understood, as did so many others, that he would have to make some important choices. For a while, he went silent. In the spring of 2016, I saw him at one of those conferences in Europe. He seemed too depressed to speak. But then, like many other Republicans—and, more important, like many other people who have lived under political occupation or experienced radical regime change—he made the decision to abandon his previous ideals, to bury the patriotism that was once so important to him, and to become, instead, a loud, opportunistic collaborator. As I wrote in 2020, it’s very hard to look in to anyone’s heart and to understand their motivations from the outside. But it does seem that Graham had a deep need to be relevant, to be in the game, to be a player, at any cost. And that, rather than any particular achievement, is what he will be remembered for. Continuing to monitor conflicts of interest, ostentatious emoluments, outright corruption and policy changes that will facilitate outright corruption. (Read my original article, Kleptocracy Inc and check out the SNF Agora Institute chart) June 27 Trump diverted funds from more than 900 projects nationwide—including safety upgrades at national parks—to finance beautification projects around Washington, including $700,000 used to fix a White House walkway. June 28 After a years-long Department of Justice investigation into Abbott Laboratories over its management of a baby formula facility where potentially deadly bacteria turned up enough evidence to criminally charge the firm, top department officials instead opted for a financial penalty—illustrating the department’s move away from strict corporate enforcement under the Trump administration. June 29 Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stacked the Defense Policy Board—which is charged with providing independent national security recommendations to the Office of the Secretary of Defense—with Trump allies, including tech billionaire Marc Andreessen, who has invested in defense contractors like OpenAI and SpaceX, after purging the panel last year. Trump purchased between $1 million and $5 million worth of stock in Axon—which makes about 90% of US tasers—two weeks before ICE solicited bids for a $220 million taser contract. The White House unveiled limited-edition US passports for America’s 250th birthday, featuring a portrait of Trump overlaid on the Declaration of Independence. June 30 Trump made around $1.2 billion from his various crypto companies last year, including more than $500 million from World Liberty Financial and $600 million from sales of his meme coin. Trump is considering issuing 250 pardons to commemorate America’s 250th birthday. These are expected to be largely doled out through the Office of the Pardon Attorney’s informal network of intermediaries. White-collar defense attorneys say they can typically win pardons for clients for $2 million. Last year, Trump administration officials awarded a no-bid contract worth up to $500 million to Clark Construction for the White House ballroom—negotiations in which the president was directly involved. July 1 The Amazon MGM Studios documentary about Melania Trump earned the First Lady more than $10 million. Trump made hundreds of individual stock purchases worth as much as $12.8 million the day before his announcement pausing “Liberation Day” tariffs for 90 days sent the S&P 500 soaring nearly 10%—one of the largest single-day gains ever. Mar-a-Lago and Trump National Doral saw record surges in revenue during Trump’s first year in office, earning $77.5 million and $121.9 million respectively, compared to average annual revenues of $25 million and $75 million during Trump’s first term. Entities across the Persian Gulf paid more than $300 million to Trump’s businesses last year, including $263 million from the sale of half his stake in World Liberty Financial to a firm backed by Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a top UAE royal and brother of the country’s president. Kash Patel failed to properly disclose his stock purchase of a Department of Justice contractor, MicroStrategy, worth up to $250,000 last year, despite laws requiring disclosure within 45 days of the trade. July 2 Trump has been directing administration officials to steer more government contracts—so far worth more than $2.4 billion—to Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin aerospace firm, after Amazon gave $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund, donated to the White House ballroom project, and reached a $40 million deal to license a Melania Trump documentary. Alongside the billions he made from cryptocurrency last year, Trump earned millions of dollars from real estate licensing fees, including $21 million from organizations in the UAE and $9.2 million in Saudi Arabia, along with smaller sums from merchandise sales, including $4.7 million from Trump Watches and $35,920 from 45 Guitar, a guitar brand endorsed by the president. House Democrats accused consultants tied to the Trump administration of financial fraud, alleging they gave prospective donors to America250—the bipartisan committee created by Congress to celebrate the nation’s semiquincentennial—the banking and routing numbers for Freedom 250, the White House’s fund for events like the UFC cage fight. Democrats also allege that Freedom 250’s CEO traveled to the World Economic Forum in Davos to solicit donations from foreign government officials and business leaders. The Trump administration’s proposed rollback of gun regulations would lift the prohibition on mailing handguns to individuals, a significant win for GrabAGun—the direct-to-consumer firearm retailer on whose board Donald Trump Jr. sits and in which he holds a 1.1% ownership stake. GrabAGun currently must rely on a middleman to transfer firearms to customers. Trump’s financial disclosure revealed that he made more than 21,000 securities trades during his first year back in office, growing his investment account to at least $858 million across stakes in around 1,600 companies, compared to the 13 total trades Joe Biden made during his entire presidency. July 4 Nearly 1 million people who bought the president’s meme coin—Trump Coin—collectively lost $3.8 billion on the token, while he walked away with $636 million. July 6 Shares of Dell closed up 4.4% after Trump recommended people buy the firm’s computers during a speech announcing the launch of Trump investment accounts for children, boosting the more than $1 million worth of shares the president owns in the company. July 9 Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh named crypto investor and Trump ally Marc Andreessen to a task force aimed at modernizing the Federal Reserve, including rethinking its approach to inflation—a key factor keeping interest rates elevated. Palm Beach International Airport has officially changed its name to Trump International Airport—a move that will require Florida to pay royalties to the president’s family for licensing his name. I was there a few months ago, during a trip to Barcelona. The sculptures were a revelation, I’d never seen so many together before. Each one has its own personality. Enjoy the good weather, if you are lucky enough to have it. History Will Judge the Complicit The Quintessential Politician Autocracy Inc Open Letters, from Anne Applebaum is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
America 250 celebrations expose a significant Republican gender gap
Partisanship isn’t the only force dividing the country over how we should be celebrating America’s 250th.
As Trump commands 250th stage, Democrats offer their vision of patriotism
Partisanship around the country’s big anniversary has put Democrats in a bind: They want to criticize the president without appearing unpatriotic.
Trump’s Great American State Fair attendees say they haven’t noticed politics overshadowing the celebration
President Donald Trump kicked off the event with a headlining speech Wednesday after musical acts dropped out of the lineup citing concerns over partisanship.
Politics: Sand speaks with TH on launch of “Rob-publicans” campaign
Ahead of the unveiling of his “Rob-publicans” campaign, Democratic Iowa gubernatorial candidate Rob Sand sat down with the Telegraph Herald to discuss his stance on excess partisanship and what it
America’s data center backlash is bipartisan — can it stay that way?
As opposition mounts, some experts wonder how long AI infrastructure can steer clear of the partisanship that defines U.S. politics.
Can we discuss politics through the lens of faith ?
Father James Martin, a prominent Catholic voice, explains how the gospel cuts through partisanship and heals
History Maker John McIntyre champions bipartisanship, in more than just politics
You might know him as Coach Mac, Principal McIntyre or Mr. Board Chair. Regardless of what his title was, John McIntyre said he was drawn his entire life to serving Bloomington-Normal.
Why a nice moment of bipartisanship from Tom Emmer to Angie Craig may not be what it seems
Democrats’ midterm ‘blue wave’ dreams face an icy challenge
Negative partisanship rules as voters mildly like their own party but detest the opposition.
The top-two primary was supposed to change California politics. Did it flop?
California's top-two primary was designed to create moderate candidates and reduce partisanship. Instead, November races are as partisan as ever.
Stand against the politicization of science
You can take meaningful action to counter a new proposed rule that would subject federal grant-making to political partisanship. Submit your comment to the Federal Register or call your congresspeople before July 13.
Column: I’m Disengaging a Bit from Politics This Summer. Join Me
Columnist Tim White shares his aversion to political partisanship and recommends taking a break from politics to enjoy the summertime.
Protect College Sports Act Hearing Testifies to Misplaced Priorities
Authors of the latest college sports bill highlighted its unique bipartisanship at a time of historic Congressional dysfunction and unpopularity.
Flashback: How the Obama Era Revealed Deep Political Divisions in America
Now available on YouTube, part one of FRONTLINE’s archival series ‘Divided States of America’ traces the rise of the partisanship and gridlock that continue to define U.S. politics today.
America 250 has become a political rally for ‘MAGA advocates’
An ‘All-Star panel’ debates partisanship in America’s 250th anniversary celebration.
Hicks: Surprise — nasty politics creep into a Charleston School Board election
An endorsement in a Charleston County School Board special election has sparked ugly intraparty partisanship in the nonpartisan race.
Congress revives stalled housing legislation, though snags remain
A rare show of bipartisanship before midterm elections while the country is short millions of units for people to live
Louisiana Senate passes new congressional map amid controversial redistricting push
The map, which has provoked intense debates over race and partisanship, now heads to the House.
Gorsuch says ideological divides on Supreme Court come down to ‘how you read law,’ not politics
Justice Gorsuch, who calls himself a “proud textualist," stressed that competing legal philosophies, not partisanship, shape rulings and relationships on the high court.
Shaky political science: using "simulated" elections over real-world elections
[Dear DSOS readers – this article is the latest in our “Shaky Political Science” series. In our 38 page report, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting,” released in early December, we examined over 40 studies focused on ranked choice voting. We found that many of these studies suffered from puzzling research methodologies, poorly constructed surveys, unrealistic simulated elections, cherry picked data, and faulty analyses that often were contradicted by results from real-world elections (a link to our full paper is here). Here are links to the first three articles in our series: the first one summarizing the overall results of our report, the second one analyzing a study co-authored by University of Minnesota academic Larry Jacobs, which was one of the most error-prone of all the research we reviewed in our report, and a third article showing an admirable example of two political scientists holding two other political scientists accountable for their flawed, sloppy research]. In this fourth article in our “Shaky Political Science” series, we shine a spotlight on seven studies that were web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group (the ERRG is an ad hoc committee headed by New America’s Political Reform Program and joined by the American Enterprise Institute, the Unite America Institute and Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law). This research consortium has been led by Lee Drutman, senior fellow with New America’s Political Reform Program. These seven studies are simply not credible from any objective standard about how political “science” is supposed to illuminate our understanding of either ranked choice voting or politics in general. The feature that six of these seven studies have in common is that they all used surveys – artificial, simulated elections -- to attempt to say something cogent or interesting about ranked choice voting (RCV) elections. None of them used real world data from actual RCV elections – either the 1000+ elections in the US or the many thousands of elections from places like Australia, Ireland and elsewhere where RCV has been used for 100 years. While a few of these studies conclude with some mixed positives about RCV, our analysis here is content neutral. The idea that, with a political reform like RCV, you can ask respondents in a mock, artificial election to vote with that method, with only the barest of explanation about how RCV works or its likely impacts (i.e. no spoiler candidates, majority winners, voters liberated to pick their favorite candidates, coalition-building), and then ask them their thoughts/reactions about voting in that system, with fake candidates and no real campaigning, no real exposure to an actual election or actual candidates, rests on some very puzzling assumptions. The findings of these seven studies actually are contradicted by the findings from many other studies based on real-world RCV elections. These New America studies also failed to list the real-world RCV studies in their own citations, instead including those studies that reinforced their conclusions. The seven studies featured in this article were chosen because they form a cohesive cohort which precisely illustrates one of the main points of our research paper, namely that using surveys, i.e. artificial elections, or mathematical/theoretical models, instead of real-world data, is in fact “shaky political science.” Below are summaries of our analysis of five of the seven New America studies. You can read our complete analysis of all seven studies at our paper, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting.” Choosing to “Vote As Usual” by Andre Blais, Carolina Plescia, and Semra Sevi. New America. (Blais et al., 2021). This study, web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group, used two surveys in which respondents completed ballots for simulated elections using plurality, approval, RCV and point (Score) voting. In both cases the authors provided the respondents with only minimal explanation of each method. For example, the entire explanation for RCV was “For this vote, rank the candidates from your first to your last choice (you do not need to rank them all). This is called the ranked vote.” That’s it. The study did not provide any context or explanation to survey respondents about why she/he might want to rank multiple candidates. Participants were not even told that ballots would be tabulated using an “instant” runoff, not to mention any description of RCVs ability to eliminate the spoiler effect or liberate voters to rank their favorite candidates without fear of helping the “greater evil” candidate to win. That’s like taking an iPhone back in time to 1970 and asking someone if they like it better than their rotary phone without explaining how it works. Their first survey targeted states that held 2020 Super Tuesday Democratic primaries and used the real candidates’ names in the survey; the second survey used fictitious candidates. In other words, they surveyed respondents who had only ever participated in plurality elections, had no history or background with using RCV or any of the other methods, had no clue about its likely impacts, and did not communicate how the alternative methods would be counted, and then asked them: “How satisfied are you with using each system?” Predictably, the winner was plurality elections, the system used for president, Congress, gubernatorial and state legislative elections – in other words, the method they have been using, year after year, all their voting lives. With so little explanation of RCV and its impacts, this study is simply not credible in discovering anything useful about real-world RCV elections. It merely shows that a basic voter education campaign is needed when adopting a new election system. Additionally, the result contradicts many other post-election surveys following real RCV elections, asking opinions from voters who had just participated in a RCV election, that showed a great deal of satisfaction with RCV (see details on that in Studies 22-25 in our paper, as well as the four studies cited in the review for Study 28). Share Other studies on “satisfaction” and “understanding” make similar mistakes, in terms of basing their surveys on inadequate explanation to respondents and lack of education about context. How could any survey ever hope to measure accurately, in essence simulate a real-world election, without actual campaigning candidates, the media writing about those candidates, organizations endorsing candidates and voters being inundated with crucial information? More than anything, what these “studies” based on surveys show is that if you ask voters about something they don’t know very much about, and fail to adequately educate them, their responses will unsurprisingly reflect their confusion. Equally puzzling is that New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group, headed by political scientist Lee Drutman, found this to be a credible enough study that they not only published it but highlighted it in Drutman’s own discussion of research related to ranked choice voting. This pattern was repeated in study after study featured by New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group. For example in Ranked-Choice Voting and Political Expression: Voter Guides Narrow the Gap between Informed and Uninformed Citizens by Cheryl Boudreau, Jonathan Colner, and Scott MacKenzie, the researchers based their analysis on a survey which found that respondents who were asked to vote in a simulated RCV election, with minimal explanation of RCV or how it works, displayed less evidence of being informed about how to use RCV effectively, with the least informed voters ranking fewer candidates. As pointed out under the study above, in a real election voters are informed by a wide variety of methods, including public education by the election administration, by interested political groups, the media, and the candidates themselves who benefit from voters being aware of how to vote in the new system. In Support for Ranked-Choice Voting across Race and Partisanship by Joseph Anthony, David C. Kimball, Jack Santucci and Jamil Scott, the researchers used respondents from different parties and races voting in simulated plurality and RCV elections, who indicated their satisfaction with each voting method. Instead of using real world election results, the authors fell back on the easy, armchair and less reliable academic research methodology of making up mock elections. As with the other studies, little explanation was given of how RCV works or what its implications might be (electing majority winners or eliminating spoilers, for example). Unsurprisingly, this study found that respondents were not very satisfied with RCV. However, when the authors added an explanation that RCV has a tendency to elect more women and people of color, they found that this greater explanation increased the preference for RCV. The more voters were familiar with it, and the more they understood potential positive impacts – surprise! -- the more they were open to switching away from the status quo. Of note, the results from this study are thoroughly contradicted by a number of other studies whose data was obtained from real RCV elections with real voters. Those studies show a great deal of satisfaction with RCV. More “fake election” research An interesting wrinkle on this “research by fake elections” approach, which only served to illustrate how unreliable such “research” can become, was taken in Ranked-Choice Voting, Runoff, and Democracy: Insights from Maine and Other U.S. States by Joseph Cerrone and Cynthia McClintock_,_ also web-hosted and funded by New America’s ERRG. It gets high marks for creativity, but an eye-roll for thinking this could possibly add anything meaningful to our understanding of real world RCV elections. This study tried to determine whether RCV, plurality or two-round runoff elections provided greater voter satisfaction and acceptance of election results. To determine that, the authors conducted a survey asking if voters were satisfied with a fictional newspaper report of an election, with three different versions given to respondents – plurality, runoff and RCV, with variations of Republican/Democrat winners and variations of “come-from-behind” winners,” i.e. candidates not initially in first place but who win the “runoff.” Again, a minimal explanation of RCV or how it works was given, and the survey showed that respondents had the greatest unfamiliarity with RCV than the other methods. The unsurprising result? Respondents were much more satisfied with “come-from-behind” victories in a traditional two-round runoff election than in RCV, even though RCV is also a runoff system but with a single round of counting. Interestingly, the dissatisfaction with RCV disappeared for those who were more familiar with RCV. In fact, among those respondents who were “very familiar” with RCV, they were equally satisfied with RCV, runoff and plurality. Surprise, surprise. Again, what this study revealed, more than anything, is not only the inadequacy of the explanation for RCV given by the authors of this study, but the failure of the research format itself, thinking that such an artificial mock election could somehow simulate what actually happens in the real world in a real RCV election. Those four studies reviewed above are fitting examples of inadequate and shaky political “science.” Other studies reviewed in our paper from the New America/Electoral Reform Research Group cohort which also used mock elections included: Ranked-Choice Voting is an Acquired Taste by Joseph Anthony and David C. Kimball. New America. (Anthony et al., 2021). Ranked-Choice Voting is No Refuge for Extreme Candidates by Melissa Baker. New America. (Baker, 2021). Also included in this New America cohort is Does Ranked-Choice Voting Reduce Racial Polarization? by Yuki Atsusaka and Theodore Landsman, which actually did use real-world election results data but applied an odd and unconventional methodology to the data which relied on shaky assumptions and non-real-world scenarios that were too divorced from reality. To determine levels of “racially polarized voting,” the researchers imagined “ethnic parties,” by which they mean political parties for each ethnic group, which was especially odd since the election data they were using came from nonpartisan RCV races. But then they made an even odder assumption, namely that since race and ethnic characteristics of studied voters were not available, the authors tried to infer that information based on who voters selected and the racial make-up of voters in each district. This amounted to little more than vague and ambiguous guesswork dressed up with a bunch of mathematical equations used to give it a veneer of scientific appearance. Indeed, it seemed to assume racial polarization in order to prove racial polarization. Based on this questionable methodology, the authors concluded that RCV doesn’t reduce racial polarization. But the premise of this study missed an obvious reality: since RCV incentivizes more candidates to run and can result in more diverse fields of candidates, one would expect more racially-polarized voting in voters’ top rankings, not less, because more voters would have someone on that ballot who represents their racial or ethnic identity and more freedom to vote for their real first choice. By encouraging more diverse candidates and eliminating the spoiler effect, RCV facilitates voting for a favorite candidate of your own race and then selecting a second choice with the best likelihood of winning. The real measure is what voters do with their additional rankings – do they consider other candidates and vote “for the best of the rest”? This study didn’t tell us anything useful about that. But readily available data shows this is common in real RCV elections, and candidates act on this knowledge by engaging with voters outside their racial group. So the authors of this study failed to consider or account for what actually happens in real-world elections, and their conclusions are tainted by this failure. New America has contributed a great deal over the past 2.5 decades to our understanding of many policy areas, including politics and political reform (full disclosure: Steven Hill, one of the authors of this article and of the “Shaky Political Science” research paper and series, is a former senior fellow and former director of New America’s political reform program, 2005-2010). So it was especially disappointing that New America funded and published such a large batch of dubious studies about ranked choice voting. The stated praiseworthy goal of its Electoral Reform Research Group was to inspire new academic research about ranked choice voting that would shed light and help the public better understand the impacts of RCV. Instead, the ERRG research did just the opposite. It produced dubious research that created more confusion and misinformation. In so doing, New America’s political reform program contributed to “shaky political science.” Steven Hill and Paul Haughey Share Upgrade to $5 subscription Thanks for reading DemocracySOS, a reader-supported digital portal for the pro-democracy movement. Subscribe for only $5 per month to receive full benefits and to support our work. Subscribe
Sen. Schumer lays out priorities for health care reform
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Congress must set aside partisanship to address urgent health care issues, including affordability and access to care.
In praise of popular science
As a kid, I was enthusiastically and unreservedly in favor of a manned space program. Our destiny lay in the stars, I figured. Get people out there. We need Star Trek here and now. As I got older, I became rather disenchanted with the idea. Humans are expensive, fragile, and inefficient as space cargo. We could flood the solar system with 100 robotic probes for the price of any single manned mission and get back just as useful data. Besides, it turns out space travel is dangerous. Tusk is a reader-supported publication. To support this work, please become a paid subscriber. Subscribe When it came to the recent Artemis II mission, my cynical side didn’t really see the point. Flying around the Moon and back is literally something we did before I was born, and I once owned a Members Only jacket. Apollo 8 circled the Moon ten times and returned to Earth safely the same month that “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” was released. What was the point of repeating a feat that far braver people once did with tin foil and slide rules? Yet I’ve surprised myself with how moving I’ve found the Artemis II mission to be. The photos have been stunning. The crew has been professional and engaging. There have been modest but important milestones — the farthest humans have travelled from Earth; the first woman, person of color, and non-American to leave low-Earth orbit; innovations in communication, and more. One thing that really stood out is that this is really NASA at its finest. Not that this is the most important mission they ever pulled off, but they did this in a competent way that celebrated the achievements and kept the crew and the science at the forefront of the project. This wasn’t some billionaire throwing celebrities or cars into orbit as a vanity project — this was a collective effort to send experts in to do a job and come home safely. We don’t see that sort of thing much these days. I’m guessing few people would describe many government agencies as inspiring, but this one counts for me. We’re living through a profoundly anti-science era, in which pathbreaking, lifesaving discoveries like mRNA vaccines are routinely downplayed or even vilified. As I’ve noted previously, this era is something like that of the Red Scare in the 1940s and 50s, in which “egghead” professors were portrayed as out of touch or even hostile to regular Americans. One of the things that helped break that spell was Sputnik — the Soviet communications satellite that demonstrated that the United States was falling behind in crucial scientific research and applications. Its launch triggered a new appreciation for American science and goaded the federal government into supporting research universities and labs. I’m not saying that Artemis is the equivalent of Sputnik, but it potentially reminds people that there’s some value to scientific endeavors and the human faces attached to them. Despite my love for the show “For All Mankind,” I’m far from convinced that there’s any real value to putting colonies on the Moon or Mars that would justify the capital investment and the massive health risks to the astronauts. But sending scientific good will ambassadors on a trip into space once in a while? Bring it. Share
Was Waukesha mayor's race partisan? Yes, its participants say
Alicia Halvensleben, backed by Democrats, is Waukesha's new mayor. Republican State Rep. Scott Allen says he tried to keep partisanship out of it.
Guest column: Get partisanship out to Deschutes County politics
It is time to wrench two-party partisanship out of Deschutes County politics. As a registered Independent, I joined an overwhelming majority of voters in the recent elections to make the […]
Effectiveness of politicians’ public denials amid corruption accusations examined in new study
A new article investigates how public denials by politicians accused of corruption influence electoral accountability and why positive and negative partisanship shapes voter reactions.
A Massive Midterm Wave Isn’t Forming Yet. Here’s Why.
This is an era not just of hyperpartisanship, but of negative partisanship, in which partisans often hate the other side even more than they love their own. Many voters thus tend to see everything on a binary basis. Any given election outcome is seen as either a landslide victory or an unmitigated disaster. There is little appreciation, or even tolerance, for gradations between those outcomes.
Partisanship and science
I recently participated in a symposium of the Denver-based Institute for Science & Policy, during which I had a “fireside chat” with Tony Mills of the American Enterprise Institute. Mills has written extensively on the politicization of science, and the two of us had a very enjoyable hour-long conversation on the topic. You can watch it below. The main questions we dealt with are why there is such a vast partisan gap in trust of science, and to what extent this is a unique moment. Mills helpfully brings a good deal of data to the discussion, as he did in this useful piece at Issues in Science & Technology. Tusk depends on reader support. To support this work, please become a paid subscriber. Subscribe Note this graph, drawing on a range of survey data to demonstrate partisan attitudes toward science since 1970s. As it demonstrates, there’s been a very sharp partisan divergence in confidence in science during the Trump Era, starting prior to the Covid pandemic. At least in part, we can attribute this to a rise in populist anti-science rhetoric embraced by Trump, his appointees, and those in his media orbit. But as the graph also shows, the partisan divide has existed in the past, and it’s not always in the same direction. The largest divergence in party views toward science prior to 2016 was in the 1970s, when liberals equated scientific achievement with the military-industrial complex and thus trusted it less. That era of scientific mistrust is often overlooked. Indeed, as Mills notes, the Moon landings (1969-72), which today are considered one of the last great moments of national unity, were experienced nothing like that at the time. There was sharp debate back then over whether the Apollo missions were worth the vast expenditures when the country had so much else to deal with. It’s outside the dataset, and we don’t have the partisanship lens for it, but the 1950s was another deeply anti-science decade, with critics of intellectuals and college professors alleging their ties to communism and their lack of commitment to basic American moral beliefs. This was the subject of Richard Hofstadter’s 1962 book Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, in which he quotes religious leaders like Franklin Graham: [In place of the Bible] we substituted reason, rationalism, mind culture, science worship, the working power of government, Freudianism, naturalism, humanism, behaviorism, positivism, materialism, and idealism. [This is the work of] so-called intellectuals. Thousands of these “intellectuals” have publicly stated that morality is relative—that there is no norm or absolute standard.… This fervor was heavily whipped up by Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-Wisconsin), although it’s clear that not all his fellow Republicans were on board with his red-baiting. What ended that era? The simple answer is the 1957 launch of Sputnik. Americans became afraid that they were losing to Soviet scientists, and suddenly university researchers and government projects were awash with funding. In our conversation, I asked Mills about the possibility of us having a Sputnik moment again that would rally the American public in favor of science today. Mills argued that the COVID-19 pandemic was essentially a Sputnik moment — a terrifying threat to all Americans that required scientific advances to address. But thanks in part to political polarization and the populist and conspiratorial leanings of Donald Trump, we got the opposite of a unifying moment. Many Americans turned against science, despite science actually stepping up in that moment. As we discussed in the chat, it’s not clear what scientists could or should be doing in this moment to increase faith in their work. As Mills notes, one of the chief complaints against scientists and professors is that they’ve become too political; scholars becoming even more political might not help them achieve their goals. This (mainly Republican-driven) anti-science era will end, of course, but it’s not clear what event will bring that about. Share
SCHOOL POLITICS? SOS Morales touts Club America voter registration effort, but critics are wary
By Marilyn Odendahl The Indiana Citizen March 11, 2026 Indiana Secretary of State Diego Morales announced on Tuesday a partnership with Club America, an arm of the conservative organization Turning Point USA, to register Hoosier high school students to vote, but a voter-advocacy group said the collaboration could inject partisanship into what should be a
After 69 Louisiana legislative sessions, Louis Reine talks partisanship, term limits
Reine has parting thoughts on partisanship, term limits.
Why bipartisanship is disappearing from Congress
The nationwide push to redraw congressional districts mid-decade has not led to a big advantage for either political party, but it has created less competitive districts. We discuss how that reduces bipartisanship on Capitol Hill, and we discuss one lawmaker who seems to buck that trend.This episode: voting correspondent Miles Parks, congressional reporter Sam Gringlas, and political correspondent Ashley Lopez.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell and Bria Suggs, and edited by Rachel Baye.Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.
Gov. Whitmer bet on bipartisanship in contrast to President Trump
A night after Trump called his opponents \
Is politics ruining sports? Partisanship simmers over post-Olympic gold in men’s hockey
Outrage thrashed online with Kash Patel chugging beer in locker room, President Trump joking about women’s team.
Is politics ruining sports? Partisanship simmers over post-Olympic gold in men’s hockey
Outrage thrashed online with Kash Patel chugging beer in locker room, President Trump joking about women’s team.
One small step for dialing back the partisanship
Much ink, including a good deal of my own, has been spilled on the excesses of super-charged, toxic partisanship in this current era. Except for true believers along with those who profit from this all-consuming poison, there is broad agreement that it needs to be toned way down and dialed far back. The nearly 51% […]
Governors arrive in Washington eager to push past Trump's partisan grip
Governors are arriving in Washington for an annual gathering that has traditionally been a show of bipartisanship
A shakeup at HHS, a toast to bipartisanship, and a cheese poof war
You're reading the web edition of D.C. Diagnosis, STAT's guide to the ins and outs and oddities of health politics and policy
Readers respond: Bipartisanship not holding Legislature back on health care
Letters to the Editor can be submitted to letters@oregonian.com with full name and place of residence.
On Politics: The unwritten rule of politics Mamdani faces with 11 inches of snow
There’s little that bedevils a New York City mayor quite like a snowstorm.John Lindsay, running for re-election in 1969, could not get Queens properly plowed, and 42 people across the city would end up dead. Neither Michael Bloomberg nor Bill de Blasio encountered such carnage, but each of them faced down snow-related controversies: the billionaire Bloomberg for apparently being at his Bermuda retreat when snow struck the city in late 2010, and Bill de Blasio, in early 2014, for not allegedly sufficiently plowing the Upper East Side.Now it’s Zohran Mamdani’s turn to confront the snow. The 34-year-old newly-elected mayor, wildly popular with young leftists, must prove he can manage the city through a monster snowstorm. Partisanship is out the window. More than 11 inches fell on Central Park by the end of Sunday — a Jan. 25 record — and extreme cold is expected to remain in the city for the rest of the week.New Yorkers will, to a degree, be in danger. And it’ll be up to Mamdani to prove he can lead.
Opinion: Oregon is ambling toward a health care implosion
The infrastructure of our health care system is beginning to crumble and we haven’t fully grasped the gravity of the situation, former Gov. John Kitzhaber writes. If we are to avoid system collapse, we must get past partisanship and work on a long-term solution.
Top U.S. Catholic cardinals urge Trump administration to use moral compass in foreign policy
In a joint statement, Cardinals Blase Cupich of Chicago, Robert McElroy of Washington and Joseph Tobin of Newark, N.J., warned that without a moral vision, the current debate over Washington's foreign policy was mired in “polarization, partisanship, and narrow economic and social interests.”
Vaccine Policy Should Be Based on Science, Not Partisanship
The slashing of the recommended childhood vaccination schedule shows a complete lack of understanding of evidence and data.
Rep. Jared Golden on hyper-partisanship, Democratic politics — and why he's not running again
This is an excerpt from a lengthy conversation with Golden, a Democrat, about what motivated his decision not to seek a fifth term representing Maine's 2nd District. The 43-year-old said he has no immediate plans to seek elected office after more than a decade in Congress and the Maine Legislature. But he also isn't ruling it out.
From AI to Venezuela: Why 2026 is a hinge year for global power
One year ago this week, Joe Biden was president. I was in Doha, Qatar, negotiating with Israel and Hamas to finalize a ceasefire and hostage release deal. The incoming Trump team worked closely with us, a rare display of nonpartisanship to free hostages and end a war. It feels like a decade ago. A lot can happen in a year, as 2025 has shown.
Party politics: Defining ‘conservative’
Re: “Partisanship: ‘Elections have consequences’ ” (Dec. 18, Northwest Voices): I question the boilerplate use of the label “conservative” as the opposite of “progressive” in articles and opinion pieces discussing party politics. “Regressive” would be a more accurate label in most...
Support for scientific funding doesn’t have to be partisan — but scientists must make the case, says new study
Distrust of elites, not partisanship, best predicted people's support for cutting scientific funding.
Viewpoint: Follow the science? In this era of hyper-partisanship, Republicans and Democrats follow different paths
e’re often told to “follow the science” — a comforting phrase that suggests clarity, objectivity, and consensus. But in today’s hyperpolarized world, even