Pentagon 'acted appropriately' on Jan. 6

An independent review conducted by the Defense Department's Office of Inspector General has concluded that military and defense leaders "did not delay or obstruct" the department's response to the violence at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. The report, released yesterday, said decisions made by acting Defense Sec. Chris Miller and Army Sec. Ryan McCarthy "were reasonable in light of the circumstances that existed on that day and requests from D.C. officials" and the Capitol Police. Criticism of the Pentagon's response to the insurrection has centered on the fact that it took about three hours for members of the District of Columbia National Guard to arrive at the Capitol. —NBC News

• — Shifting the blame. The report also says the D.C. National Guard's commander, Maj. Gen. William Walker, was directed twice by Pentagon leadership to send in troops as violence engulfed the Capitol. That finding appears to undercut the now-retired general's claim that he would have responded to the riot more quickly if Trump Administration officials had authorized him to do so. —The Washington Post
•  
• — Meanwhile, at the White House… Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Treasury Sec. Steven Mnuchin discussed invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Donald Trump from office following the attack. According to a new book by Jonathan Karl, Pompeo went as far as to put together an analysis of what pursuing such a course would require. "The analysis determined that it would take too much time," Karl wrote, "considering that Trump only had 14 days left in office, and any attempt to forcefully remove him would be subject to legal challenge." —Insider
•  
• — So where does this leave the panel? As much of the work of the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack—issuing 35 subpoenas and interviewing more than 200 witnesses so far—has taken place behind closed doors, the American public has largely had to take the panel's reassurances on good faith. Rep. Jamie Raskin, a member of the committee, says the panel is investigating the protesters-turned-rioters and what led them to Washington and compelled them to become violent; the far-right paramilitary, militia, and nationalist groups involved, like the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and Three Percenters; and those in Trump's inner circle who directly coordinated the attempt to overturn the election results. —CNN

Sargent & Waldman: Gosar and the meaningless GOP

"[Rep. Paul Gosar] is so toxic that his own siblings have begged voters not to return him to Washington. But when push came to shove, almost all his colleagues stood by him. The same is not true of the 13 House Republicans who recently joined with Democrats to pass an infrastructure bill that will deliver benefits to every congressional district in the country... The contrast between the two cases demonstrates how far policy has been driven from the minds and hearts of the Republican Party in Washington. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that they have no substantive concerns and no real policy agenda. There is only their side and their enemies; nothing else matters." —Greg Sargent & Paul Waldman in The Washington Post

Greg Sargent is a columnist at The Washington Post and the author of "An Uncivil War: Taking Back Our Democracy in an Age of Trumpian Disinformation and Thunderdome Politics." Paul Waldman is a political columnist at The Washington Post.

MORE: Paul Gosar's ties to white nationalists added to concerns over video —USA Today

Make like a Bannon and split

Wherever there's conflict, far-right provocateur Steve Bannon is right in the middle of it, and today was no different. A struggle over timing broke out at a hearing in the criminal contempt of Congress case against him. Prosecutors pressed for a quick trial, while Bannon's lawyers seemed prepared to drag it out. U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols rejected an attempt by Bannon's defense to delay further action until 2022, but said he's not convinced that the Justice Department's timetable is realistic either. Bannon refused to provide documents or testimony to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, which believes he played a key role in the insurrection. Donald Trump has instructed him and other allies to refuse to cooperate with the panel under executive privilege—a theory with limited legal basis, particularly for a former president. Bannon has pleaded not guilty to the two charges against him. Stay tuned. —Politico

MORE: Here's what we know so far about Steve Bannon and the Jan. 6 Capitol riot —Yahoo! News

Ssentongo & McCall-Hosenfeld: The pandemic and violence

"Early in the pandemic, gun sales in the United States surged, with more than 20% of these purchases by first-time buyers. And access to firearms is a well-established risk factor for gun-related suicide and homicide. This sharp increase in firearm purchases raises serious concerns, since the combination of increased stress, social disruption, and isolation during the pandemic created a perfect storm of conditions that could contribute to increased gun violence." —Paddy Ssentongo & Jennifer McCall-Hosenfeld in The Conversation

Paddy Ssentongo is an assistant research professor of neural engineering at Pennsylvania State University. Jennifer McCall-Hosenfeld is an associate professor of medicine at Pennsylvania State University.

MORE: Support for handgun ban hits record low as gun violence, sales soar during pandemic, poll finds —Forbes

Fowler & Fowler: Making districts fair to voters, not parties

"Elections should hold public officials accountable by rewarding or sanctioning legislators' performance. Outlawing gerrymandering addresses one piece of the problem of safe seats that impedes representation. But without other reforms, fairness to parties will have limited impact as long as residential sorting of citizens into homogeneous communities stifles electoral competition." —Linda Fowler & Chris Fowler in The Conversation

Linda Fowler is a professor of government at Dartmouth College. Chris Fowler is an associate professor of geography and demography at Pennsylvania State University.

MORE: Say goodbye to swing districts. Lawmakers are drawing easy wins in dozens of states —Politico

Focus on ranked-choice voting

Ranked-choice voting made its debut across 21 cities and towns in Utah during this month's election, marking the most widespread use of the system Utah has seen to date. So what did voters think of it? According to a new survey, Utah voters who participated in ranked-choice elections approved of the process and want to see the system expanded.

• — It's easy. Roughly 81% of respondents who voted in a ranked-choice election said the method is either very or somewhat easy, vs. 19% who said it was either somewhat or very difficult. Meanwhile, 90% said the instructions on the ballot were either somewhat or very clear, seeming to disprove the argument of RCV opponents that the format is too difficult for voters to figure out.
•  
• — No more "wasted votes." RCV puts an end to not voting for your favorite candidate because you think they can't win. "Between splitting the vote, the spoiler effect, and only voting for one candidate, all these strategies used in plurality voting don't benefit candidates in ranked-choice voting," said Stan Lockhart with Utah Ranked-Choice Voting, the group that carried out the survey in conjunction with Y2 Analytics.
•  
• — Unifying instead of dividing. "The candidate who wins is the person with the broadest and deepest support, and you don't have somebody with a minority support slipping in because two or three candidates have split the vote," Lockhart said. "It's clear to me that people, the voters, like ranked-choice voting. We found in the past that until you have a ranked-choice election, voters are very skeptical, and as soon as they use it, they become converted." —Deseret News

Schmidt: The reforms we need most before 2024

"There is a way to reroute and get ourselves back on a healthier road for our democracy. That road requires reforming the Electoral Count Act of 1887. The Electoral Count Act is not particularly clear and has a couple of loopholes. The last thing we need is ambiguity in our election systems. The Electoral Count Act can be reformed with a few steps, including creating a higher threshold for electoral vote challenges, clarifying that only state-certified electoral votes are counted on Jan. 6, and that the vice president's role is truly ceremonial, and he or she has no power to choose noncertified electors over certified ones." —Lynn Schmidt in St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lynn Schmidt is a member of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial Board and a Renew America Movement fellow.

The letter from Bill T. of Arizona confronts a very important issue head on. All of the people who are making death threats or threats of retaliation for disagreements on policy or support for a cause, person, or any other political view that does not fully conform to theirs, must be held accountable for their crimes. Making these threats are crimes. A crime is not supported by the 1st Amendment. Civil discourse (debate about political issues) is the free-speech issue. For this "grand experiment" to work, people have to work together. —Linda M., Oregon

The views expressed in "What's Your Take?" are submitted by readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff or the Stand Up Republic Foundation.