Indictment watch

If you read The Topline regularly, you can probably tell that we’re big fans of open primaries (non-partisan, ranked-choice ones, especially). If you’re not familiar with these voting innovations and are skeptical of changes to the system, I get it. I was too, once upon a time. But meeting with advocates for these reforms, learning more about how they work in practice, and seeing them in action convinced me that they could deliver a more competitive, public-spirited, and independent political environment—and ultimately a more representative government. If you’re still on the fence, consider this: despite record turnout in the 2020 general election, only 10% of eligible American voters nationwide cast ballots in the primary elections that effectively decided the winners of 83% of Congressional seats (source: Unite America). That’s an astounding disparity. And it can only happen if independent voters are cut out of the process. We must develop a mindset of reform. One of the features of democracy is that we don’t have to stick to the same ways we’ve always done things. America itself was an innovation, and it’s been growing and improving ever since. Reform is part of our DNA. It’s time to apply that thinking to our elections. —Melissa Amour, Managing Editor

• Biden issues first veto, rejecting bill to reverse ESG rule —The Hill

• Yellen says U.S. could move to protect deposits at other banks —The Wall Street Journal

• Biden is creating new national monuments to protect land in Nevada and Texas —NPR

• World on 'thin ice' as UN climate report gives stark warning —Associated Press

• Cases of deadly, drug-resistant fungal infection on the rise, CDC says —New York Daily News

• Putin's visit to occupied Ukraine shows all is not well for Russia —Newsweek

• China’s Xi meets with Putin as tensions with Washington flare —Forbes

• Federal judge blocks key parts of California handgun law —Associated Press

• Surveillance video shows deputies pile on top of Irvo Otieno, who died in police custody —CBS News

• Massive strike shuts down LAUSD, 420,000 kids out of school —Los Angeles Times

‘They’re not coming after me, they’re coming after you’

He’s at it again. Predicting that he’ll be arrested sometime soon (originally today) by Manhattan prosecutors, Donald Trump is firing up his base ahead of a potential indictment in the Stormy Daniels hush money case. Much like before the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, he is using social media to call on supporters to protest “the most disgusting, witch hunt in the history of our country.” A few demonstrators have gathered in Florida and New York, but no large or violent protests have been reported as of this writing. This is at least partly due to far-right media warnings of the protests being used as a "trap" by law enforcement to arrest Trump supporters. —CBS News

• All talk…so far. Federal officials at the FBI and Department of Homeland Security are monitoring what they say has been an uptick in violent rhetoric online, including “civil war” talk, since Trump’s calls for protests. But officials say the online chatter has thus far lacked the actionable information, coordination, and volume that preceded the Jan. 6 attack. —CNN

• Here comes the Trump cavalry. Three House GOP committee chairmen—Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, House Administration Chair Bryan Steil, and House Oversight Chair James Comer—sent a letter to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg yesterday requesting documents related to the legal probe. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has said the case involved “personal money” and is “just political.” Still other Republicans have gone much further in their condemnation of possible charges against the ex-president. —The Dispatch

• Trump still hearts Russia. Prosecutors in New York also have reportedly examined two loans totaling $8 million that were wired to Trump Media from two obscure entities controlled in part by the relation of an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump Media, which owns Trump’s Truth Social platform, initially came under criminal investigation over its plans to merge with a blank check company called Digital World, which itself was under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Stay tuned. —The Guardian

MORE: Six Oath Keepers convicted in connection with Jan. 6 Capitol riot —CNN

This is bigger than Fox

Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis will hear arguments for a summary judgment this week in Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation case against Fox News and its parent, Fox Corporation. Dominion accuses Fox and its on-air personalities of promoting an “inherently improbable and demonstrably false preconceived narrative” that it had been involved in a grand scheme to rig the 2020 presidential election. Fox believes the law is on its side, specifically the standard for defamation laid out in the 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. That ruling required a showing of “actual malice,” meaning a statement was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not,” in cases brought by public officials. As a result, Dominion v. Fox may have profound implications not only for the two companies but also for the legal framework in which the media operate. If the case moves forward, a trial should begin in April. —The New Yorker

MORE: Fox News producer accuses network lawyers of ‘coercive’ coaching in Dominion case —The Guardian

Brownstein: Stuck in a prison of their own making 

“Constrained by offsetting dynamics, neither party appears well positioned to break into a clear lead in the House. The two sides look more likely to remain trapped in a grinding form of electoral trench warfare in which they control competing bands of districts that are almost equal in number, but utterly antithetical in their demographic, economic, and ideological profile.” —Ronald Brownstein in The Atlantic

Ronald Brownstein is a senior editor at The Atlantic and a senior political analyst for CNN.

MORE: Only 10% of House races were competitive in 2022, improvement in 2024 seems unlikely —The Washington Examiner

Why the Forward Party Is Focused on Electoral and Systemic Reform

By Ali Backscheider

America is currently facing a crisis of confidence in its political system. Many Americans are frustrated with the gridlock and dysfunction in Washington, D.C., and feel that their voices are not being heard. The two major parties, the Democrats and Republicans, seem more interested in fighting each other than in addressing the fundamental issues facing the country. There is a pressing need for a new political party that is focused on systemic and electoral reform that doesn’t define itself as left or right. 

Forward Party has entered the chat.

At the heart of the new Forward Party’s approach is the belief that the people themselves are best positioned to determine what policies are needed to address the challenges facing their communities. Rather than relying on a small group of mostly out-of-touch politicians to make decisions for the entire nation, Forward is focused on systemic reform that will empower citizens to take an active role in shaping the policies that affect their lives.

Additionally, Forward is heavily focused on reforms that address the issue of political polarization. The current two-party system often pits Americans against each other, creating a toxic political environment that is not conducive to meaningful dialogue and compromise. By promoting electoral reform and greater citizen participation in the political process, Forward helps to break down the barriers that divide Americans and instead bring them together around common goals and values.

So what are the reforms that will move us Forward? 

RANKED-CHOICE VOTING
The current winner-takes-all voting system leads to a number of problems, including vote-splitting, wasted votes, and the election of candidates who are not widely supported by the electorate.

Ranked-choice voting (RCV) addresses many of these problems by allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference. Here are some ways RCV can fix the problems with plurality voting:

• Eliminate vote splitting: In plurality voting, two or more candidates who appeal to similar voters can split the vote, allowing a less popular candidate to win with a relatively small percentage of the vote. RCV eliminates this problem by allowing voters to rank multiple candidates in order of preference. If their first-choice candidate is eliminated, their vote is transferred to their second choice, and so on. This ensures that a candidate with broad support is more likely to win.

• Reduce wasted votes: In plurality voting, votes for candidates who don't win are considered "wasted" because they don't contribute to the election outcome. With RCV, voters can rank backup choices in case their first-choice candidate doesn't win. This means that fewer votes are wasted, and more voters have a say in the outcome of the election.

• Increase voter satisfaction: With RCV, voters can express their preferences more fully, which can lead to a higher degree of voter satisfaction. Even if their first-choice candidate doesn't win, voters still have a say in the election outcome by ranking other candidates in order of preference.

• Promote consensus candidates: RCV tends to reward candidates who are broadly acceptable to a majority of voters, rather than candidates who appeal to a small, but passionate, segment of the electorate. This can lead to the election of candidates who are more representative of the entire electorate, and less divisive.

OPEN, NON-PARTISAN PRIMARIES
Closed primaries are a type of primary election in which only registered members of a political party are allowed to vote to select the party's candidate for an upcoming election. Closed primaries can be problematic because they exclude independent and unaffiliated voters, reinforce party loyalty, limit competition, and can lead to more extreme candidates being selected.

Open, non-partisan primaries can promote greater voter participation, reduce partisanship, and encourage a more inclusive and collaborative approach to politics.

• Encourage greater voter turnout: Open, non-partisan primaries allow voters to choose any candidate they prefer, regardless of their political affiliation. This means that voters who are not affiliated with a political party can still participate in the primary process and have a say in selecting the candidates who will advance to the general election. By expanding the pool of potential voters, open primaries can increase voter turnout and engagement in the political process.

• Reduce partisan influence: Closed primaries often lead to more extreme candidates being selected by the party faithful, who tend to be more ideologically polarized than the general population. By contrast, open primaries give all voters a say in the selection process, which can lead to more moderate candidates being selected who are more likely to appeal to a broader range of voters.

• Encourage coalition-building: Open primaries can encourage candidates to reach out to a broader range of voters and build coalitions across party lines. This can lead to more constructive and collaborative campaigns, as well as more centrist policy positions that are more likely to appeal to a broader range of voters.

• Reduce partisanship: By breaking down party lines and promoting a more inclusive approach to politics, open primaries can help reduce the extreme partisanship that often characterizes closed primary systems. By promoting a more inclusive and collaborative approach to politics, open primaries can help reduce polarization and promote more constructive policy outcomes.

INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMITTEES
One of the most pressing issues that Forward seeks to address is the problem of gerrymandering. In the United States, political districts are often drawn in such a way as to favor one party or another, resulting in a lack of true representation for many Americans. 

To address this issue, independent redistricting committees can be established to draw electoral district boundaries in a fair and impartial manner. These committees are typically made up of a diverse group of individuals, including members of the public, experts in redistricting, and representatives from different political parties.

Independent redistricting committees use a variety of methods to draw district boundaries, such as using computer algorithms and statistical models to create districts that are compact and contiguous, and that preserve communities of interest. By taking politics out of the redistricting process and using objective criteria to draw district boundaries, independent redistricting committees can help ensure that all voters have equal representation and that the election results accurately reflect the will of the people.

In some cases, states have passed laws requiring the use of independent redistricting committees to draw electoral district boundaries. These laws can help prevent gerrymandering and ensure that the redistricting process is transparent, accountable, and impartial.

Creating a new political party is not an easy task. It requires a great deal of effort, resources, and organization. But the current state of the American political system demands bold action, and a party focused on systemic and electoral reform is just the kind of bold action that is needed. Forward is up for the challenge.

By prioritizing the interests of ordinary citizens over those of the political elite, Forward will restore trust and accountability in the political system. By promoting electoral and systemic reform, Forward will ensure that all Americans have an equal voice in the political process. And by breaking down the barriers that divide Americans, Forward will help to create a more cohesive and united society and a better, brighter future. 

That is something worth fighting for.

Ali Backscheider is the deputy director of brand experience at the Forward Party.

MORE: The Forward Party seeks to qualify for Arizona election —The Arizona Republic

At age 86, I've lived through a lot of history, but I've never been as frightened as I am now by what's happening in this country. I'm glad I'm in the twilight of my life, however, I do fear for what my granddaughters' futures will be. It won't be the same as the reasonably wonderful era in which I grew up—oh, there were problems back then, but nothing of the magnitude we see now. I refuse to accept that Trump and/or DeSantis can be elected president in 2024. BUT, should that happen, this country is finished. —Marylea L., New York

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 Renew America Foundation.