How Do We Fix It‪?‬ DaviesContent

Supporters of Ranked Choice Voting argue that we need to a big change how we vote. Our “choose-one” elections, they say, deprive voters of meaningful choices, create increasingly toxic campaign cycles, advance candidates who lack broad support and leave voters feeling like our voices are not heard. 
We examine the case for this form of proportional representation. Ranked Choice Voting could boost electoral turnout, reduce polarization, and cut the public cost of running elections. This relatively new reform is now being used in dozens of states, cities and counties. In 2022, Alaska implemented ranked-choice voting for the first time after a referendum revamped its elections.
Our guest, Rob Richie is cofounder and senior analyst at FairVote, makes the case for how it works and why RCV is a viable way to improve electoral politics. Right now, he says, we are in this "incredibly intense winner-take-all environment" in most states. Ranked-choice voting could change the equation.
Instead of picking just one candidate, voters rank as many candidates as they want in order of choice: first, second, third and so on. If your first-choice candidate is in last place, your vote counts for your highest-ranked candidate who can win by getting more than 50%. RCV removes voters' concerns that their favored candidate could split the vote.
Most Americans agree Congress is not working. Retiring Senators Mitt Romney (Republican - Utah) and Joe Manchin (Democrat - West Virginia) are outspoken supporters of Ranked Choice Voting. 
“Every incentive in Washington is designed to make politics extreme,” says Manchin. “The growing divide between Democrats and Republicans is paralyzing Congress and worsening our nation’s problems.”

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Liberalism is out of fashion. You might say that it's under siege. From the populist right to the progressive left, liberal touchtones of limited government, personal freedom, the rule of law, and a mixed economy have come in for harsh criticism.
Liberalism is assailed by many critics, but it has not failed, argues Yale Political Science Professor Bryan Garsten. "A liberal society is unique in that it offers refuge from the very people it empowers" through "institutions and different political parties. This allows the rest of us to live undisturbed," he says. Supporters argue that this form of liberty most clearly elevates the liberal project. 
In addition to his research and teaching, Garsten has written recent op-eds for The New York Times. His books include “Saving Persuasion: A Defense of Rhetoric and Judgement” and a collection of essays he edited about Rousseau and the Age of Enlightenment. 
This episode is published with assistance from The Journal of Democracy. We are grateful. The most recent print issue includes essays by five authors, who grapple with questions of liberalism's lasting relevance and its challenges for the future. 
Our interview features a lively discussion about the difference between liberal thought and other "isms" such as neoliberalism, libertarianism and progressivism. We learn more about the importance of community, the limits of individual freedom, and why liberal societies do not produce refugees— arguably another unique source of strength.
Professor Garsten is also skeptical of some aspects of modern liberalism. "I think there's a certain language that liberals use, of science, rights and progress which sometimes has been hijacked to justify elite overreach in imposing a vision of the world onto many people of different views," he tells us. "I offer the language of refuge as an alternative way to get at what's morally admirable in liberal societies."
Recommendation: Richard has just read the new book by journalist and TV commentator, Fareed Zakaria: "Age of Revolutions. Progress and Backlash From 1600 to the Present."

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In much of the country local news has collapsed, threatening civic pride and a sense of community for countless towns and cities. This dramatic change has also deepened America's divides.
As our guest, journalist and public policy researcher Anna Brugmann explains in this episode, "the internet disrupted the local journalism model". Newspaper advertising revenue fell 80% since 2000. Thousands of local and regional publications closed. Most surviving newsrooms faced drastic cutbacks. Coverage of all kinds of local events— from city hall, school board meetings and football games to local businesses and zoning decisions — disappeared.
First, Craigslist displaced print-based classified ads. Then Google, Facebook and other online firms became the main source of consumer advertising. We discuss the impact on local journalism. In recent decades, the news we read and listen to has largely shifted from local reporting to often highly polarizing national opinion journalism.
In the first of two episodes on the changing face of the news media, we look at the retreat of local journalism and discuss solutions. These include non-profit media and changes in for-profit business models. Today, many newspapers get more revenue from subscriptions and fundraising drives than from advertising. We ask: how sustainable are these initiatives?
Anna Brugmann is policy director for the advocacy organization, Rebuild Local News. According to her group, since 2004, as the U.S. population has grown, the number of newsroom employees has dropped by 57%.
"By almost every metric by which you measure a healthy community and a healthy democracy, the trends are in the wrong direction when local news leaves," says Anna. "In the past twenty years more than two thousands newspapers have closed in The United States."
Recommendation: Jim is listening to a lot of podcasts since he unplugged his TV and stopped watching broadcast and cable news. Among his current favorite podcasts is "The Reeducation With Eli Lake". The show "challenges the common narratives the mainstream media and others push".


Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Diversity equity and inclusion: Sounds like a good thing in an incredibly diverse country such as ours, especially when teaching young people at American colleges and universities.
But the DEI industry - or DEI Inc. — has arguably gone off the rails. There’s a big difference between the intentions behind a lot of diversity training and the results. We learn about the crucial difference between training and education, and hear the case against the Stop WOKE Act in Florida.
History professors Amna Khalid and Jeff Snyder share their deep concerns about a growing industry. There is no reliable evidence that diversity, equity and inclusion training sessions at colleges, non-profits, and large corporations actually work. In many places, DEI could be making things worse, imposing an ideological litmus test and encouraging cynicism and dishonesty at places of learning.
Amna specializes in modern South Asian history, the history of medicine and the global history of free expression. Growing up under a series of military dictatorships in Pakistan, she has a strong interest in issues relating to free speech.
Jeff is also a Professor at Carleton: A historian of education, who studies questions of race, national identity and the purpose of public education in a diverse, democratic society. He’s the author of Making Black History: The Color Line, Culture and Race in the Age of Jim Crow.  
Jeff and Amna released this YouTube video about DEI. They speak regularly together about academic freedom, free speech and campus politics at colleges and universities. They also write frequently on these issues for newspapers and magazines, including The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New Republic and The Washington Post. Amna hosts a podcast and blog called “Banished,” which explores censorship controversies in the past and present. 
Recommendation: Richard has been watching "Nada" on Hulu, a gentle and funny TV series from Argentina about a food critic in Buenos Aires and his observations on life and eating.


Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

News coverage of Super Tuesday and other party primaries focused mainly on base voters— Democrats and Republicans. But most Americans are actually on the political sidelines or somewhere in the middle. Many have a mix of conservative and liberal views.
This episode is about them. Our guest is Shannon Watson, the Founder and Executive Director of Majority in the Middle. Her Minnesota-based non-profit group works to give voters and elected officials a place to gather outside the extremes. "We try to elevate the people who are demonstrating the behavior we want to see", Shannon tells us. 
"When it's only the rabble-rousers who get the coverage then there is an incentive to be one of them." Majority in the Middle also promotes structural changes in governing that will remove barriers to cooperation across the political aisle. 
While the two parties have a stranglehold on many aspects of elections and governance, record numbers of Americans no longer register as Republican or Democrat. They prefer the label "independent". 
At the same time, the right and left have changed. Among pro-Trump conservatives, we see a decline in support for free trade and military spending to help traditional allies. The former president has also resisted calls to limit spending on Medicare and social security.
Younger Democrats are much less likely to support Israel. The rise of identity politics has also pushed the party to the left.
While we've always had partisan division the level of vitriol can obscure the fact that Americans are much more closely aligned on issues such as gun rights, abortion, and immigration than we are led to believe.
"Not all Democrats agree with all Democrats, and not all Republicans agree with all Republicans," says Shannon Watson.
Our podcast conversation mentions the Political Typology Quiz, conducted by Pew Research Center. Polling of more than 10,000 U.S. adults showed that while partisan polarization remains a dominant fact of political life, "the gulf that separates Republicans and Democrats sometimes obscures the divisions and diversity of views that exist within both partisan coalitions – and the fact that many Americans do not fit easily into either one."
You can take the Typology Quiz here and see your personal views fit in with nine broad categories of left and right. 
Recommendation: Jim enjoyed reading "The Wager: A Tale of Shipwreck, Mutiny and Murder", by David Grann. Our co-host has had a long fascination with survival and exploration stories. He calls this non-fiction book "a ripping read and a fascinating story."

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Only four-in-ten Americans say they have a lot of trust in the news media. That's a big problem for our democracy, especially in this volatile presidential election year. While journalists are supposed to tell the truth and get the story right, just 35% of right-of-center voters have some trust in what they see on the news.
Democrats and independents are much more likely to trust journalists, but Americans of almost all shades of opinion are skeptical of the journalists, not only questioning the quality of their work but the intentions behind it.
Our guest is Joy Mayer, Director of the non-profit group, Trusting News, which has partnered with many local newsrooms around the country to help journalists earn consumers' trust.
While many reporters, writers and editors are reluctant to discuss their politics, most journalists have liberal or progressive views. "I think it's something we need to talk about more openly," Joy tells us.
In this episode, we look at bias, transparency, and constructive steps that the newsrooms can take to improve their reputation with a broad cross-section of Americans.
We first recorded our interview with Joy in the late summer of 2021. Since then polling shows that the gulf between many journalists and their readers, listeners, and viewers is as wide as ever.
Americans of all political views are switching off the news. Audiences are shrinking for local TV stations, most newspapers and public radio, even as they release podcasts, email newsletters and other newer forms of content. Polling by Pew Research found that more than half of journalists surveyed say every side does not always deserve equal coverage in the news. But three-quarters of the public say journalists should always strive to give all sides equal coverage.
Recommendation: Richard has just finished watching the first two seasons of "Dark Winds", a TV thriller and crime drama set on a Navajo Indian reservation in the southwest. Almost all of the actors and crew are native americans. Richard says: "This series is beautiful, exciting and compelling. The acting is first rate The scenery alone is reason enough to watch it."

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.