Disagreements within the Republican conference in the House of Representatives over who should be the next Speaker of the House could potentially lead to a constitutional crisis, temporarily upending the formal process of inaugurating President-elect Donald Trump. Current Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) presided over a tenuous and razor-thin majority over the past year following the…
Former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president in the 2024 contest, has won a second term to the White House, defeating his Democratic opponent Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump’s win marks only the second time in U.S. history that a candidate has won two non-consecutive presidential races. Trump won the Electoral College and appears to have narrowly won the…
During two campaign fundraising events this week, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, expressed a desire to abolish the Electoral College and replace it with a popular vote model for selecting the president — a position he shares with a majority of American voters. Walz recognized in his comments, however, that such a change wouldn’t come about anytime soon.
A new poll shows that a majority of Americans are supportive of ending the Electoral College — and that Republican voters, who have long been defenders of the archaic system for selecting the president, are trending toward backing away from it. The Pew Research Center poll, which was conducted from August 26 to September 2, asked voters if they would prefer to implement a popular vote model…
Two Republican-led states are demonstrating how the Electoral College can be gamed, in more ways than most voters realize (and even in the middle of a campaign season), in order for state lawmakers to boost their preferred presidential candidate — in this case, Donald Trump. The Electoral College is set up so that it benefits states with smaller populations over larger ones…
Democratic candidate for president and current Vice President Kamala Harris is leading her Republican rival, former President Donald Trump, in most national polls as of late. But due to the Electoral College, the two are technically tied — and Trump could even be considered the frontrunner in the race, as the archaic mechanism for selecting presidents inherently favors Republicans.
As any schoolkid might tell you, U.S. elections are based on a bedrock principle: one person, one vote. Simple as that. Each vote carries the same weight. Yet for much of the country’s history, that hasn’t been the case. At various points, whole classes of people were shut out of voting: enslaved Black Americans, Native Americans and poor White people. The first time women had the right to vote was in 1919. This week’s show is about a current version of this very old problem.
For this episode, Reveal host Al Letson does a deep dive with Mother Jones correspondent Ari Berman about his new book, “Minority Rule: The Right-Wing Attack on the Will of the People – and the Fight to Resist It.”
We go back to America’s early years and examine how the political institutions created by the Founding Fathers were meant to constrain democracy. This system is still alive in the modern era, Berman says, through institutions like the Electoral College and the U.S. Senate, which were designed as checks against the power of the majority. What’s more, Berman argues that the Supreme Court is a product of these two skewed institutions. Then there are newer tactics – like voter suppression and gerrymandering – that are layered on top of this anti-democratic foundation to entrench the power of a conservative White minority.
Next, we trace the rise of conservative firebrand Pat Buchanan and how he opened the door for Donald Trump. Buchanan made White Republicans fear becoming a racial minority. And he opposed the Voting Rights Act, which struck down obstacles to voting like poll taxes and literacy tests that had been used to keep people of color from the polls. Buchanan never came close to winning the presidency, but he transformed White anxiety into an organizing principle that has become a centerpiece of much of today’s Republican Party.
The final segment follows successful efforts by citizen activists in Michigan to end political gerrymandering and reinforce the democratic principle of one person, one vote. Berman argues that this state-based organizing should be a national model for democratic reform.
Maine has become the 18th jurisdiction in the United States to pass the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which, if enacted, would end the Electoral College’s influence in the selection process for the office of president. The bill, which was passed by the Democratic-controlled state legislature, made it to Gov. Janet Mills’s (D) desk last week. Mills opted not to sign the bill but also…
New polling data shows that the race for president between Donald Trump and Joe Biden is tightening in swing states, with Biden gaining ground in all but one of them. The Bloomberg/Morning Consult poll measured voters’ attitudes in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada, between the dates of March 8-15. Biden narrowly leads Trump in just one state, Wisconsin…
An Arizona grand jury that is investigating attempts to interfere with the outcome of the 2020 presidential election has subpoenaed a number of Republican officials in the state who served as fake electors. In several states where President Joe Biden narrowly defeated former President Donald Trump, so-called “alternate electors” — often described as “fake electors” by media to denote that they had…
The high court’s decree that the power to remove a federal candidate from the ballot under the Constitution’s “insurrectionist ban” rests with Congress, not the states, underscores the fact that in a representative democracy, the citizenry—not the courts, not the corporations, and not the contrived electoral colleges—should be the ones to elect their representatives.
Unfortunately, what is being staged is not an election. It is a mockery of an election, a manufactured, contrived “pseudo-event” devoid of any intrinsic value save the value of being advertised.
For the next eight months, Americans will be dope-fed billions of dollars’ worth of political propaganda aimed at persuading them that 1) their votes count, 2) the future of this nation—nay, our very lives—depends on who we elect as president, and 3) electing the right candidate will fix everything that is wrong with this country.
Incredible, isn’t it, that in a country of more than 330 million people, we are given only two choices for president?
The system is rigged, of course.
Forcing the citizenry to choose between two candidates who are equally unfit for office does not in any way translate to having some say in how the government is run.
Indeed, no matter what names are on the presidential ballot, once you step away from the cult of personality politics, you’ll find that beneath the power suits, they’re all alike.
The candidate who wins the White House has already made a Faustian bargain to keep the police state in power.
We’ve been down this road before.
Barack Obama campaigned on a message of hope, change and transparency, and promised an end to war and surveillance. Yet under Obama, government whistleblowers were routinely prosecuted, U.S. arms sales skyrocketed, police militarization accelerated, and surveillance became widespread.
Joe Biden has been no different. If his job was to keep the Deep State in power, he’s been a resounding success.
Follow the money. It always points the way.
With each new president, we’ve been subjected to more government surveillance, more police abuse, more SWAT team raids, more roadside strip searches, more censorship, more prison time, more egregious laws, more endless wars, more invasive technology, more militarization, more injustice, more corruption, more cronyism, more graft, more lies, and more of everything that has turned the American dream into the American nightmare.
What we’re not getting more of: elected officials who actually represent us.
No matter who wins the presidential election come November, it’s a sure bet that the losers will be the American people if all we’re prepared to do is vote.
After all, there is more to citizenship than the act of casting a ballot for someone who, once elected, will march in lockstep with the dictates of the powers-that-be.
So, what is the solution to this blatant display of imperial elitism disguising itself as a populist exercise in representative government?
Stop playing the game. Stop supporting the system. Stop defending the insanity. Just stop.
Washington thrives on money, so stop giving them your money. Stop throwing your hard-earned dollars away on politicians and Super PACs who view you as nothing more than a means to an end. There are countless worthy grassroots organizations and nonprofits—groups like The Rutherford Institute—working to address real needs like injustice, poverty, homelessness, etc. Support them and you’ll see change you really can believe in in your own backyard.
Politicians depend on votes, so stop giving them your vote unless they have a proven track record of listening to their constituents, abiding by their wishes and working hard to earn and keep their trust.
It’s comforting to believe that your vote matters, but presidents are selected, not elected. Your vote doesn’t elect a president. Despite the fact that there are 218 million eligible voters in this country (only half of whom actually vote), it is the electoral college, made up of 538 individuals handpicked by the candidates’ respective parties, that actually selects the next president.
The only thing you’re accomplishing by taking part in the “reassurance ritual” of voting is sustaining the illusion that we have a democratic republic.
In actuality, we are suffering from what political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page more accurately term an “economic élite domination” in which the economic elite (lobbyists, corporations, monied special interest groups) dominate and dictate national policy.
As such, presidential elections merely serve to maintain the status quo. Once elected president, that person becomes part of the dictatorial continuum that is the American imperial presidency today.
So how do we prevail against the tyrant who says all the right things and does none of them? How do we overcome the despot whose promises fade with the spotlights? How do we conquer the dictator whose benevolence is all for show?
We get organized. We get educated. We get active.
For starters, know your rights and then put that knowledge into action.
Second, think nationally but act locally.
Third, don’t let personal politics and party allegiances blind you to government misconduct and power grabs.
Finally, don’t remain silent in the face of government injustice, corruption, or ineptitude. Speak truth to power.
A healthy, representative government is hard work. It takes a citizenry that is informed about the issues, educated about how the government operates, and willing to make the sacrifices necessary to stay involved. It also takes a citizenry willing to do more than grouse and complain.
We must act—and act responsibly.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, any hope of restoring our freedoms and regaining control over our runaway government must start from the bottom up. And that will mean re-learning step by painful step what it actually means to be a government “of the people, by the people and for the people.”
A Republican state lawmaker in Arizona is proposing a measure that would remove the right of voters in the state to determine the 16 Electoral College electors who they want to represent them in presidential elections. Senate Concurrent Resolution 1014, introduced by State Sen. Anthony Kern (R), would need to pass both the state Senate and state House of Representatives — and be passed in a…
A bevy of recent polling data suggests that voters are split on which candidate they would prefer in the 2024 presidential election when faced with a potential race between Democratic incumbent President Joe Biden and former president and likely Republican nominee Donald Trump. As of Monday morning, an aggregate of polling data from RealClearPolitics shows that Biden is leading Trump by just 0.4…
Prosecutors in special counsel Jack Smith’s inquiry into former President Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election have discovered a previously unknown memo, written by one of Trump’s co-conspirators, admitting that the fake electors plot may not be successful or seen as legal. Although the memo was discussed briefly in Smith’s indictment of Trump, which was made public…
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) has filed charges against 16 individuals who sent fake documents to Washington, D.C. falsely alleging they were legitimate electors selected to take part in the Electoral College in an attempt to help former President Donald Trump overturn the results of the 2020 election. The “fake electors” plot was organized by then-Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and other…
The Biden Administration’s recent decisions to send deadly cluster bombs to Ukraine and to appoint despicable imperialist Elliott Abrams to a State Department Commission on Public Diplomacy are the latest examples of how progressives just cannot trust them to do the right thing.
Who is Elliott Abrams? Here is how he was described in an article distributed by the Fellowship of Reconciliation:
Abrams was a defender in the 1980’s of the Guatemalan Montt government, a regime so brutal that its actions — mass murder, rape, and torture of the indigenous Ixil Mayan people — were later classified as genocide by the United Nations. Over the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush Sr. administrations, under Abrams’ watch, 75,000 Salvadorians lost their lives. … Asked in 1994 about the U.S.’s record on El Salvador, Abrams called it a ‘fabulous achievement.’
And cluster bombs? 120 countries have ratified an agreement prohibiting the production, use, stockpiling, and transfer of this weapon. Among those who haven’t signed it are the USA, Russia and Ukraine.
Cluster bombs that explode spray out as many as several hundred so-called “bomblets” over an extensive area. They are explicitly “anti-personnel.” They’re not intended to damage buildings but to kill and maim people. In addition there’s what’s called a “dud rate” as high as 40%, bomblets that don’t explode upon ground contact and which can lie on the ground for as long as decades. These bomblets can blow up when picked up or stepped on. Children who have done this while exploring or playing have been badly injured or killed.
Instead of a continual escalation in the amount and type of weaponry being sent to Ukraine, Biden and his people should acknowledge the reality that the war is stalemated, there is great risk that it could escalate into something much bigger, and they should move to advance a ceasefire and serious negotiations.
These outrageous recent decisions, on top of major problems with the Biden Administration’s climate policies and weaknesses in a number of other areas, will unquestionably have the effect of depressing and demobilizing the turnout of voters next year. They are a boon to Trump or whoever gets the Republican Presidential nomination.
All of this will also likely increase the number of votes the Green Party Presidential candidate will get, whether it’s strong progressive Cornell West or someone else.
There is zero chance that the GP candidate will win, and very little chance he/she/they will get more than a low single-digit percentage of the votes nationally, but it is possible they could be a factor in battleground states where it’s always a close race—Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Hampshire and possibly others.
This is assuming the Green Party does what it has done for every Presidential election it has taken part in since the Ralph Nader/Winona LaDuke campaign of 2000. Every four years they make major efforts to get on the ballot in every state and to campaign for votes in every state. In 2020 they nominated a Black woman, Angela Nicole Walker, to be Vice President from Wisconsin but because of mistakes made in submitting petition signatures to get on the ballot in Wisconsin, they were knocked off. If this hadn’t happened, it is possible, maybe likely, that Biden would have lost in Wisconsin.
There is an alternative for the Green Party, and its leaders know it. For many, many years the idea of a “safe states strategy” has been supported by some GP members. Before I left the GP years ago, I was one of the proponents.
The basic idea is simple. Instead of getting on the ballot and campaigning in battleground states, they should publicly declare that they are not doing that and will instead be focusing their campaign in the states where past voting history can predict whether it will be the Democrat or the Republican who wins. They can campaign hard in New York and California and Mississippi and Kentucky and Maryland and many other states. They can say to progressives in those states, don’t waste your vote, we know who is likely to win in this state; have an impact by voting Green and showing that there is mass support for what it stands for.
The USA’s corporate-dominated, winner-take-all, electoral college electoral system are the primary reason why third parties of either the Left or the Right have had a major problem showing political strength, which is needed if we are serious about substantive progressive change. Those impediments to democracy have to be removed. Until that happens, we need to use tactics that are appropriate for our current reality that both defeat the ultra-rightists and strengthen the independent progressives who must grow in strength in the face of the fascist danger.
A simplistic 18th century math formula, not the latest complex Big Tech algorithm, is the greatest growing threat to our democracy. This formula got scratched out using a quill pen in 1787. Then it was used in 1789 to elect George Washington as our first president. This enduring presidential algo is found in Article II, Section I, of the U.S. Constitution.
The term “Electoral College” doesn’t appear there. But the basic math does. Each state has two senators. This equals two electoral votes, regardless of population. In addition, a state gets representatives in Congress based on population. Each representative equals one additional electoral vote. The District of Columbia is allocated three electors. The Electoral College majority next year will be 270.
In the two-party era, four presidential candidates finished second in the popular vote but won a majority of the electors and thus the White House: Republican Rutherford Hayes (1876), Republican Benjamin Harrison (1888), Republican George W. Bush (2000) and Republican Donald Trump (2016).
Yet these elections failed to sufficiently highlight the Electoral College’s danger to our democracy. We believe the 2020 presidential results should be a wake-up call.
Trump’s strategy for winning a third straight GOP nomination is therefore rational, not crazy as his detractors claim. Do whatever it takes to win over GOP primary voters, then hope the Electoral College math works in his favor.
But this first requires an honest discussion about former President Trump. He says he is the greatest Republican vote getter of all time. So do many of his supporters.
Fifteen GOP incumbents were nominated for a new term. Nine won reelection, all winning a popular vote majority. Seven by landslide margins. Only six, including Trump, were rejected by voters. Of these six, Trump is the only one to have received less than 47 percent of the popular vote every time he ran.
Trump counters by saying he did hugely better in 2020 but got cheated. Yet Trump’s own facts belie this claim. He correctly says he won 20 states in 2016 by a margin of 10 percent or greater and then again in 2020. He doesn’t claim any fraud in these states. Indeed, there were well over 3 million more votes in these top Trump states. Yet his combined winning margins were roughly the same. Thus, the obvious question: If he did so much better in 2020 than in 2016, why isn’t this reflected in his best states?
The answer is clear. Eight presidential elections have taken place since America entered the post-Cold War era. In chronological order, the GOP nominee received the following popular vote percentages: 37.5 percent, 40.7 percent, 47.9 percent, 50.7 percent, 45.6 percent, 47.1 percent, 45.9 percent and 46.8 percent.
Trump’s alleged political prowess is actually in line with the average GOP candidate. Democrats won the popular vote in the latest four elections by the following margins: 9.5 million, 5.0 million, 2.9 million, 7.1 million. Trump’s losing margin increased by over 4 million in 2020. The biggest majority chunks came in Hillary Clinton’s 14 strongest jurisdictions. These voters aren’t going for Trump in 2024. This means: To win a popular vote majority, Trump needs 7 million more votes in the remaining closely contested states. This is highly implausible without a Democratic meltdown.
Trump’s strategy for winning a third straight GOP nomination is therefore rational, not crazy as his detractors claim. Do whatever it takes to win over GOP primary voters, then hope the Electoral College math works in his favor.
In 2020, Joe Biden won 51.2 percent of the vote. This is a higher percentage than Presidents Truman in 1948, Kennedy in 1960, Nixon in 1968, Carter in 1976, Reagan in 1980, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Bush in 2000 and 2004, Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016.
And yet: Trump, twice a popular vote loser, almost carried the Electoral College. He lost Arizona by 0.3 percent, Georgia by an even smaller 0.2 percent and Pennsylvania by a mere 1.2 percent. He carried all of them in 2016. A switch of slightly more than 52,000 votes in 2020 in those states would have given Trump four more years.
Guaranteed: Trump will not win the popular vote in 2024. If nominated, he will become the first presidential candidate in history to be so rejected three consecutive times by the American voting people. Yet he might get back into power, despite never having won the popular vote, much less a majority, in any election.
A House divided against itself cannot stand, warned Lincoln. The states are now split on whether to retain the Electoral College or move toward electing the president by a popular vote majority.
We could be headed for a constitutional crisis in 2024 — caused not by computer-driven artificial intelligence but by a math formula cooked up on a hot day in Philly by individuals who were probably just trying to get a consensus so they could go home.
This post was originally published on Common Dreams.
Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith, who is overseeing a two-pronged investigation into former President Donald Trump, has subpoenaed Trump’s former vice president, Mike Pence. Smith’s investigation is looking into Trump’s removal of classified documents from the White House and his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election after his loss to President Joe Biden.
On Sunday, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland) said lawmakers in Congress should begin the process of abolishing the Electoral College, describing the mechanism as a danger to the American people due to the plethora of ways it can be exploited. In comments on CBS’s “Face the Nation” program, Raskin said that presidents should be elected by a popular vote model instead. “We should elect the president…
Rep. Jamie Raskin, soon to be the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said Sunday that the Electoral College is a “danger” to U.S. democracy and should be abandoned in favor of presidential elections decided by the popular vote.
“The Electoral College now, which has given us five popular vote losers as president in our history, twice in this century alone, has become a danger, not just to democracy, but to the American people,” Raskin (D-Md.) said in an appearance on “Face the Nation” Sunday. “It was a danger on January 6. There are so many curving byways and nooks and crannies in the Electoral College that there are opportunities for a lot of strategic mischief.”
“We should elect the president the way we elect governors, senators, mayors, representatives, everybody else: Whoever gets the most votes wins,” added Raskin, who served on the House select committee that investigated the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Axiosreported earlier this year that some members of the January 6 panel wanted “big changes on voting rights—and even to abolish the Electoral College—while others are resisting proposals to overhaul the U.S. election system.”
In its final report, the House committee stopped short of calling for the abolition of the Electoral College, something progressives have demanded for years.
\u201cHouse January 6th Committee member Rep. Jamie Raskin says that passing Electoral Count Act reform \u201cdoesn\u2019t solve the fundamental problem.\u201d\n\n\u201cI’m for that, and that’s the very least we can do and we must do. It’s necessary, but it’s not remotely sufficient.\u201d\u201d
The Maryland Democrat’s comments came days after Congress approved reforms to the Electoral Count Act, an obscure 1887 law that governs the tallying of Electoral College votes.
“For years, legal scholars have worried the law was poorly written and in need of clarification, and former President Donald Trump and his allies targeted the law’s ambiguities in their attempts to overturn the 2020 election,” NPR noted last week. “In the time after voting ended in 2020and results were certified, Trump and his team argued that then-Vice President Mike Pence had the power to interfere with the counting of electoral votes because the law as it currently stands names the vice president as the presiding officer over the joint session of Congress where those votes are counted.”
“The update passed by the Senate would clarify that the vice president’s role in the proceedings is purely ceremonial,” the outlet explained. “Importantly, the measure also would raise the bar for objecting to a state’s slate of electors. As it stands now, it takes just one member of the House and one senator to challenge a state’s electors and send both chambers into a potentially days-long debate period, even without legitimate concerns.”
While welcoming the newly passed reforms, Raskin said Sunday that they won’t “solve the fundamental problem.”
“We know that the Electoral College doesn’t fit anymore, which is why I’m a big supporter of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, where it’s bubbling up from below,” Raskin continued. “There are now 15 or 16 states and the District of Columbia who’ve said, ‘We’re going to cast our electors for the winner of the national vote once we get 270 electors in our coalition.’”
The compact—which has the goal of guaranteeing the presidency to “the candidate who receives the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia”—has thus far been backed by 16 U.S. jurisdictions with a total of 195 electoral votes.
Last week, Florida State Rep. Michael Gottlieb—a Democrat—filed legislation that would make the Sunshine State the latest to join the compact. The bill is expected to face opposition from Republicans in the state, including Gov. Ron DeSantis—a possible 2024 presidential candidate.
This post was originally published on Common Dreams.
In the final weeks of Congress’s last session before Republicans take control of the House, Democratic lawmakers are planning to push a number of bills forward — including legislation that aims to prevent attempted usurpations of future presidential elections in wake of Donald Trump’s attempt to overthrow the 2020 presidential election after he lost to President Joe Biden.
According to Politico, Democrats seem eager to pass an update to the Electoral Count Act, which would modify ambiguities in current election law that Trump attempted to exploit to overturn the 2020 presidential election outcome. In order to pass such legislation, however, Democrats may have to attach it to other spending bills.
But with little time to negotiate the bill, Democrats (as well as a handful of Republicans who support such reforms) will have to look at other options to pass the legislation into law — including possibly attaching the reforms to other appropriations bills, such as the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
It’s unlikely that a standalone bill on updates to the Electoral College, which has already passed in the House, could pass on its own in the Senate, as it’s unclear whether Democrats could find the 10 Republican votes necessary to avoid a filibuster block of the legislation. Attaching the legislation to another bill poses certain political risks, but appears to be the best option to ensure the reforms can be passed.
Polling from September shows that a majority of American voters want Congress to pass a bill to subvert future attempts at overturning presidential election results, with voters supporting such legislation by a two to one margin (52 percent versus 26 percent).
But other polling data shows that an even higher proportion of voters support eliminating the Electoral College altogether and replacing it with a popular vote model.
A report from Pew Research Center in August found that 63 percent of Americans favor replacing the Electoral College with a version of a popular vote mechanism, while just 35 percent of Americans want to keep the Electoral College in place.
The rate of support for ending the Electoral College is the highest seen in decades, according to Pew’s numbers.
Notably, Trump won the presidency in 2016 through the Electoral College, despite losing the popular vote to then-Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton. For about a week after his victory, Trump, who had previously expressed misgivings about the Electoral College, said he was still supportive of getting rid of the system. He changed his tune shortly after, however, and repeatedly endorsed the Electoral College throughout his presidency, likely because it was (and remains) his best shot at winning another presidential election sometime in the future, as the majority of Americans view him unfavorably.
Indeed, Biden won the 2020 Electoral College by a margin of 306 electors to Trump’s 232, and by around 7 million ballots in the popular vote count; if Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona and Nevada had opted for Trump rather than Biden by just 77,405 ballots, Trump would have won the presidency for the second time, despite Biden having 7 million more votes.
A majority of voters in the U.S. support a much-needed update to the law that defines how Congress certifies presidential elections, new polling shows.
Americans back such changes by a two-to-one margin, according to a Politico/Morning Consult survey conducted from September 23-25. Asking if they’d support or oppose the passage of a bill in Congress to make it harder for that legislative body “to override presidential election results in the future,” 52 percent of respondents said they’d back such an action, with only 26 percent saying they’d oppose it.
Interestingly, those who voted for former President Donald Trump in the 2020 election were evenly split on the question. Trump and his allies in Congress sought to exploit ambiguities in current law in order to disrupt the certification process that took place on January 6, 2021. But according to the poll, 38 percent of those who say they voted for him also believe the law needs to be updated, to make sure actions like his don’t ever happen again (37 percent opposed the idea).
The polling results come as lawmakers in Congress are trying to determine which path, if any, they will take on updating the Electoral Count Act, an 18th century law that directs how Electoral College votes are certified in Congress. Last week, the House passed a proposal that would make changes to that law, which was sponsored by Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-California) and Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming), two prominent members of the January 6 committee.
Strictly defining as ceremonial the vice president’s role in counting Electoral College votes from each state;
Requiring a threshold of one-third of lawmakers from each house of Congress to raise a formal challenge to electors’ votes — up from just one lawmaker in the House and one in the Senate;
An explicit statement that schemes to produce fake electors, to confuse or replace legitimate votes, are illegal.
After its passage, it was unclear whether the bill stood a chance of being passed in the Senate, due to filibuster rules in that chamber that would require at least 10 GOP votes. But comments from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) earlier this week suggest that, at the very least, a version of the bill will be passed.
“The chaos that came to a head on January 6th of last year certainly underscored the need for an update,” McConnell said on the Senate floor on Tuesday. “The Electoral Count Act ultimately produced the right conclusion … but it’s clear the country needs a more predictable path.”
A bipartisan group of lawmakers in the Senate is pushing their own version of an update to the Electoral Count Act. The most notable difference in their bill is that the threshold for challenging electors’ votes is smaller than the House bill — it would require one-fifth, not one-third, of members from both houses of Congress to begin the formal challenge process, a level that was met in the House during the January 6, 2021, certification due to Trump-aligned Republicans opposing President Joe Biden’s win.
Among respondents in favor of changing the process, more want the threshold to be the higher of the two. Twenty-two percent of voters overall, according to the Politico/Morning Consult poll, say the threshold should be one-third of lawmakers in each house, while 17 percent say it should be the one-fifth level. Thirty-six percent of voters didn’t know or had no opinion, while 25 percent of respondents — likely those who oppose the idea of updating the law altogether — say the threshold should remain as it is, with only one lawmaker from each house needed to raise a challenge.
Legislation intended to prevent future attempts at overturning presidential elections passed in the House on Wednesday with support from only a small handful of Republicans.
The Presidential Election Reform Act, introduced by Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-California) and Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming) — two prominent members of the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol building — received 229 votes in its favor.
The bill had the support of virtually every Democrat, although one member of the caucus didn’t vote. Only nine Republican members of the House voted for the bill, while 203 Republicans opposed it.
“Denying the American people their fundamental freedom to choose their own leaders denies them their voice in the policies we pursue, and those policies can make tremendous difference in their everyday lives,” Pelosi said.
The bill proposes a number of changes to the Electoral Count Act, a 19th-century law that directs how Electoral College votes are certified in Congress. Some of the changes serve merely to strengthen what is already widely understood about the law in order to prevent lawmakers from exploiting ambiguities in the language.
The Presidential Election Reform Act, for example, would reiterate that the vice president’s role in the counting of votes is purely “ministerial.” In an attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, Trump had instructed his then-Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral votes in states he lost to now-President Joe Biden. Under the bill, such actions would be explicitly illegal.
The bill also requires that a certain threshold of lawmakers be reached in each house of Congress before challenges to electors can be considered. Currently, only one member from each house is needed to mount such challenges; under Lofgren’s and Cheney’s proposal, one-third of each house’s members would be required.
The bill explicitly states that schemes to produce fake electors in order to disrupt or confuse the certification process — like that of Trump and his campaign — would be illegal. It would also require that “a single, accurate certificate from each state” be submitted for counting, and make it illegal for fake electors to submit additional phony certificates.
Some provisions in the Senate bill, however, are weaker than those in the bill that was recently passed by the House. The Senate legislation has a lower threshold for how many lawmakers are needed to formally challenge states’ electors, requiring just one-fifth of legislators from both houses to do so.
That threshold was nearly reached during the last Electoral College certification — 147 Republicans voted against the certification of Biden’s win in several states in 2021, equal to more than one-fourth of the total number of lawmakers in Congress.
Though the number was smaller in the Senate, the one-fifth threshold that Collins and other senators are proposing was reached during the certification process in the House. However, the number was still below the one-third threshold suggested in Lofgren’s and Cheney’s bill.
Two members of the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol submitted a bill that would reform the count of Electoral College votes.
The Presidential Election Reform Act — sponsored by Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-California) — would change aspects of the Electoral Count Act, making it more difficult for elected officials to overturn the will of voters.
“Our proposal is intended to preserve the rule of law for all future presidential elections by ensuring that self-interested politicians cannot steal from the people the guarantee that our government derives its power from the consent of the governed,” Cheney and Lofgren wrote in an op-ed that was published in The Wall Street Journal over the weekend.
Their legislation takes a multi-pronged approach to prevent another attempt to overturn the presidential election. It makes clear, for example, that the role of the vice president in counting the electors in the Electoral College is purely “ministerial” — addressing attempts by former President Donald Trump and his allies to get then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject certain states’ electors nearly two years ago.
The bill would also increase the number of lawmakers needed to make a formal objection to a state’s slate of electors. Currently, only one member from each chamber of Congress is needed to make an objection, obligating both chambers to have a formal discussion and vote on whether those votes should be rejected. Under Cheney’s and Lofgren’s plan, the threshold to object and force such a vote would increase, to one-third of the members in each of the two houses.
Additionally, the bill seeks to prevent fake electors from being counted as equal to real ones in the Electoral College certification process — the same scheme which Trump and his allies sought to use after he lost in 2020 to President Joe Biden. The Presidential Election Reform Act would prohibit those actions outright, requiring “a single, accurate certificate from each state” to be submitted and making it explicitly illegal to try and submit fake ones.
The legislation could pass in the Democratic-controlled House as soon as this week, as the House Rules Committee is considering the legislation on Tuesday. If members of the committee vote to forward it on, it could receive a full House vote as soon as Wednesday.
The bill will likely receive some bipartisan support in the Senate. It’s unclear, however, whether 10 Republican senators would join with Democrats to break a probable filibuster in that chamber.
A member of the January 6 committee investigating the attack on Congress by a mob of loyalists to former President Donald Trump believes that more statutes are needed to prevent future attacks — and that there should be an examination of whether the Electoral College needs to be abolished.
On MSNBC’s “All In With Chris Hayes” Friday evening, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland) said that lawmakers should make changes to the criminal code in order to “account for now the possibility of presidents just taking a headlong rush at seizing the presidency.”
Raskin also alluded to a need to change the presidential selection process.
“We have to look at the way that the electoral system itself is vulnerable to strategic bad faith actors like Donald Trump,” Raskin said, adding that “the Electoral College is an accident waiting to happen.”
“We have to deal with that at some point in American history,” Raskin said. “Why not now?”
The Electoral College played a role in the Trump campaign team’s scheme to disrupt the 2020 election results. Trump sought to have his then-Vice President Mike Pence accept fake electoral votes from states he lost to President Joe Biden as legitimate, or at least as equal to real electors’ votes. From there, Pence was supposed to send the matter to the House of Representatives, where Republicans, who had a majority of state delegations under their control, would award Trump another term in office.
Pence refused to go along with the scheme, noting he didn’t have the constitutional authority to accept or reject votes. As a result, Trump denounced Pence in his incendiary “Stop the Steal” speech on the day the election was set to be certified, prompting his loyalists to call for Pence to be hanged as they attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Though the January 6 committee has been in agreement on most issues, there have been differences in opinion on the Electoral College. Some members, like Raskin, believe that Trump has exposed flaws in the presidential selection process, and that the best way to fix those flaws is to do away with the archaic system and transition to a popular vote method.
Others, like Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming), vice chair of the committee, are worried that such an endorsement could delegitimize the committee’s work. Cheney may also be worried that ending the Electoral College could lessen the electoral power of states with small populations, like hers.
Americans have typically been consistent in supporting an end to the Electoral College. Drops in that support have generally happened after elections in which Republicans won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote, indicating that GOP voters probably changed their views based on how the system benefitted them politically. But new polling shows that support for abolishing the Electoral College is at its highest point since the start of the century.
A new photo obtained by ABC News shows former Vice President Mike Pence and his family in hiding during the attack on the U.S. Capitol building on January 6, 2021.
Pence, along with his daughter, his brother Rep. Greg Pence (R-Indiana) and his wife Karen Pence, are shown in the vice president’s ceremonial office inside the Capitol. The photo was taken shortly after Pence was evacuated from the Senate chambers due to the violent breach of the building by a mob of loyalists to former President Donald Trump.
By the time the photograph was taken, the mob’s chants to “Hang Mike Pence” had already begun.
Pence sits at a table while his daughter rests on a couch in the background, visibly upset over what has transpired. Karen Pence is seen closing drapes over a window in the room in order to prevent rioters from seeing them inside.
In this photo, taken minutes after VP Pence was evacuated from the Senate Floor, Karen Pence closes the curtains. A person in the room told me she could see the mob outside and was fearful they would see where Pence was. pic.twitter.com/RJs2nitAmE
Minutes after the picture was taken (by Pence’s former official photographer Myles Cullen), the family was moved to a more secure location — a loading dock beneath the Capitol, ABC News reported.
Hours later, Pence would return to Congress, along with other lawmakers. Reopening the certification ceremony, he delivered a speech, describing the day’s horrors as a “dark day in the history of the United States Capitol.”
The photo highlights the gravity of the day’s events, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-California), a member of the January 6 committee investigating the attack, said on CNN on Wednesday night.
“I think the public probably is not aware how close a call this was,” Lofgren said. “The rioters came very close to capturing the vice president and I think there’s very good evidence they would have done harm to him, perhaps even killed him.”
The mob of Trump loyalists had been angry with Pence because Trump had spent the past several days repeatedly — and falsely — asserting that Pence could alter the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, which Trump lost to now-President Joe Biden. The Constitution does not allow a vice president to change or reject individual states’ Electoral College votes, and their role in the certification ceremony is largely a symbolic one.
“How can you pass on a fraudulent vote to Congress? How can you do that?” Trump said. Notably, no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election has ever been discovered.
The House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack will likely make a series of recommendations on how to avoid further attempted overthrows of power in the future — but one proposal apparently has the committee split.
A number of committee members believe that lawmakers should consider abolishing the Electoral College entirely in order to prevent similar violence in the years ahead. Chief among those pushing for the idea, according to reporting from Axios, is Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland). But some are wary of the proposal, none more so than Rep. Liz Cheney, a Republican from Wyoming whose low-population state would lose considerable political clout if the Electoral College system was ended.
If the U.S. switched to a popular vote model, the president and vice president would be selected by voters across the country overall, rather than through electors in state-by-state contests that can sometimes thwart the will of the national electorate (as happened in 2016, when former President Donald Trump won office) Ending the Electoral College would also ensure that a scheme to game the system, like the one devised by Trump’s inner circle in late 2020, couldn’t result in a blatant disregard of voters’ preferences.
Trump lost both the popular vote and the Electoral College in 2020 to President Joe Biden. But his campaign team, including his former lawyer Rudy Giuliani, orchestrated a plan to win the election anyway by producing fake Trump electors in states that Biden won, hoping that they’d be counted instead in the certification of the election on January 6, 2021 — the same day a mob of Trump loyalists attacked the Capitol building.
One of the main reasons that plan never came to fruition is because Trump’s vice president, Mike Pence, refused to go along with it. On the day the election was set to be certified,Trump made it explicitly clear to his followers that Pence had gone against his wishes — and they responded by chanting for Pence to be hanged as they forced their way into the Capitol building.
Sources speaking to Axios say that January 6 committee members, led by Raskin, believe that ending the Electoral College and instituting a popular vote model could help to avoid such scenarios in the future. But other members, Cheney in particular, are against such moves, claiming that, if the committee were to endorse ending the Electoral College, it could delegitimize the panel’s work overall.
The committee has tried to show a united front in all of its workings thus far, so it seems unlikely that its members will eventually call for an end to the Electoral College. More likely, the two factions will come together and recommend changes to the Electoral Count Act, the law that Trump and his campaign sought to manipulate in order to keep him in office through the counting of fake electors.
In the past, several prominent conservative voices have suggested that calls to end the Electoral College only arise when Democrats lose, such as in 2000, when former President George W. Bush won the election without the popular vote, and in 2016, when Trump did the same. But in reality, the exact opposite is true; typically, a majority of Americans support abolishing the Electoral College no matter what year it is, and dips in support for doing so usually come from conservatives, as the system’s continued use has benefited Republicans twice in the past quarter-century.
Polling from Gallup showed consistent support for getting rid of the Electoral College from both parties — including increases in support from Republican voters — from the time of Bush’s win in 2000 up to Trump’s win in 2016. In that year, however, Republicans’ support for abolishing the Electoral College dropped by 36 percentage points from the previous time Gallup polled on the question, while support for ending the practice remained consistent among Democrats.
A Pew Research poll from last year found that most Americans (55 percent) currently support ending the Electoral College. Although most Republicans still want the Electoral College in place, 37 percent of Republicans supported ending the practice; when Gallup asked the question in 2019, only 25 percent of Republicans were in support of its abolition.
Though Trump was a vehement defender of his Electoral College win throughout his presidency, he, too, expressed support for ending it shortly after his win, only changing his mind, it seemed, when it became clear he might have to rely on the mechanism in order to win reelection.
“I’m not going to change my mind just because I won,” Trump insisted on CBS’s “60 Minutes” days after he won in 2016. “But I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win.”
Rudy Giuliani testified last week to the House select committee investigating the attack on the United States Capitol building, but refused to answer questions about specific lawmakers who were involved in Trump’s plot to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
New details about his testimony, reported on by The Guardian on Tuesday, reveal that Giuliani’s reluctance to openly discuss queries about collaboration between Republican lawmakers and the Trump campaign reportedly upset the committee’s members and investigators.
Details of the scheme and Giuliani’s part in it were revealed earlier this year. The plan involved submitting fake slates of electors to be counted as legitimate over (or at least equal to) actual electors’ votes during the certification of the Electoral College, which took place on January 6, 2021. Once those fake electors’ ballots came to Washington, it was up to Republican members of Congress to vote against certifying electors’ votes backing Biden. The plan targeted several states that now-President Joe Biden had won in the 2020 election.
The plan also required then-Vice President Mike Pence to only permit Trump electors’ votes to count, or else send the matter to the House of Representatives to resolve, where state delegations (of which, Republicans control the majority) would have voted to keep Trump in office for another four years.
In spite of his refusal to talk about Republican lawmakers who were involved in the plan, Giuliani did discuss meetings that had taken place in the White House after Trump’s loss that led to their plot being conceived. The plan, Giuliani told the committee, was developed after Trump-aligned lawyer Sidney Powell’s idea, which had called on Trump to order the seizure of several states’ voting machines, was rejected.
The rejection of one plan and embrace of another may indicate that Trump’s people were looking for a means to keep him in power in spite of the electoral outcome.
The committee also asked Giuliani about his false claims of election fraud during his testimony. Giuliani continued to insist that widespread fraud had happened and had affected the election — a move that contradicts several investigations, audits, and judges’ rulings noting that no such proof of fraud affecting the election’s outcome has ever been found.
Giuliani’s continued insistence that election fraud took place appears to indicate a planned legal defense that he or Trump may make in the future. But some were skeptical that Giuliani was still a true believer in such claims.
“Giuliani was disbarred because he lied about the election. His claim of incontrovertible proof [of election fraud] — which he’s NEVER released — is not only bogus but he KNOWS it’s bogus,” insisted Daniel Goldman, former lead prosecutor for the first Trump impeachment trial.
Winding 336 miles through Maricopa, Pinal and Pima counties, the Central Arizona Project supplies water from the Colorado River to 80 percent of the state’s population and 40 percent of its farmlands. A drought has prompted the U.S. Department of Interior to implement a Tier-1 shortage for the first time, which will cut 18 percent of Arizona’s water supply from the Colorado River. But during Arizona’s legislative session thus far, bills to address the water shortage have been overshadowed by the 140 bills aimed at preventing so-called election fraud.
Arizona residents like Perri Benemelis, a white 61-year-old water policy analyst, are tired of “election fraud” talk, and many are turning away from the Republican and Democratic parties and registering or identifying as independents.
Benemelis cited proposals for a desalination project in Mexico and the monitoring of groundwater pumping in Mojave County as ways to address the water shortage, but is doubtful it will gain ground in the state legislature.
“Considering the focus on election law probably means we’re not going to see a lot of substantive legislation addressing water availability,” Benemelis said. “We [Arizonans] keep chasing this fantasy that there was fraud in the last election that needs to be addressed. And because of this obsession by our Republican legislature, substantive issues — important issues to the citizens of the state of Arizona — are being largely ignored.”
Independents now make up the largest voter group in the country. As of mid-January, 46 percent of those surveyed by a Gallup poll reported they identify as independents, 28 percent identify as Democrats and 24 percent as Republicans. According to 2018 figures, Independents are most likely to be younger, male and white, but more recent data show their numbers growing among other demographic groups. This group is deciding election outcomes — or at least making election results less predictable. Independent voters, pivotal in swing states including Arizona, Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, favored Donald Trump by 4 percentage points in 2016 and Joe Biden by 13 percentage points in 2020.
Since April 2021, President Biden’s approval rating among independents declined from 68 percent to 36 percent, according to a recent NBC poll. And if the early Texas primaries are any indication for other upcoming primaries later this year, twice the number of Texan independents came out to vote for Republican Gov. Greg Abbott than Democratic candidate Beto O’Rourke. Republican primary turnout exceeded the Democratic primary turnout by nearly 74 percent, far greater than the 45 percent difference in the 2018 midterm elections. Most independents polled are opposed to efforts to remove books from schools and a total abortion ban.
What this means is that while most independents are opposed to culture war politics and extreme political views, which prompted their abandonment of Trump in 2020, the disillusionment with the Biden administration among independents may result in low voter turnout rates for Democratic candidates. Independents could unwillingly propel Republicans towards a congressional majority this year and in 2024 if the Democratic Party does not capture the energy of this growing group of voters.
For the first time in Maricopa County, registered independents and third-party voters, at 35 percent of the total number of registered voters, exceeded the number of registered Republicans and Democrats. Statewide, independents and third-party voters make up 34.2 percent, just behind Republicans but ahead of Democrats, according to the Arizona secretary of state’s voter registration report. The Open Primaries Education Fund, a nonprofit organization that advocates for reform of the primary election system, projects this trend to continue and for independents and third-party voters to reach 43 percent of the state voting population by 2036.
Hugh McNichol is one of many veterans who identify themselves as independent. According to a March 2020 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America member survey, 41 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans identify as an independent or third-party voter, 36 percent as Republican and 22 percent as Democrat.
McNichol, who is a 39-year-old white man, resides in Lansing, Michigan, where he owned his own mechanic shop before being hired as a mechanic by Tesla. Prior to this, McNichol served as a mechanic in the U.S. Army for eight years and was stationed in Iraq from 2006 to 2007. McNichol says he voted for Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein in 2016 and Libertarian Gary Johnson in 2020, because they didn’t support the Iraq War.
“Veterans are realizing that neither one of the major parties have our best interests at heart,” McNichol told Truthout. “The vast majority of people in our country don’t care about what’s going over there…. But the politicians who sent us over there, they should be obligated to us, they should be obligated to those people there too. And I don’t feel like they held up their promises in either case.”
McNichol started to observe that promises to build infrastructure in Iraq turned into profits for private contractors, particularly for Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), which received $39.5 billion in war-related contracts. Dick Cheney was the chairman and CEO of former KBR parent company Halliburton until he became George W. Bush’s vice president in 2001.
“While I was there, I started hearing things like KBR gets $100 for a bag of laundry, KBR gets $100 for a plate of food, $6 for a can of soda, all these inflated expenses. And they weren’t keeping their promises of getting the infrastructure back up and running,” McNichol said.
Like McNichol, some veterans of the Afghanistan War report they feel as if they broke a promise to Afghans when U.S. troops withdrew from the country. Meanwhile, when McNichol returned home, he found the Department of Veterans Affairs inundated and unprepared to help returning soldiers.
McNichol worries about the lack of affordable housing and pollution in Lansing’s water sources. For years, the city has given tax cuts and subsidies to General Motors (GM), which polluted Lansing’s groundwater with dioxane, an industrial chemical that GM uses to clean oil off car parts. The pollution was discovered after the Revitalizing Auto Communities Environmental Response Trust was established by the federal government to take over the GM sites following the company’s bankruptcy in 2009. Earlier this year, GM announced it would invest $7 billion in manufacturing sites across Michigan. In Lansing, GM would partner with LG Energy Solution to spend $2.6 billion to build a new battery cell plant in Lansing and offer 1,700 new jobs to the area.
However, McNichol is wary about the long-term impact. “These toxins from the GM plans are still not cleaned up. They have no plans. The politicians in Lansing don’t care. They just want GM to come back again,” McNichol said.
Independent voters Truthout interviewed described a “rigged electoral system.” Despite the growing numbers of independents and third-party voters from diverse demographic and ideological groups, these voters face hurdles at the ballot box. Twenty-three U.S. states — including the battleground states of Arizona, Florida and Pennsylvania — have closed presidential primaries. Fifteen states, including Florida and Pennsylvania, have closed congressional and state primaries. Thirty states — including Arizona, Florida and Pennsylvania — require voters to declare a party affiliation upon registration. Those registered as independents are thus excluded from the two major parties’ closed primary elections, which, according to data from Ballotpedia, determines 35 percent of state legislative elections. In 11 states, more than half of all state legislative seats did not have major party competition in 2020. Registering with the two major parties often dictates the drawing of electoral districts, and poll workers are often only chosen from voters who register with the two major parties.
Advocacy groups such as Independent Voting and Open Primaries Education Fund want to see voter registration without party affiliation, nonpartisan primary elections and a restructuring of the Federal Election Commission to ensure nonpartisan election operations. According to the National League of Cities, 73 percent of the largest cities in the country already hold nonpartisan municipal elections.
“Independents began to see that the control of the electoral process by the two parties was fused with the larger economic and social circumstances in the country,” said Jacqueline Salit, president of IndependentVoting.org. “They began to feel that this was a country being run by a set of insiders, that the insiders had control over the political apparatus, and that unless and until we could change and transform the political apparatus, we weren’t going to be able to address issues of economic instability.”
Beyond open primaries, those interviewed support electoral reform measures, such as independent redistricting and having the top two or top four winners from primary elections compete in general elections. California, Washington State, Alaska, Nebraska and Louisiana already have such a system. Others support ranked choice voting, already adopted in 23 jurisdictions.
In Florida, for all the mainstream media talk of Latinos shifting their loyalties to the Republican Party after Trump made gains among Latino voters in Arizona, Texas and Florida in 2020, the data on independents present a less certain picture. According to the Florida Department of State’s October 2020 voter registration records, 36.5 percent of Latinos in the state registered as a third-party member or unaffiliated, behind Democrats and well ahead of Republicans. Data from earlier this year show independents now make up 28.7 percent of all registered voters statewide. If this trend continues, the state’s independent and third-party voters will exceed Republicans and Democrats by 2035.
Jose Torres, who is 65 years old, identifies as Hispanic, and lives in Jacksonville, Florida, begrudgingly voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, Andrew Gillum for governor in 2018 and Biden for president in 2020. Torres describes himself as economically conservative and socially liberal. He identifies as an independent and advocates for open primary elections in Florida because he is tired of having to vote for the “lesser of two evils.”
“The Democrats have taken Hispanic voters for granted for 20 years. We are not monolithic,” Torres told Truthout.
Torres says that Republicans were able to use anti-communist rhetoric to make gains among Cubans in South Florida. Even though he doesn’t buy into this rhetoric, Torres says that the Democratic Party has also failed to address issues of concern to him: high prescription drug prices, stagnant state minimum wages and climate change, citing rising sea levels that threaten to immerse parts of Miami two feet underwater within the next 40 years.
Young first-generation Latino-American voters have even less affiliation to either of the major parties. According to the Open Primaries Education Fund report, 60 percent of Latinos in the U.S. are under the age of 35 and over 50 percent of Latino millennials are independents.
Dariel Cruz Rodriguez, currently a 17-year-old senior at Colonial High School in Orlando, Florida, will vote for the first time this year. Rodriguez identifies as an independent. He said he will probably vote for Democrats this year, because of the state’s Republican-dominated legislature’s efforts to restrict voting rights, but he is also frustrated with the Democrats and the Biden administration.
“I supported Joe Biden, mainly because I wanted to get the other guy out. But Biden made a lot of promises on the campaign trail, and failed to follow through with a lot of them, especially on student loan forgiveness, which is really important to me and a lot of my other classmates,” Rodriguez told Truthout.
Besides student loan forgiveness, Rodriguez wants to see the government address climate change and improve public transit. He also opposes Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which recently passed the State House Legislature.
“Politicians are using Florida’s children and students as playing cards in the state legislature,” Rodriguez said.
Originally from the city of Ludowici in southern Georgia, Ron Dumas, a 23-year-old Black man, is currently finishing up his bachelor’s degree at the University of North Carolina in Asheville. He is majoring in ethics because, as he states, “I care about what is right.”
Dumas describes his hometown in Georgia as lacking in educational opportunities and job mobility: “I always say that there’s just a gas station and a high school in Ludowici.” Ludowici, with a population of 2,442, according to 2020 census figures, is 56 percent white and 36 percent African American, and votes largely conservative. Dumas says the Democrats “abandoned the community when they believed they couldn’t compete for the vote.”
Dumas’s mom is a medical assistant and his stepfather a veteran and truck driver. He recalls being 9 years old when his mom allowed him to stay up late to watch Barack Obama’s 2008 inauguration ceremony. It was the first time his parents had ever voted — his mom told him she didn’t vote in 2004 because “it would not have mattered.”
Dumas voted for the first time in 2020, supporting Bernie Sanders in the primaries. He noted that there was less excitement among his peers when Biden had become the Democratic nominee.
Dumas’s and Rodriguez’s sentiments echo the findings of a September 2020 survey conducted by Politico among Gen Z voters. Almost half of the Gen Z respondents reported they voted more against Trump, rather than for Biden. Forty-two percent of the poll’s Gen Z respondents identify as independent, 39 percent as Democrats and 20 percent as Republican.
“There is a consensus that people are tired of polarization and tired of the sort of politics where you’re always voting against something and never for something,” Dumas said. He wants to see Biden follow through with his promises on voting rights legislation, affordable health care, affordable child care, affordable housing and passing the Build Back Better plan.
While on the campaign trail, Biden ignited backlash and had to apologize to Black voters when he said, “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me, or Trump, then you ain’t Black.” But more than a quarter of Black voters registered as independent and may be looking for an alternative to both major parties. Since last April, the president’s approval rating has declined from 83 percent to 64 percent among Black voters.
Like Dumas, Jarrell Corley, a 35-year-old Black man, emphasizes that Black voters are not a monolith and that there are more than two sides to an issue.
Corley identifies as an independent because he says he is tired of seeing nothing change for the Black community under Republican or Democratic administrations. He voted for Clinton in 2016, but did not vote in the 2020 presidential election, saying, “There was no point in voting. I didn’t have a dog in the fight.”
Corley is originally from Chicago. He cites that in most urban centers with large Black populations, local governments are dominated by the Democrats, but conditions, including displacement and police brutality, are getting worse.
“The only reason Black people don’t feel comfortable voting for Republicans is because the Democrats are a mouthpiece for the issues of Black people. That doesn’t necessarily mean anything is getting done,” Corley told Truthout. “If you look into all these major cities run by Democrats, what’s going on? Gentrification. They’re displacing poor, marginalized groups of people for new high economic development. So you may talk about progress and police brutality and all these issues, but what are you really doing? It’s all a facade. Using Black tragedy as a means to galvanize power.”
At the University of Wisconsin (UW) in Madison, Sam Clayton, a 21-year-old white student, studies horticulture. Clayton is nonbinary, using they/them pronouns, and is the treasurer of the campus’s chapter of the Young Democratic Socialists of America. Clayton recently led the UW-Madison local chapter to work with other organizations to stop a city attempt to shut down homeless encampments in Madison’s Reindahl Park and instead helped push the city to use federal COVID relief money to construct shelters there instead.
Clayton said they voted for Biden in 2020 out of “duress” and with “no excitement,” and has not seen any improvement in their material conditions.
Millennials were reported to be the first generation to do worse economically than their parents, a trend that has continued for Gen Z as housing and college costs soar. Clayton describes how their parents paid off college expenses and bought their first home by the time they were in their 20s. “It’s generally hard for young people to imagine a good future. And the Democrats don’t inspire much confidence in anything other than the status quo,” Clayton said. “The Democrats rely on this assumption that because they’re using progressive language, that’ll translate into youth voters. But more and more people that I talk to, even folks who are not politically inclined, don’t like what’s going on. The phrase ‘settled’ encompasses how people feel about voting for Democrats.”
While Politico reported that young voters are less likely than registered voters of all other age groups to consider voting impactful, they are just as likely to believe they can affect politics and political affairs. Young voters are more likely to support protests than older voters. Millennial and Gen Z voters interviewed for this article expressed a distrust of the government to address the country’s problems, and believe they must rely on their communities instead.
Clayton is worried about rising temperatures, housing prices, utility bills and student loans. As a nonbinary person, they do not feel they would be safe under a Republican administration, but believes that the Democrats may lose in 2022 and even in 2024 because young people are not relying on the electoral system to affect change.
“I think the Democrats have done a very good job of turning young people off from voting because they haven’t done much for us,” said Clayton. “But there is an increase in people’s political militancy and political agitation in terms of protesting, not necessarily just at the ballot box.”
In Pennsylvania, which holds closed presidential, congressional and state primaries, several bills to open up primary elections have stalled in the state government. According to January 2022 voter registration data from the Pennsylvania Department of State, 14.8 percent of voters registered as unaffiliated or “other.”
Third-party or independent candidates lack access to voter rolls and funding that the two major parties have. Furthermore, they often face legal challenges from the two parties who fear a third-party candidate will draw voters away from them or “spoil” their race.
Matt Nemeth, a 27-year-old white man and chair of the Green Party Allegheny chapter in Pennsylvania, regrets his vote for Clinton in 2016 and expresses frustration with the argument that their members are “spoiling” the vote, as both Clinton and Trump “serve private interests.”
Nemeth’s parents voted for Trump twice because he promised to bring manufacturing jobs back to Pennsylvania. Nemeth, on the other hand, says that manufacturing jobs should not come at the cost of corporate accountability and clean air, a promise he believes that both Democrats and Republicans have not delivered on.
Last year, U.S. Steel canceled plans for a $1.5 billion upgrade to bring three plants in Pennsylvania’s Monongahela Valley up to health department regulations. The regulations were implemented after two fires erupted, releasing benzene and hydrogen sulfide into the air and causing asthma-related emergency visits among residents. While the plants currently remain idle, U.S. Steel is challenging the Allegheny Health Department’s regulations.
“Both parties made promises that they don’t want to keep or can’t keep, and then every four years, we switch to another party, and the cycle repeats,” Nemeth told Truthout.
If the voices of this growing group of independents and third-party voters are excluded or unheeded, it could spell further volatility in our elections in the coming years.
In Chattanooga, Tennessee, independent Amber Hysell, a 37-year-old white woman, is making another bid for a seat in the state’s 3rd Congressional District. Hysell is a working mom still paying off student loans for a college accounting degree she was unable to finish when her financial aid ran out with only two classes left to take. For much of her adult life, she worked graveyard shifts in service and retail jobs so that she could have time to spend with her child during the day.
Fed up with issues of concern to her being overlooked — wealth inequality, child care, health care, underfunded schools and affordable housing — Hysell decided to run for Congress. When she was courted by the Hamilton County Democrats in 2020, she was given a Democratic strategy book from the 1970s.
“The way they described how a campaign is supposed to work, it made me feel like they didn’t realize they were in Tennessee, that they were just incredibly out of touch with the problems in this district and in this state. It really did not seem to me to have an actual plan or the actual desire to win down here,” Hysell told Truthout.
As an independent, Hysell doesn’t automatically get access to voter contact information or funding sources as candidates from the two major parties do. But when asked why she was bothering to run when there were so many hurdles, Hysell replies: “Life is going to be difficult for the next generation. We’re not addressing climate change. We’re not addressing inequality in any meaningful way. Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin and neither one of them is paying the bills. They have created a system that blockades anyone who doesn’t fall on one side or the other. And the best thing that I can do for my kid is do whatever I can to change that outcome.”