Speaker 1: It's sponsorship time. But you know what, it's really great
Speaker 1: when you get a sponsor that you already use. And
Speaker 1: guess what. Quint's is something that in the Todd household
Speaker 1: we already go to. Why do we go to Quint's
Speaker 1: Because it's a place you go where you can get
Speaker 1: some really nice clothes without the really expensive prices. And
Speaker 1: one of the things I've been going through is I've
Speaker 1: transitioned from being mister cot and tie guy to wanting
Speaker 1: a little more casual but to look nice doing it.
Speaker 1: Is I've become mister quarter zip guy. Well guess what.
Speaker 1: Guess who's got amazing amounts of quarter zips? It is Quints.
Speaker 1: I have gotten quite a few already from there. The
Speaker 1: stuff's really nice. They have Mongolian cashmere sweaters for fifty dollars.
Speaker 1: I just know, hey, cashmere, that's pretty good. You don't
Speaker 1: normally get that for fifty bucks or less. Italian wool
Speaker 1: coats that look and feel like designer the stuff. I'll
Speaker 1: be honest, right, you look at it online, you think, okay,
Speaker 1: is this really as nice as it looks? Well, when
Speaker 1: I got it, I was like, oh, this is real quality.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I'm going to end up making sure I
Speaker 1: take it to my dry cleaner so I don't screw
Speaker 1: it up when I clean it. But I've been quite
Speaker 1: impressed in Hey, it's holiday season. It is impossible to
Speaker 1: shop for us middle aged men. I know this well.
Speaker 1: Tell your kids, tell your spouses, tell your partners. Try Quints.
Speaker 1: Or if you're trying to figure out what to get
Speaker 1: your adult child, what to get your mom or dad,
Speaker 1: I'm telling you you're going to find something that is
Speaker 1: going to be comfortable for them on Quints. So get
Speaker 1: your wardrobe sorted and your gift list handled with quints.
Speaker 1: Don't wait. Go to quins dot com slash chuck for
Speaker 1: free shipping on your order and three hundred and sixty
Speaker 1: five day returns now available in Canada as well. That's
Speaker 1: qui nce dot com, slash chuck, free shipping and three
Speaker 1: hundred and sixty five day returns quints dot com slash chuck.
Speaker 1: Use that code. Joining me now to talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about reforming. Are the infrastructure of the democracy. If
Speaker 1: somebody I've had conversations with before, somebody I've known a
Speaker 1: long time, Nick Triano, he's the executive director of Unite America,
Speaker 1: are the organization that brought ranked choice voting to the
Speaker 1: state of Alaska in particular, had been fighting to get
Speaker 1: essentially to get rid of partisan primaries, whatever form that
Speaker 1: can be done. If it's ranked choice voting, it's ranked
Speaker 1: choice voting simply getting rid of the need for party registration.
Speaker 1: Then it's getting rid of the need for that. But
Speaker 1: it has been the through line of Nick's work. But
Speaker 1: I know that he's essentially been in this game. He look,
Speaker 1: he ran for Congress as an independent. He's he realized
Speaker 1: these barriers to entry were extraordinarily high. You know, if
Speaker 1: you're not a far left or a far right person,
Speaker 1: is there a home for you in American politics? Is
Speaker 1: there a home for you in primaries? And I think
Speaker 1: Nick has been devoting himself to trying to find that
Speaker 1: place for those of us that aren't stuck in the
Speaker 1: wings and joins me. Now, Nick, good to see you.
Speaker 1: Good to see you. Check. So let's start with sort
Speaker 1: of your This is United America. What are we up?
Speaker 2: Ten years coming up on ten years running the organization?
Speaker 2: And we're not more united than I than we started. However,
Speaker 2: we're still working on it.
Speaker 1: So look, the let's start with ranked choice voting because
Speaker 1: I think the first time you and I had a conversation,
Speaker 1: there was a lot of there's a lot of bullishness,
Speaker 1: a lot of excitement about the idea. It kind of
Speaker 1: worked right pretty It seemed like it worked the way
Speaker 1: it was supposed to work in Alaska, it worked the
Speaker 1: way many people were hoping it would work in New
Speaker 1: York City in twenty twenty one, and you know, the
Speaker 1: main experiment has been less successful because of the decision
Speaker 1: that main lawmakers made to to only have this somehow
Speaker 1: count for federal not for state, which is just a
Speaker 1: head scratcher. And frankly, I find the whole New York
Speaker 1: City setup. So the Democrats use rank choice voting, but
Speaker 1: that trust me, there are a lot of voters who
Speaker 1: wanted rank choice voting, I think during the general election.
Speaker 1: But I know, you know this, over the last four
Speaker 1: or five years, I feel like there's been a movement
Speaker 1: against it, even people that were supportive going It's hard
Speaker 1: to explain. You and I've had this conversation. I've always
Speaker 1: said it. You know, hey, as somebody who has walked
Speaker 1: people through election nights and talks about you know, vote
Speaker 1: dumps and things like that, explaining ranked choice voting. Getting
Speaker 1: it out of the black box is very difficult. So
Speaker 1: that's a long wind up. Where are you on this?
Speaker 1: Where's United America on rank choice voting? And is this
Speaker 1: a method that you still think is the answer?
Speaker 2: Well, I in you in America are focused on solving
Speaker 2: what we call the primary problem, which is the role
Speaker 2: that party primaries play in exacerbating our divisions in inc
Speaker 2: increasing dysfunction in government because they incentivize candidates and elected
Speaker 2: officials to play to the base of both parties in
Speaker 2: order to win the only elections that really matter these days,
Speaker 2: which is not the November election when most people vote,
Speaker 2: but the primaries when the candidates are nominated, because most
Speaker 2: districts and states right now lean so heavily one way
Speaker 2: or another. So that's the problem, in our view, low
Speaker 2: turnout party primaries dictating the outcomes of most elections before
Speaker 2: most Americans can even vote. The solution set for what
Speaker 2: we can do to solve that problem is varied, and
Speaker 2: when we talk about solutions to the primary problem, it
Speaker 2: could look like opening up party primaries so that all
Speaker 2: voters can participate, including independent voters that are currently locked
Speaker 2: out of primaries. In sixteen states. It can look like
Speaker 2: getting rid of party primaries and replacing it with all
Speaker 2: candidate primaries, so there's a single ballot in the primary,
Speaker 2: everyone gets to vote for whomever they want, and the
Speaker 2: top finishers go to the general election. There's a system
Speaker 2: that's called top two that's used in California and Washington
Speaker 2: for example, or what Alaska adopted in twenty twenty, which
Speaker 2: is a top four system. And when you advance four
Speaker 2: candidates from the primary to the general election, you want
Speaker 2: to ensure that one of them wins with majority support,
Speaker 2: not just plurality. And there are two ways of accomplishing that.
Speaker 2: One is you can hold a run off election if
Speaker 2: no one gets over fifty percent, or the other is
Speaker 2: you can have an instant runoff where people rank their
Speaker 2: candidates according to preference, and if no one gets a majority,
Speaker 2: there's a process of elimination using voters' backup choices. That's
Speaker 2: what ranked choice voting refers to specifically, which is the
Speaker 2: part of the reform in a top four primary that
Speaker 2: is focused on ensuring a majority winner. Ranked choice voting
Speaker 2: is used in other circumstances, and in our view, it's
Speaker 2: most powerful when it's combined with a reform to the
Speaker 2: primary system. So Alaska's reform is a top four primary
Speaker 2: reform plus ranked choice voting in the general election, and
Speaker 2: other places like New York City or Maine are what
Speaker 2: we would think of as partial reforms because they only
Speaker 2: have ranked choice voting and they don't really have any
Speaker 2: other kinds of reforms to the primary system that could
Speaker 2: improve governing incentives by widening the electorate.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about the mechanics of ranked choice voting, because
Speaker 1: I think that's been the stumbling block. Can you is
Speaker 1: there any way to make this feel more transparent where
Speaker 1: you feel like you can see I have not come
Speaker 1: up with one, but I'm curious if if you have,
Speaker 1: or you know of other folks who have tried.
Speaker 2: Well, there's two parts to the ranked choice voting process.
Speaker 2: There is the part where voters show up to the
Speaker 2: voting booth or get their ballot in the mail and
Speaker 2: they fill out their ballot. And that part is simple,
Speaker 2: which is you have the option of ranking your candidates
Speaker 2: or you can just vote for your favorite. And in
Speaker 2: all of our exit polling, we found that eighty plus
Speaker 2: percent of voters say that they find this simple to do,
Speaker 2: and that number goes up over time as people get
Speaker 2: used to it. The second part is how the votes
Speaker 2: are tabulated, and that is done by election administrators. They
Speaker 2: have a range of options for how they do it,
Speaker 2: and some jurisdictions in the country, particularly those that have
Speaker 2: been using it for a decade or more, have found
Speaker 2: ways that this can be an instantaneous process and it
Speaker 2: could be fully transparent, which is to say, they release
Speaker 2: the cast vote records so that there is a way
Speaker 2: that anyone can audit the results. There is a way
Speaker 2: to make sure that there's results delivered on election night,
Speaker 2: and there's ways of displaying the results that make it
Speaker 2: intuitive for people to understand exactly what happens at each
Speaker 2: round of the tabulation. So the charge sometimes that it's
Speaker 2: a complicated or confusing system is really used by opponents
Speaker 2: to say, you know, let's not change the way that
Speaker 2: the elections are currently working, because the current way works
Speaker 2: for them, It works for the two major parties, it
Speaker 2: works for the incumbent politician. They're afraid of change. But
Speaker 2: you know, election reforms like the ones we champion have
Speaker 2: been used successfully in America and abroad for many years,
Speaker 2: and it's a necessary part of what's going to take
Speaker 2: to foster a more functional and representative government.
Speaker 1: Look, I am, I am. If we could get if
Speaker 1: we could go to a top four I fully believe
Speaker 1: we should be a top four democracy. I'd love to
Speaker 1: see that in our presidential race, you know where and
Speaker 1: then and that I wouldn't do rank choice. I think
Speaker 1: the country suite, there's a runoff, then the top two
Speaker 1: face off, we have one more debate, like there's a runoff,
Speaker 1: right Like it feels like that that is that we
Speaker 1: you know, we wouldn't have a big drop in you know,
Speaker 1: the concern and when we got rid of general election runoffs,
Speaker 1: the concern is always, well, you're not going to have
Speaker 1: a good turnout. Well that's not true anymore. I mean,
Speaker 1: my god, I look at the special election in Tennessee
Speaker 1: earlier this during the early part of December, and for
Speaker 1: a special election in December, you know, there were something
Speaker 1: like one hundred and fifty thousand total votes. I mean
Speaker 1: that's impressive for that. I mean, I think the engagement
Speaker 1: with the democracy, and you know, I think there's a
Speaker 1: I think there's a commentary about our country that our
Speaker 1: electric gets engaged when when they when they think they
Speaker 1: feel it slipping away. But you know, it turns out
Speaker 1: that apathy was a sign of stability. But it is,
Speaker 1: so I don't mind that. What but if we had
Speaker 1: thirty states holding runoffs but the other twenty didn't, then
Speaker 1: I could see that that would be an issue.
Speaker 2: Well, runoffs get a bad rap for some good reasons,
Speaker 2: including that they have been used historically in ways to
Speaker 2: dis It.
Speaker 1: Was about denying black representation in the South, right, That's
Speaker 1: why why did we have Southern runoffs. Every Southern state
Speaker 1: had runoffs for one reason, and one reason only, to
Speaker 1: prevent black people and winning elections.
Speaker 2: And two things can be true, which is that there
Speaker 2: are systems that have runoffs today that don't necessarily have
Speaker 2: that negative impact that you actually do see turnout increase
Speaker 2: in the runoff. That is the case in Louisiana, for example,
Speaker 2: in their governor's races. Louisiana has a very interesting election
Speaker 2: system where there is effectively no primary. There is a
Speaker 2: general election. Everyone gets to be on the ballot. They're
Speaker 2: kind of top two, right, and if no one gets majority,
Speaker 2: there's a runoff. And so in that case, the top
Speaker 2: two finishers advance, or if someone gets a majority of
Speaker 2: the vote. It's a one and done election. And by
Speaker 2: the way, it's simpler for election administrators, it's simpler for voters,
Speaker 2: and it's better for democracy because the election that matters
Speaker 2: is the one in which most people are already voting,
Speaker 2: and so you get a more representative outcome and there's
Speaker 2: not this initial primary filter. We're only ten percent of voters,
Speaker 2: who are usually on the most extreme fringes of the
Speaker 2: political spectrum, are deciding you know, election outcomes, and so
Speaker 2: this will set wonky and maybe mechanical to people, but
Speaker 2: it has an impact on public policy because when you
Speaker 2: look at Louisiana, it's one of the only Deep South.
Speaker 2: It is the only Deep South state that's expanded medicaid,
Speaker 2: for example, and was one of the first states to
Speaker 2: really lean into charter school reform. And when you think
Speaker 2: about the purpose of government and is it representing people,
Speaker 2: in Louisiana, more citizens have access to healthcare and too
Speaker 2: education than a lot of other pure states. And the
Speaker 2: reason for that is they have a more functional political
Speaker 2: system with leaders who are intended and focused on solving
Speaker 2: problems rather than just these partisan squabbles every day. And
Speaker 2: so performing our elections improve incentives. But ultimately improves governance
Speaker 2: so that we can solve problems that matter to people.
Speaker 1: Of course, I think Bill Cassidy wishes that they would
Speaker 1: have kept the old system, but now they're going to
Speaker 1: go to a primary system, which certainly complicates his path
Speaker 1: to renomination. Let's talk about where you're active on the
Speaker 1: playing field here. What's the status in Alaska and what's
Speaker 1: the status in Nevada. I know, those are two places
Speaker 1: that you've been active. And where else are you guys
Speaker 1: active in trying to expand access to primaries.
Speaker 2: So Alaska is a great success story for primary reform
Speaker 2: because after the state adopted it through the ballot initiative
Speaker 2: process in twenty twenty, it's now gone through two election
Speaker 2: cycles where more voters than ever before have been able
Speaker 2: to cast what we call a meaningful ballot, you know,
Speaker 2: which is a ballot in election that's truly competitive in
Speaker 2: which of their vote matters. And that resulted in Chuck Is.
Speaker 2: The State House and the State Senate now have bipartisan
Speaker 2: governing majorities. It's not just one party that's in charge.
Speaker 2: There's a coalition of members Democrats, Republicans, and independents by
Speaker 2: the way, that are working together. To address the problems
Speaker 2: important to the state, most recently overriding a governor's veto
Speaker 2: to increase education funding. And so Alaska's been a success
Speaker 2: story of how better elections result in better governance, and
Speaker 2: it's produced a backlash from those who used to be
Speaker 2: in power and liked elections when it only represented a
Speaker 2: handful of people, And so they've been trying to repeal
Speaker 2: this system. They were unsuccessful in that last year, a
Speaker 2: majority of voters in Alaska voted to defend the system,
Speaker 2: and opponents are going to likely try again next year.
Speaker 2: And I suspect that support for the system is going
Speaker 2: to continue to grow over time, not just because people
Speaker 2: in theory like the concept of the freedom to vote
Speaker 2: for whomever they want, but now they're getting real and
Speaker 2: better results from the system that they voted in a
Speaker 2: few years ago.
Speaker 1: Did you think you were going to have to fight
Speaker 1: multiple election years in Alaska to keep this system in place.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's a surprise that every action has
Speaker 2: an equal opposite reaction. There's the forces of trying to
Speaker 2: make government better fighting against the forces that are trying
Speaker 2: to protect the status quo. I think that the period
Speaker 2: of defense is most important in the immediate years after
Speaker 2: the adoption of reform, but that it gets better over
Speaker 2: time because the new incumbents, there are those elected under
Speaker 2: this system who actually like it and want to defend it.
Speaker 2: And so it's not the legislature that's trying to repeal it, right,
Speaker 2: it's a small faction of partisan activists that are.
Speaker 1: The other perception problem rank choice voting has, and I
Speaker 1: say it's a perception problem because it obviously depends on
Speaker 1: where you sit, is that it appears to have benefited
Speaker 1: the center left more than it has benefited anybody on
Speaker 1: the right.
Speaker 2: Well, I think the challenge that we saw in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty two was that the candidates who were running the
Speaker 2: two Republicans, were late to adopt their campaign strategies to
Speaker 2: this new system. So instead of telling voters vote for
Speaker 2: me first and the other Republican second, they ran against
Speaker 2: the system that the voters just adopted. And so without
Speaker 2: that adoption of a new strategy to build broad coalitions,
Speaker 2: a moderate Democrat, Mary Potola, you know, was able to
Speaker 2: win that US House race. By the way, a couple
Speaker 2: of years later, voters voted differently, and the Republican now
Speaker 2: represents that US House seat. So I do think that
Speaker 2: there's this transition period in which the parties and the
Speaker 2: politicians have to get smarter in how they campaign under
Speaker 2: the new rules of the system rather than campaigning under
Speaker 2: what the old rules used to be.
Speaker 1: So that's Alaska. So you're likely having a is it
Speaker 1: the same ball on initiative that the opponents are putting
Speaker 1: up or are they rewarded.
Speaker 2: It they actually expanded what they're trying to repeal to
Speaker 2: include repealing dark money disclosure requirements that were originally passed
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Oh wow, that actually helps your cause. People don't like
Speaker 1: dark money.
Speaker 2: People don't like dark money, and they don't like party primaries,
Speaker 2: and they don't like plurality winners and elections, and so
Speaker 2: opponents are trying to do something unpopular for the sake
Speaker 2: of protecting, you know, what was their own political power.
Speaker 2: And I'm confident that the system will continue to endure
Speaker 2: and be a proof of concept that other states could
Speaker 2: potentially replicate. And that's what we did see in last
Speaker 2: year's elections. You know, multiple other states pursued ballot initiatives
Speaker 2: for an Alaska style kind of system, and while none passed,
Speaker 2: three states came within three percentage points of passing in
Speaker 2: a pretty to.
Speaker 1: Be honest, though, five years ago, I thought all of
Speaker 1: those were going to get pass easily. You know, I
Speaker 1: remember when we were first talking, and you know, you're like, yeah,
Speaker 1: we got to do Nevada twice. You were pretty you
Speaker 1: had you were kind of bullish about Missouri, I believe
Speaker 1: if I'm not mistaken, And it did seem as if
Speaker 1: the opponents got savvier in pushing back at you guys
Speaker 1: in Nevada and elsewhere.
Speaker 2: Well, what we're up against is the two party duopoly
Speaker 2: that wants to.
Speaker 1: Protect actually working with each other in this one.
Speaker 2: Right, it was Democrats that spent over fifteen million dollars
Speaker 2: against this in Alaska and Republicans who spent over seven
Speaker 2: million in Montana to try and fight it, and they
Speaker 2: would sort of weaponize the issue and say like, actually,
Speaker 2: these reforms are about the stocking horse for the other party. Well,
Speaker 2: they both can't be right when they're saying that, And
Speaker 2: so we have work to do to build more early
Speaker 2: and durable support among voters for these policies. We don't
Speaker 2: need to convince anyone that our political system is broken.
Speaker 2: What we do need to do is educate voters about
Speaker 2: the benefits of these systems and why it is worth
Speaker 2: a change. And as you know, the threshold of getting
Speaker 2: a voter to vote yes on an initiative is much
Speaker 2: harder than getting them to vote no, because you have
Speaker 2: to kind of prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2: And I think that's the task that we've signed up
Speaker 2: for and we're going to continue to work on because
Speaker 2: the status quo is unacceptable and it's leaving us in
Speaker 2: a direction in which we're seeing our politics.
Speaker 1: Unravel even further. Having good life insurance is incredibly important.
Speaker 1: I know from personal experience. I was sixteen when my
Speaker 1: father passed away. We didn't have any money. He didn't
Speaker 1: leave us in the best shape. My mother, single mother,
Speaker 1: now widow, myself sixteen trying to figure out how am
Speaker 1: I going to pay for college and lo and behold,
Speaker 1: my dad had one life insurance policy that we found
Speaker 1: wasn't a lot, but it was important at the time,
Speaker 1: and it's why I was able to go to college.
Speaker 1: Little did he know how important that would be in
Speaker 1: that moment. Well, guess what. That's why I am here
Speaker 1: to tell you about Etho's life. They can provide you
Speaker 1: with peace of mind knowing your family is protected even
Speaker 1: if the worst comes to pass. Ethos is an online
Speaker 1: platform that makes getting life insurance fast and easy, all
Speaker 1: designed to protect your family's future in minutes, not months.
Speaker 1: There's no complicated process, and it's one hundred percent online.
Speaker 1: There's no medical exam require you just answer a few
Speaker 1: health questions online. You can get a quote in as
Speaker 1: little as ten minutes, and you can get same day
Speaker 1: coverage without ever leaving your home. You can get up
Speaker 1: to three million dollars in coverage, and some policy start
Speaker 1: as low as two dollars a day that would be
Speaker 1: billed monthly. As of March twenty twenty five, Business Insider
Speaker 1: named Ethos the number one no medical exam instant life
Speaker 1: insurance provider. So protect your family with life insurance from Ethos.
Speaker 1: Get your free quoted ethos dot com slash chuck. So again,
Speaker 1: that's Ethos dot com slash chuck. Application times may vary
Speaker 1: and the rates themselves may vary as well, but trust me,
Speaker 1: life insurance is something you should really think about, especially
Speaker 1: if you've got a growing family. So if I were
Speaker 1: in your shoes, I'd actually think that this is about
Speaker 1: as opportunistic of a period of a year as you
Speaker 1: can have. And when you think about the re redistricting wards,
Speaker 1: it is taking you know, the issue of political party
Speaker 1: manipulation and putting it right in the voter's face. Right,
Speaker 1: so you know, I throw that in there. You throw
Speaker 1: in that the electorate that you're like to get in
Speaker 1: a midterm environment is an electorate that's going to be
Speaker 1: more open to changes in the primary system. I think
Speaker 1: that electric you would get in a mega induced environment.
Speaker 1: I think we think you know where I'm going there.
Speaker 1: So what states do you expect to be on the
Speaker 1: ballot in trying to do primary reform?
Speaker 2: And is it.
Speaker 1: And let me know and differentiate whether it'll be the
Speaker 1: top four or it's just open primaries, et cetera.
Speaker 2: There is a lot of activity happening in the movement
Speaker 2: to reform our politics. There is litigation happening to open
Speaker 2: close primaries in states like Maryland or Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: I'm convinced there's an equal protection argument on this. I
Speaker 1: do not the idea that the tax that there is
Speaker 1: a poll tax against me as an independent voter, and
Speaker 1: there's you're telling me that the only way I could
Speaker 1: participate in a taxpayer funded election, is I have to
Speaker 1: join a private club. I believe that's a poll tax.
Speaker 1: I don't see how that's constitutional.
Speaker 2: It's certainly not in our belief under many state constitutions
Speaker 2: that have even more protection for voter rights than maybe
Speaker 2: the federal constitution. And so there's work happening on that.
Speaker 2: There's work happening in legislatures to at least open the primaries.
Speaker 1: To all voters.
Speaker 2: We saw earlier this year in New Mexico, after a
Speaker 2: multi year campaign, there was a bipartisan bill that passed
Speaker 2: to allow unaffiliated voters to start to participate in party
Speaker 2: primaries starting next year, over three hundred and thirty thousand
Speaker 2: of them. And then, of course there's the ballot initiative pathway,
Speaker 2: and there's at least two states where local groups are
Speaker 2: pursuing the top two all candidate primary initiative, and that's
Speaker 2: in both Massachusetts and Oklahoma. Two very different states politically,
Speaker 2: but what they have in common is that all of
Speaker 2: their congressional seats are decided in the party primaries, and
Speaker 2: in Oklahoma those are closed to unaffiliated voters. And so
Speaker 2: those are two states I think to be watching for
Speaker 2: and to your point, the environment has never been more
Speaker 2: ripe because our political system has never been more dysfunctional.
Speaker 2: We've just emerged from the longest government shutdown that we've
Speaker 2: seen in history, motivated by you know, in this case,
Speaker 2: democratic leaders who just want to fight. I mean, that's
Speaker 2: what this has become. I mean, the word of the
Speaker 2: year the Oxford Dictionary new word is rage bait. That's
Speaker 2: reflective of where our politics is.
Speaker 1: Right. I'm still trying to understand how the word of
Speaker 1: the year is two words.
Speaker 2: But that's a good question. But that's reflective of our politics,
Speaker 2: which is it's about playing to the base. It's about
Speaker 2: demonstrating the fight, not about solving problems. And that's why
Speaker 2: this primary problem, the incentives, is behind so much of
Speaker 2: the dysfunction that we see, our inability to solve problems.
Speaker 2: Another issue we can look at is immigration. As you know, Chuck,
Speaker 2: a decade ago, there was a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform
Speaker 2: bill that passed the Senate, it goes to the House.
Speaker 2: Why does it fail? Well, the House majority leader was
Speaker 2: primaried out of office that summer because he was open
Speaker 2: to some compromise on this issue. And then here we
Speaker 2: are a decade of pendulum politics. We had, you know,
Speaker 2: effectively open borders under the Bided administration, and now we
Speaker 2: have ice raids with even American citizens being snatched off
Speaker 2: the streets under President Trump. People don't want these extreme
Speaker 2: policies that we've been seeing of late. They want these
Speaker 2: issues to be addressed in a sensible way. That's not
Speaker 2: going to happen until we change the incentives of our
Speaker 2: political system.
Speaker 1: You and I go back, i think almost two decades now,
Speaker 1: our mutual mentor the late Doug Bailey, and you know
Speaker 1: you've been in this. You've been in this what I
Speaker 1: call radical centrism, you know, movement for some time. I
Speaker 1: use that phrase. I'm going to be a bit self
Speaker 1: referential and name drop here. Bono called me a radical
Speaker 1: centrist one time at a salon dinner that we were
Speaker 1: at together, and I said, are you I'm going to
Speaker 1: take it as a compliments. Okay, he wasn't, because it's
Speaker 1: sort of a compliment. He goes, there's sometimes that I
Speaker 1: wish you would take up this cause here, this cause there.
Speaker 1: And I always say I'm not a centrist. I'm an incrementalist,
Speaker 1: meaning that are some things I'm on the left and
Speaker 1: some things. I'm on the right, but I know that
Speaker 1: the only way to make change in America is one
Speaker 1: step at a time. And I don't think you try
Speaker 1: to do big things. You try to do baby steps
Speaker 1: and eventually you get your hockey stick moment. Why do
Speaker 1: you think it's been so hard to galvanize the frustrated
Speaker 1: center in America?
Speaker 2: Well, first I would, I would. I was also say
Speaker 2: on this topic of what you know, what is the
Speaker 2: ideology of this movement that wants to make politics better?
Speaker 2: I think centrism comes short in describing it because it
Speaker 2: really is not about living in what many people view
Speaker 2: as a mushy middle.
Speaker 1: It is about no, it's not about just everything's a compromise.
Speaker 1: It's just that it's that's not what it is. That's
Speaker 1: why I always say no, no, no, no. I'm an incrementalist,
Speaker 1: you know. I empathize with your idea on here, let's
Speaker 1: try with let's try one step.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's about also people that want to find common
Speaker 2: grounds and no matter where you are in the political spectrum,
Speaker 2: you can work with others to see what you have
Speaker 2: in common to actually get something done. And that's how
Speaker 2: the biggest, most durable change that we've seen as a
Speaker 2: country work. You know, when we look at the landmark
Speaker 2: pieces of legislation that have passed the Congress, whether that
Speaker 2: was civil rights or social security, or medicare or welfare
Speaker 2: reform and a balanced budget, these things were votes of
Speaker 2: a majority of both parties doing it together and to
Speaker 2: be sustainable, not what we're seeing today. The promise of
Speaker 2: primary reform is that for every state that adopts it,
Speaker 2: it effectively liberates both senators and the representatives from those
Speaker 2: states from being beholden to the base to being representative
Speaker 2: of the whole. And so you don't need to win
Speaker 2: in all fifty states. If we can abolish party primaries
Speaker 2: in tense states, that's twenty US senators. It's a fifth
Speaker 2: of the Senate that actually can have more leaders who
Speaker 2: are willing to work with each other on issues of
Speaker 2: national importance. That's never been more important for the country.
Speaker 2: When I think about where we're at right now facing
Speaker 2: the rise of artificial intelligence, whether we get this right
Speaker 2: in terms of setting the right rules for the road,
Speaker 2: having the right overset in place, making the right investments,
Speaker 2: that's going to be hugely consequential for our economy and
Speaker 2: national security. In our society. And if we don't have
Speaker 2: a representative Congress that can do that, other countries will,
Speaker 2: or the corporations themselves will, and we're all going to
Speaker 2: be worse off for it. So whether we have a
Speaker 2: Congress that works affects us all. And the reason why
Speaker 2: it doesn't today is not just because of this partisan paralysis.
Speaker 2: It's because without competitive elections, we wind up getting career
Speaker 2: politicians who stay in office for way too long. We
Speaker 2: have a quarter of the Congress that's over the retirement age,
Speaker 2: over a third of the sentence above age seventy. It's
Speaker 2: how we get congressional hearings where they're asking about tik
Speaker 2: tak instead of TikTok. And these aren't the folks that
Speaker 2: we needed making the decisions that are going to affect
Speaker 2: maybe the biggest transformation our economy and society, you know,
Speaker 2: going forward.
Speaker 1: The biggest difficulty I have and I'll just speak for myself,
Speaker 1: and I'm curious where you're where you are on this
Speaker 1: what I'm about to bring up, which is I am
Speaker 1: I am easily persuaded in the reform movement, right. I
Speaker 1: think there's a lot of I'm I look at the
Speaker 1: last sort of crisis moments in American history, and each
Speaker 1: one of them came with serious periods of reform. You know,
Speaker 1: after the Civil War, during the basically after the Gilded Age,
Speaker 1: and the and the and the robber barons right after,
Speaker 1: you know, during and after FDR and you know, both
Speaker 1: for good and for bad, right like when, and so
Speaker 1: I'm optimistic that we're about to hit one of those
Speaker 1: periods that we know, Look, we've got to do something
Speaker 1: about the pardon power. We've got to do something. You know,
Speaker 1: it's clear the Constitution is going to have to deal
Speaker 1: with campaign finance issues because you can't do it legislatively.
Speaker 1: And we've got to deal with age limits. Right, I'm
Speaker 1: all for this age issue, but they're only you have
Speaker 1: to do it in the Constitution. So the point is
Speaker 1: is that I'm I can be I'm almost like a
Speaker 1: squirrel with this. I'm like, oh I like that reform.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I want to do this. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of I've been you you go to these gatherings too.
Speaker 1: I get invited to many of these sort of gatherings,
Speaker 1: whether it's a fledgling third party movement, a fledgling reform movement,
Speaker 1: you know, those advocating a constitutional convention. The folks at
Speaker 1: the Forward Party. You've got the World Open Primaries, which
Speaker 1: is another organization that's working in a similar fashion. I
Speaker 1: know there's a loose connectivity between these groups, right you guys,
Speaker 1: You know you're all rowing in the same direction. But
Speaker 1: everybody has their own sort of laying in their own thing.
Speaker 1: And maybe it's you already are biased that you have
Speaker 1: got to start. Do you think you feel like there
Speaker 1: is an order to the reform that's necessary here, that
Speaker 1: you know, before we get to X, we've got to
Speaker 1: do why, and before we get to why, we got
Speaker 1: to do Z.
Speaker 2: Well, I think two things are true. One is, we
Speaker 2: have a beautiful system of federalism in our country, and
Speaker 2: we can do this in an experimental way at the
Speaker 2: state level. I mean, and that is the way that
Speaker 2: these reforms have gotten done in the past and will today,
Speaker 2: which is states can change these rules without an Act
Speaker 2: of Congress or a constitutional amendment, and by virtue of
Speaker 2: building momentum around reform, it will put more pressure on
Speaker 2: Congress and potentially create an environment in which constitutional change
Speaker 2: is possible. So I think the state by state route
Speaker 2: is both a strategy and an opportunity to try different things.
Speaker 2: And the second thing is I and we did not
Speaker 2: start with primary reform as being our north star. We
Speaker 2: got there through examining what sits at the center of
Speaker 2: both what is most viable and could be most impactful.
Speaker 2: And I do think that abolishing party primaries is the
Speaker 2: biggest possible change that we can make right now that
Speaker 2: can open the window for other potential changes down the road,
Speaker 2: particularly changes that will require legislatures to do something, because
Speaker 2: for them to do something on this issue, they need
Speaker 2: to be more representative of the population who supports these
Speaker 2: reforms than they are today. So I both support an
Speaker 2: experimental approach to this, and we support primary reform for
Speaker 2: a very particular reason, which I do think it is
Speaker 2: the most solvable problem right now.
Speaker 1: Well, and that's the key, which is what's a problem
Speaker 1: you could solve first? And I think there's no doubt
Speaker 1: about that. This feels like a you know again, I
Speaker 1: called myself an incrementalist. This is an incremental step that
Speaker 1: could actually, you know, open the door to a whole
Speaker 1: bunch more of ideas. Do you find yourself frustrated that
Speaker 1: other reform minded folks don't see this as the core problem.
Speaker 2: I think I was frustrated in year one when we're
Speaker 2: you know, or year two, when we're back at the
Speaker 2: same table and arguing no this one, no this one,
Speaker 2: and realize, like we're thirty people in the room, there's
Speaker 2: three hundred and fifty million people out there. Those are
Speaker 2: the folks that we need to be kind of talking to.
Speaker 2: And so my orientation changed, like this is a positive
Speaker 2: sum approach to a movement. You know, when you look
Speaker 2: at the environmental movement or other movements, there's not just
Speaker 2: one policy that they're behind. It's a diversified approach, including
Speaker 2: what could be done on the state or federal level.
Speaker 2: And so it doesn't frustrate me that there are multiple
Speaker 2: potential pathways to making our democracy better. The thing that's
Speaker 2: frustrating to me is around apathy or defense of the
Speaker 2: status quo, because can anyone look around today and say, oh, no,
Speaker 2: this is actually fine and we're moving in an okayed direction.
Speaker 2: If you can't, then then choose something, choose one of
Speaker 2: these things to be for and get behind it, because
Speaker 2: I don't think the path that we're on, you know,
Speaker 2: is sustainable.
Speaker 1: What's been you know, there's a lot of statistics that
Speaker 1: show that the youngest voting generation is not registering D
Speaker 1: or R. The registering is I or no party affiliation.
Speaker 1: So in theory, this should be the core of the
Speaker 1: activists that you're able to recruit to make this change.
Speaker 1: Are you making some inroads? Is this something that can
Speaker 1: be turned into a something that's galvanizable with the college crowd.
Speaker 2: I do believe that. And what we saw last year
Speaker 2: was that the number one predictor for voters that would
Speaker 2: support election reform at the ballot was not by party affiliation,
Speaker 2: It was really by age. Younger voters disproportionately in favor
Speaker 2: of changes to a political system they've only known as
Speaker 2: been broken, and older voter sort of more hesitant around
Speaker 2: any potential changes to a system they've known the same
Speaker 2: way while all of their lives. And that's good news,
Speaker 2: because young voters become all voters and just a question
Speaker 2: of time. And so I think time is a really
Speaker 2: important lever here when you look back, as you reference
Speaker 2: before to the progressive era when we got major reforms done,
Speaker 2: the women won the right to vote, direct election of
Speaker 2: the Senate, banning of corporate campaign contributions, income the big
Speaker 2: party primaries.
Speaker 1: People don't realize the income tax amendment was important because
Speaker 1: it also helped create the property tax structure in America,
Speaker 1: which is, you know, how we fund so many local services.
Speaker 2: And that didn't happen in just a couple of years.
Speaker 2: That was a thirty year period of time. And so
Speaker 2: when I think about, Oh, Alaska won this transformational reform
Speaker 2: four years ago, it suggests to me we're at the
Speaker 2: beginning of a very exciting decade plus era of reform
Speaker 2: in reaction to you know, historic levels of polarization and partisanship.
Speaker 2: The country knows is just not working for them right now.
Speaker 1: You know, we've sort of danced around this issue, but
Speaker 1: the biggest opponent to everything you're trying to do is
Speaker 1: the duopoly, and it's you know, the Democrats and party
Speaker 1: in the Republican Party doesn't really work together on anything
Speaker 1: other than this right, which is sort of protecting their
Speaker 1: status at the ballot. You can sometimes win over local
Speaker 1: members of a party or local party organizations if they're
Speaker 1: in a state where they've been marginalized. But I imagine
Speaker 1: donors are hard to come by because a donor usually
Speaker 1: is a partisan right. They usually are passionate about something.
Speaker 1: Is it hard to find people passionate in the very
Speaker 1: wealthy space about reform.
Speaker 2: Well unit in America over the years is built across
Speaker 2: partisan community. Now over one hundred and twenty what we
Speaker 2: call political philanthropists, and many of them have not traditionally
Speaker 2: been partisan donors investing in politics for a partisan outcome.
Speaker 2: That's fine, but there's been a lot of people on
Speaker 2: who have come into this movement because their interest is
Speaker 2: not trying to elect or oppose one political party or another.
Speaker 2: It's about people who have been philanthropically mind who care
Speaker 2: about an issue, that knows we're not going to make
Speaker 2: progress on that issue, but for government being able to
Speaker 2: be functional and representative of the electorates. So I would
Speaker 2: say it's a different profile oftentimes of a donor that
Speaker 2: gets involved in this space and from across the political
Speaker 2: spectrum as well. It's really interesting in this work, not
Speaker 2: just at our team or board level, but also in
Speaker 2: the donor community of people that may not agree a
Speaker 2: lot on particular candidates or particular policies, but we do
Speaker 2: agree that government should represent a true majority of Americans.
Speaker 2: And then let's have the argument once we have, you know,
Speaker 2: a government that can represent us.
Speaker 1: I know you said in a few states where there's
Speaker 1: not a referendum option that you're trying to work in
Speaker 1: the state legislature, obviously you have to go with the
Speaker 1: lowest common denominator. Stuff is it? Is it simply allowing
Speaker 1: independence in primaries. That's about the about the best you
Speaker 1: can hope for in convincing a legislature to do something
Speaker 1: in the near term.
Speaker 2: I do think that legislatories will take more time to
Speaker 2: bring along to more ambitious reforms. But let's remember that
Speaker 2: California adopted it's all candidate primary system by legislative referral,
Speaker 2: so some states legislators might be willing to at least
Speaker 2: put it on the ballot. It takes leadership, though Governor
Speaker 2: Schwarzenegger was instrumental, you know, in that campaign. And when
Speaker 2: I look at incoming governors like an Abigail Spandberger who
Speaker 2: serves in you know, have one term in Virginia, maybe
Speaker 2: this is something that schol champion is part of her
Speaker 2: legacy there to say this will be good for the
Speaker 2: commonwealth out into the future. Let's get this done. I
Speaker 2: think when we have executive leadership that leans into the issue,
Speaker 2: legislatures may be more likely to follow.
Speaker 1: Do you hate hangovers, We'll say goodbye to hangovers. Out
Speaker 1: of Office gives you the social buzz without the next
Speaker 1: day regret. They're best selling. Out of Office gummies were
Speaker 1: designed to provide a mild, relaxing buzz, boost your mood,
Speaker 1: and enhance creativity and relaxation. With five different strengths, you
Speaker 1: can tailor the dose to fit your vibe, from a
Speaker 1: gentle one point five milligram micro dose to their newest
Speaker 1: fifteen milligram gummy for a more elevated experience. Their THHC
Speaker 1: beverages and gummies are a modern, mindful alternative to a
Speaker 1: glass of wine or a cocktail. And I'll tell you this,
Speaker 1: I've given up booze. I don't like the hangovers. I
Speaker 1: prefer the gummy experience. Soul is a wellness brand that
Speaker 1: believes feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes
Speaker 1: in delicious, derive, THHC and CBD products, all designed to
Speaker 1: boost your mood and simply help you unwind. So if
Speaker 1: you struggle to switch off at night. So also as
Speaker 1: a variety of products specifically designed to just simply help
Speaker 1: you get a better night's sleep, including their top selling
Speaker 1: Sleepy gummies. It's a fan favorite for deep restorative sleep.
Speaker 1: So bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to
Speaker 1: Sold today. Right now, Soul is offering my audience thirty
Speaker 1: percent off your entire order. So go to get sold
Speaker 1: dot Com use the promo code toodcast. Don't forget that code.
Speaker 1: That's get sold dot Com promo code toodcast for thirty
Speaker 1: percent off. Look, I mean, I'm just ecstatic that is
Speaker 1: a Virginia voter. I don't have to register by party,
Speaker 1: and I at least get a choice what primary, you know,
Speaker 1: and I always just find the competitive primary and I
Speaker 1: vote in it. So I you know, Virginia is a
Speaker 1: place where I where you feel like, no matter where
Speaker 1: what your ideological stripe is, you at least have some
Speaker 1: say in the conversation. But Virginia may also repeal a
Speaker 1: constitutional amendment on redistricting reform in a couple of months,
Speaker 1: and California just did it, and I look at what
Speaker 1: happened there. There was real momentum on redistricting reform just
Speaker 1: four or five years ago. And I would bet frankly
Speaker 1: that movement had more momentum than your movement did. We
Speaker 1: were part of that. Actually, yeah, for me, but it
Speaker 1: had a and and it's amazing how that flipped that quickly.
Speaker 1: Are you at all I mean, are you at all
Speaker 1: demoralized at how people who are reformers are going? Yeah,
Speaker 1: but on this, I mean I just have struggled, you know,
Speaker 1: And I've had this debate with friends out in California.
Speaker 1: I said, Look, I just don't understand why. If disenfranchising
Speaker 1: voters in Texas is bad, why is the answer disenfranchising
Speaker 1: voters in California.
Speaker 2: I'm with you. I think fighting fire with fire means
Speaker 2: everything just burned and is down. So it was not
Speaker 2: in favor of what California is expression. However, the instinct,
Speaker 2: which is that I get it, I get it, yep.
Speaker 2: And I also think it's important to bring it back
Speaker 2: to why it's happening. When Texas redistricted, when Missouri followed suit,
Speaker 2: and now there's pressure in Indiana. It's because the president
Speaker 2: right now is weaponizing the primary system to get it done.
Speaker 2: When he goes sweeps into a state, it is get this,
Speaker 2: find me five more seats, or I'm going to primary
Speaker 2: you in your next election. So I think it's important
Speaker 2: we connect the dots back to the political incentives piece,
Speaker 2: which is how primaries can be weaponized not just to
Speaker 2: push people to the extremes, but to push them to
Speaker 2: do undemocratic things to consolidate power. The opposite is true
Speaker 2: as well, or the other side of the coin, which
Speaker 2: is that if we didn't have party primaries, this challenge
Speaker 2: of safe districts or districts that are heavily lopside would
Speaker 2: matter less, Chuck, because there would be more competition in
Speaker 2: the general election if we advanced more than two candidates
Speaker 2: rather than what it is you know right now. And
Speaker 2: so I think the answer to.
Speaker 1: Go ahead and create a partisan right, go ahead and
Speaker 1: create a partisan plus twenty district in California. At least
Speaker 1: there'll be a top two in the same party, and
Speaker 1: then they fight over you know, you know, left versus center.
Speaker 1: I mean, I always thought Berman Sherman was the first
Speaker 1: one of these, and it was Howard Berman and Brad Sherman.
Speaker 1: They got redistricted into the same thing together and they
Speaker 1: both advanced to the they were in the top two, and
Speaker 1: so it was a d on d general election. And
Speaker 1: I remember the dividing issue was actually tart at the time,
Speaker 1: and one of them had been you know, voted against it.
Speaker 1: One of them voted for it, and that essentially they
Speaker 1: were wooing the third of Republicans that were in their district. Right,
Speaker 1: they were both Democrats, and there was a third of
Speaker 1: Republicans that were the swing voter. And I thought, boy,
Speaker 1: that that could really if if we could have that
Speaker 1: system everywhere where, at any point in time, even if
Speaker 1: you're in the minority, you your vote could be the
Speaker 1: swing vote. You get to decide do I want, you know,
Speaker 1: do I want a libertarian conservative or do I want
Speaker 1: a evangelical conservative? Right? And if that's the two choices, well,
Speaker 1: I you know, it may not like either, but I
Speaker 1: have a preference of which I want less, you know exactly. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you think about it.
Speaker 2: The midterm elections that we're going to go into in
Speaker 2: ninety percent of the districts, these elections are over before
Speaker 2: people show up in November, and their vote, if they
Speaker 2: cast it really doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: We're going to have a one hundred and ten million,
Speaker 1: you know, I think we'll get one hundred and ten
Speaker 1: million midterm voters, maybe one hundred and fifteen. It's turnout.
Speaker 1: It's been amazing in the Trump era again, and maybe
Speaker 1: there'll be thirty five congressional seats decided by ten points
Speaker 1: or less out of four hundred and thirty five maybe.
Speaker 2: So that's tens of millions of people. You know, who
Speaker 2: is A vote effectively does not matter. It's impooring people vote,
Speaker 2: but on participation without competition does not result in representation.
Speaker 2: If we want your vote to matter, you have to
Speaker 2: have a choice that is real. And so the idea
Speaker 2: that in red districts you get to choose what kind
Speaker 2: of Republican you want, during blue districts, what kind of
Speaker 2: Democrat you want in the general election, is much better
Speaker 2: than showing up to an election that's already been decided.
Speaker 1: You know, it's funny. I grew up growing up in Miami.
Speaker 1: I grew up in the seventies and eighties, and I
Speaker 1: remember my dad was a Republican Conservative, but he was
Speaker 1: a registered Democrat. And I remember asking, and I said,
Speaker 1: why are you Originally he says, well, there's no Republicans
Speaker 1: down here because at the time the South, this was
Speaker 1: back in the seventieswer every politician in the South, everybody
Speaker 1: was a Democrat, but half the Democrats were really Republicans.
Speaker 1: But all the local offices, he said if I want
Speaker 1: to have to say in local primaries, you know I
Speaker 1: got to vote. So in some ways, conservatives, older conservatives
Speaker 1: in the South have actually been participating in primaries this
Speaker 1: way for a long time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, it all boils down to the idea
Speaker 2: that every American should have the freedom to vote fro
Speaker 2: whenever they want and every taxpayer funded election period. Right
Speaker 2: seventy eighty percent of voters, regardless of party, believe in that.
Speaker 2: In addition, though to the attacks on redistricting, what we're
Speaker 2: also seeing in nine states right now is attempts by
Speaker 2: legislators to close the primaries and actually start to register
Speaker 2: voters by party in order to do so. That is
Speaker 2: extremely unpopular. I mean, we just released a poll today
Speaker 2: from Republican polster in Texas that found two thirds of
Speaker 2: Republican primary voters support the current system. They like to
Speaker 2: have the freedom to vote. They don't like the idea
Speaker 2: of government overreach and starting to have to register publicly
Speaker 2: what party you're from. So these attempts are driven by insiders,
Speaker 2: driven by extreme factions where they're trying to is unpopular,
Speaker 2: and that's one of the reasons why you know, in
Speaker 2: America is working hard in these states to defend the
Speaker 2: current system from going backwards. And what we have found
Speaker 2: is that our allies in this in many cases are
Speaker 2: Republican legislative leaders who know that not only is this
Speaker 2: bad for America, it's bad for their party. When the
Speaker 2: largest and fastest growing part of the electorate are those
Speaker 2: that don't belong to either party, How can you expect
Speaker 2: to win those voters over if you're kicking them out
Speaker 2: of the process in which you're choosing your candidates. And
Speaker 2: so it really is, you know, courageous Republican leaders in
Speaker 2: many of these states that are standing up to forces
Speaker 2: within their own party that want to close elections to
Speaker 2: create more pure ideological purity that might wind up costing
Speaker 2: them elections.
Speaker 1: Is there a good privacy argument? I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't want to have to join one of these
Speaker 1: two clubs. Don't make me join a club. I want
Speaker 1: the privacy of keeping my you know, I may lean
Speaker 1: one way or the other, but I'd prefer the government
Speaker 1: and anybody that checks my vote a registration to just
Speaker 1: see I'm a registered voter period. I don't think you
Speaker 1: should know my politics now. You may learn it over time,
Speaker 1: but I don't want to have to identify. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's sort of a strange thing that government is making
Speaker 1: people do this in a quote unquote democracy.
Speaker 2: I mean, we adopted the secret ballot a century ago
Speaker 2: to give people privacy over their right to vote. In
Speaker 2: many states, however, we force people to register publicly with
Speaker 2: the political party. Go into some database, I can see what.
Speaker 1: Party you belong to.
Speaker 2: In many states don't have this system today, and that's
Speaker 2: what those those states.
Speaker 1: Are trying to change.
Speaker 2: And I agree with you that it's an invasion of privacy,
Speaker 2: particularly in an era of politics in which one's party
Speaker 2: affiliation can be used against them.
Speaker 1: Now, it gets weaponized culturally, it can be weaponized at
Speaker 1: your job. It can do this. I mean, you know
Speaker 1: the local part well, the local Democratic Party here in
Speaker 1: Arlington County, if you want to participate in some of
Speaker 1: the county primaries, because Virginia, each county can sort of
Speaker 1: party can decide how they want to do it. So
Speaker 1: they don't have party primaries, they don't have taxpayer fund
Speaker 1: of primaries, but they do have their own party primary
Speaker 1: and you have to sign a pledge if you want
Speaker 1: to participate in it. And I just won't do that.
Speaker 1: I know the pledge is meaningless, but I kind of feel,
Speaker 1: you know, but I don't think they have the right
Speaker 1: to ask that right now. It is a privately funded
Speaker 1: election that they run, so okay, it's private organization. They
Speaker 1: can have that say. So I just don't participate in.
Speaker 1: I won't participate in in because there're sometimes the Republicans
Speaker 1: have gone off and on about doing the same thing
Speaker 1: where they make you sign an oath because there isn't
Speaker 1: a there isn't party registration in this state. So let
Speaker 1: me shift in our last few minutes here to the
Speaker 1: other areas of reform to focus on. So I agree
Speaker 1: with you. I think primaries number one are sort of
Speaker 1: easy to communicate to people that it's a problem, right,
Speaker 1: it's a we're polarized. Hey, it's this primary issue. People
Speaker 1: get it. So I'm with you. I think it is
Speaker 1: the good first reform to focus on what's next. What's two, three,
Speaker 1: and four in your head? I think it's a good question.
Speaker 1: I think we need to do something on campaign finance.
Speaker 1: It's a salient issue for most voters. They don't like
Speaker 1: the idea of special interests or wealthy interests having disproportionate
Speaker 1: say in our political system that will likely require a
Speaker 1: constitutional amendment. There's something the other number two issue. When
Speaker 1: you ask people what's wrong with.
Speaker 2: Politics today, one's money in politics, the next is career politicians.
Speaker 2: And I think there is something to do with age
Speaker 2: limits and term limits to make sure that we have
Speaker 2: a Congress that can reasonably turn over with time and
Speaker 2: remain both nimble to the issues of the day, you know,
Speaker 2: and representative of people. Again, those may require amendments, so
Speaker 2: those are harder, you know, lifts. I'm also frankly interested
Speaker 2: in what may not be a reform that requires a
Speaker 2: change in law or state constitutions. But how do we
Speaker 2: think about other ways we do democracy outside of an
Speaker 2: electoral context. And there's a growing movement around deliberative democracy
Speaker 2: and citizen assemblies, which are essentially randomly assembled groups of
Speaker 2: citizens that can deliberate on issues and make recommendations to government.
Speaker 2: I think they're interesting ways where they can actually be
Speaker 2: integrated into the government.
Speaker 1: Like a jury pool, but instead of for deciding somebody's
Speaker 1: guilt or innocence. Okay, Arlington County is going to do
Speaker 1: a random jury of one hundred citizens because we want
Speaker 1: to decide whether we want to put bike lanes everywhere, right, Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, and this goes back to Athenian democracy. I mean,
Speaker 2: this is not a new idea. This is actually how
Speaker 2: democracy was done in the very early days and.
Speaker 1: The idea it's what Datokville loved about our democracy. It
Speaker 1: was how local it was and how engaged we were
Speaker 1: at the township level.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think this could be even more important
Speaker 2: as our information ecosystem is transformed and in many ways
Speaker 2: polluted and distorted by artificial intelligence. How do we protect
Speaker 2: the spaces in which democracy can be done?
Speaker 1: So mean, this intrigues me is who's trying this? Any
Speaker 1: community out there trying this?
Speaker 2: There are local communities in fact here in Montrose, Colorado,
Speaker 2: and for Colins have done citizen assemblies. There have been
Speaker 2: How does it work?
Speaker 1: Give me an example of how the citizen assembly worked
Speaker 1: for Collins especially.
Speaker 2: People will approach in different ways. The sort of ideal
Speaker 2: way is a process of what they call sortition, which
Speaker 2: is random selection of citizens. They are incentivized for participation,
Speaker 2: like compensated for their time, but they might meet a
Speaker 2: few times on a weekend over the course of a
Speaker 2: few weeks. They're presented with information and arguments from different
Speaker 2: perspectives on an issue and then they liberate in a
Speaker 2: facilitated way together to render a particular you recommendation or
Speaker 2: perspective that then say, goes to the city council and
Speaker 2: so binding. No, although it could be set up in
Speaker 2: a binding way, but right now, many of the ones
Speaker 2: that are being done are advisory, you know, in nature.
Speaker 2: I think there are interesting ways in which may be
Speaker 2: integrated into the citizen initiative process itself. We can use
Speaker 2: citizen assemblies to determine what gets to go to the ballot.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's just it's an improvement in what direct democracy,
Speaker 2: you know, can look like. So I would say like
Speaker 2: over the next decade plus, there's going to be needs
Speaker 2: to reimagine what democracy looks like. I mean, we're coming
Speaker 2: up on our two hundred and fiftieth anniversary as a country.
Speaker 2: We've gotten here, I think by continuing to look at
Speaker 2: and innovate and improve the way that we can self govern,
Speaker 2: and we need to be responsive to the times. And
Speaker 2: so whether it's these election reforms or citizen assemblies, the
Speaker 2: ideas that we need to keep democracy fresh to keep
Speaker 2: it working.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you I would. I would. I've always thought
Speaker 1: about this, and you know, I joke that if you
Speaker 1: live in the state of New Hampshire for more than
Speaker 1: ten years, you're going to end up in the state
Speaker 1: legislature at some point when you have a four hundred
Speaker 1: members state House. But I used to think, what if
Speaker 1: that were just four hundred random people that were selected
Speaker 1: to be in the you know, and then you brought
Speaker 1: them together just like you would a jury, and okay,
Speaker 1: this is the legislature. We're going to compensate you for
Speaker 1: your time. You're the citizen legislature for the l and hey, look,
Speaker 1: if you feel like any you vet them, maybe you know,
Speaker 1: certain people can't serve, and you know whatever, you can
Speaker 1: come up with some criteria. But compulsory representation is something
Speaker 1: that I've actually been curious about, where you basically, okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: once every twenty years, I got to sit on the
Speaker 1: city council, you know, once every twenty twenty years, I
Speaker 1: got to do six months. I got to do six
Speaker 1: weeks at the state capitol. You know, I think we
Speaker 1: would get better. I think we would certainly get outcomes
Speaker 1: that were more reflective of the population.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you put in a poll right now
Speaker 2: and ask most Americans, would you rather keep the five
Speaker 2: hundred and thirty five leaders we currently have in Congress
Speaker 2: or do a lottery and try out something new for
Speaker 2: a couple of years. I'd be interested how to come back,
Speaker 2: but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people
Speaker 2: would be open to trying something a bit new. And
Speaker 2: this model, like you said, is not a foreign concept.
Speaker 2: Juries make life or death decisions the trust. Really they
Speaker 2: are also capable of informing what our marginal tax rate
Speaker 2: could be.
Speaker 1: Now you look at it, it feels like there are
Speaker 1: a couple of rural states that would be more open
Speaker 1: to trying this first, you know, And it could be
Speaker 1: interesting whether it's a you could see easily see one
Speaker 1: of the New England states being open to this concept.
Speaker 1: I mean, the New Hampshire State House can be such
Speaker 1: a pain in the ass with how many specials, you know,
Speaker 1: we have foreignered members. There's always somebody who's you know,
Speaker 1: can't do it, or can't go or this or that.
Speaker 1: If you told me they transition to something like this
Speaker 1: in twenty years would shock me. By the way.
Speaker 2: The pathway that many of these reforms take at the
Speaker 2: state level is through the initiative process where citizens get
Speaker 2: to decide this and shape their own government directly, and
Speaker 2: that process needs to be protected. It is under attack
Speaker 2: in many states right now by legislatures that are trying
Speaker 2: to increase the threshold of what it takes to pass
Speaker 2: the ballot initiative to make it harder to qualify. So
Speaker 2: I think everyone who cares about democracy, and especially in
Speaker 2: the reform movement, ought to be working together to make
Speaker 2: sure that we protect and improve the citizen initiative process.
Speaker 2: There will be initiatives on the ballot next November that
Speaker 2: will both attempt to make things worse that we need
Speaker 2: to defeat, and a couple of states innovating with constitutional
Speaker 2: protections of the initiative process so that legislatures can't undo
Speaker 2: them in the future.
Speaker 1: I scared Jack dan Forth on the idea of a
Speaker 1: constitutional convention. He fears it that you know that you
Speaker 1: know it implies that we're scrapping the Constitution, and he's like,
Speaker 1: I love our constitution, we just need to amend it.
Speaker 1: And I'm like, well, it's a gathering to basically consider amendments,
Speaker 1: is what I'm what I'm advocating, But not everybody is.
Speaker 1: There's always when when you throw this idea out there.
Speaker 1: It's more folks on the left who are skeptical of
Speaker 1: it these days than folks on the right. And in fact,
Speaker 1: had Clinton won in ninety six, I think it was
Speaker 1: Greg Abbott at the time as governor of Texas was
Speaker 1: basically wanting to to lead a movement of states to
Speaker 1: call for a constitutional convention. And you know, had Clinton
Speaker 1: one in sixteen, that might have been what the right
Speaker 1: would have focused on. It might have been an interesting exercise.
Speaker 1: But do you think it would Is that a fool's
Speaker 1: errand in your mind? Or is it something that whose
Speaker 1: time might be now?
Speaker 2: I think the time was before now for a convention
Speaker 2: to re examine some of the not principles of our
Speaker 2: constitutional design are checks and balances or our separation powers,
Speaker 2: but the structures. I mean, whether you believe there ought
Speaker 2: to be an electoral college or not, no one can
Speaker 2: argue that it's functioning in the way the founders designed it.
Speaker 2: So what does it look like to improve and modernize that?
Speaker 1: Well? I got a simple solution to that. Double the size,
Speaker 1: go back to increasing the size of the House every
Speaker 1: ten years, and then your electoral college and your popular
Speaker 1: vote will no longer I mean right now, every four years,
Speaker 1: the likelihood of a split decision between the electoral college
Speaker 1: and the popular vote is more likely, not less likely,
Speaker 1: because we have not expanded the numerator of the electoral
Speaker 1: vote of the electoral college. And if we double the
Speaker 1: size of the House, I promise you nobody will be
Speaker 1: complaining about the electoral college.
Speaker 2: As you know, what people fear about a convention, is
Speaker 2: it the runaway convention? Well, they do something to radically,
Speaker 2: but we're skipped. But those critics forget there's a ratification process. Whatever,
Speaker 2: the practition comes up with.
Speaker 1: A quite high yes. Right, you don't think you're the voter. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't think we should fear it.
Speaker 2: I think we need to treat it seriously, be cautious
Speaker 2: and smart about it, and embrace it as a tool
Speaker 2: the founders gave us to ensure that we can continue
Speaker 2: to endure as a representative republic for centuries to come.
Speaker 1: Why isn't someone trying to be the leader in convening this.
Speaker 2: I think that there's this sort of psychological barrier about
Speaker 2: whether constitutional change is possible. It's been what thirty years
Speaker 2: since the last amendment, you know past? But I think
Speaker 2: pressure is going to build, especially because of how if
Speaker 2: power continues to consolidate in the way that it does,
Speaker 2: if the initiative process deteriorates, then the other levels we
Speaker 2: have to make change become harder, and I think people
Speaker 2: may view this other pathways becoming increasingly necessary.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's been I just feel like that the I
Speaker 1: think that there's agreement with this, But in some ways
Speaker 1: you have to have a leader, right to galvanize people
Speaker 1: to get there.
Speaker 2: Well, your next project, Chuck.
Speaker 1: Oh man, We've all got a lot of projects. Right,
Speaker 1: let me get you out of here on this. You
Speaker 1: ran for office once before, you still have the itch.
Speaker 2: Not under today's party primary system, I can tell you that.
Speaker 1: You live in Colorado, it's the least partisan or the
Speaker 1: least primary impact. I mean, certainly primaries have some certainly
Speaker 1: or but it's less so, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Although I think Colorado is heading the direction of
Speaker 2: many other places where the primaryism is causing our state
Speaker 2: to become a lot more partisan. It's one of the
Speaker 2: states that we continue to work on for form. But
Speaker 2: we'll say having had the experience of running for office
Speaker 2: early on was good in being grounded and how voters
Speaker 2: actually think about democracy and elections, not just an academic
Speaker 2: perspective on this, and I feel grateful to be in
Speaker 2: a role right now to make the biggest impact I
Speaker 2: can that can impact how people who runs and how
Speaker 2: they govern and at scale.
Speaker 1: You ran as an independent, So let me get you
Speaker 1: out of here actually on this topic, which is what
Speaker 1: do you think Mike Duggan is running into right now
Speaker 1: running is independent in Michigan That he didn't expect that
Speaker 1: you would have been able to tell him how He
Speaker 1: asked you that, Oh, yeah, this is how many voters
Speaker 1: view third party candidates are independent.
Speaker 2: Yeah, be wary of the early polls that show voters
Speaker 2: would like the idea of an independent.
Speaker 1: And looks really good at first, doesn't it exactly?
Speaker 2: But I think the most important thing for any independent
Speaker 2: is to achieve escape velocity, which is to say, you
Speaker 2: have to be able to prove that you are viable
Speaker 2: before voters really start paying attention and ask if you are.
Speaker 2: And that happens well before election days. So unlike the
Speaker 2: traditional playbook where you spend most of your resources in
Speaker 2: the last ninety days, you know your November election is
Speaker 2: actually months earlier because you have too interesting that you
Speaker 2: can be a.
Speaker 1: What does that look like being showing up in the
Speaker 1: conventional places that other candidates do? Is it money? What
Speaker 1: is it that you think? And I know this is
Speaker 1: a bit subjective, but generally, what do you think that
Speaker 1: voters are looking for to decide, oh, you're legitimate?
Speaker 2: I think in the past the heuristic would be like
Speaker 2: traditional media coverage, the press taking you seriously, do you
Speaker 2: get a debate? Are you as the what are you
Speaker 2: pulling at? But today I think that's changing because the
Speaker 2: metric that probably matters most in our politics is attention.
Speaker 2: Are you getting attention? Am I hearing from you? Are
Speaker 2: you breaking through? I think that works in the favor
Speaker 2: of independent candidates the extent that there are a fewer
Speaker 2: gatekeepers that are saying whether you're credible or not, but
Speaker 2: you can reach voters directly in a more democratized way
Speaker 2: than ever has been the case. I'm hoping that we
Speaker 2: might see a couple of these candidates actually break through
Speaker 2: what has been that glass ceiling and then show that
Speaker 2: it's possible.
Speaker 1: Nick Treada, you always give me a little more hope,
Speaker 1: your your glasses half full on.
Speaker 2: This reform movement. Aren't you continue to stick there? There's
Speaker 2: no other choice, So let get it done right.
Speaker 1: There's only forward, right, there's there's my friends at a
Speaker 1: certain third party like to say, you know, we only
Speaker 1: have one choice. We have to move forward exactly. Thank you, John,
Speaker 1: great to talk with you. There's a reason results matter
Speaker 1: more than promises, just like there's a reason. Morgan and
Speaker 1: Morgan is America's largest injury law firm. For the last
Speaker 1: thirty five years, they've recovered twenty five billion dollars for
Speaker 1: more than half a million clients. It includes cases where
Speaker 1: insurance companies offered next to nothing, just hoping to get
Speaker 1: away with paying as little as possible. Morgan and Morgan
Speaker 1: fought back ended up winning millions. In fact, in Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: one client was awarded twenty six million dollars, which was
Speaker 1: a staggering forty times the amount that the insurance company
Speaker 1: originally offered. That original offer six hundred and fifty thousand
Speaker 1: dollars twenty six million, six hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: So with more than one thousand lawyers across the country,
Speaker 1: they know how to deliver for everyday people. If you're injured,
Speaker 1: you need a lawyer, you need somebody to get your
Speaker 1: back check out for the People dot Com slash podcast
Speaker 1: or dial pound law pound five two nine law on
Speaker 1: your cell phone. And remember all law firms are not
Speaker 1: the same, so check out Morgan and Morgan. Their fee
Speaker 1: is free unless they win