Politics with Paul

Could we see the end of political parties in America in the future? While political parties have existed in this country since the 1790s, they have also often been the target of intense criticism. Despite how much they are lamented and how many voters identify as independents, however, the Democratic and Republican Parties hold the vast majority of elected offices that have partisan elections. But today's guest, Metin Pekin, argues that not only is it necessary to dissolve the party system-- he says it is practical and achievable. Metin is the author of "Breaking Democracy's Chains: Freeing and Fortifying Democracy Against Hidden Capture." Hear his thoughts on how to create a party-less future in American politics, why he believes any number of political parties is a problem, and his responses to criticisms of the idea of no parties.

What makes a government representative of the people - and is that what we see in America? Everybody wants a government that not only works for them but also reflects its constituents. There is also a lot of agreement that government falls short of doing so. Yet how people envision that representativeness isn't always the same, and there are a lot of obstacles that hinder government's ability to be representative. Today's episode explores this concept of representation in government. How often should representatives do exactly what the voters want? What kinds of representativeness do different people find important? What are some roadblocks to representation that we need to address. Tune in for the answers to these questions and more.

Do we know what civility in conversation actually looks like? Healthy and grounded discussion is in short supply, especially in politics. Political discussions are often filled with toxic rhetoric and behavior, leading to many instances of verbal and physical violence. But while we know what toxicity looks like, there are some misunderstandings and mistaken beliefs about what civility looks like.  So how do we become more civil? Today's guest, Dr. Michael Lee, dives into this question and more. Dr. Lee is the executive director of the Civility Initiative at the College of Charleston and the host of the "When We Disagree" Podcast. Check out his insights, spanning over multiple decades, on what we get wrong about civility, how to better engage in healthy discussion, and how to make civil dialogue more engaging and fun.

Republicans and Democrats just can't get along…or can they? Almost all the talk about interparty relations is about how much they bicker, fight, and attack each other. And it's true, there is a lot that divides us. However, there is a surprising amount that both parties actually agree on - they just don't realize it. But it's easy to say that we actually have a lot of common ground - how about some examples? Today's episode will show you why we focus so much on differences between the parties, why we underestimate the level of similarities, some of the contexts through which we can study and showcase commonalities, and why acknowledging these commonalities is key for making progress on our country's most pressing problems.

In political discussions, blame often gets thrown around. People get accused of "both sides-ing" an issue when they don't take a strong stance. Or accusations of wrongdoing are responded to with, "Yeah, but what about you?!" The vast majority of disputes in politics involve at least one of these rhetorical devices. Oftentimes, these tactics are destructive and unhelpful, making discourse worse. But are there times where blaming, accusing someone of "both sides-ing," or whataboutism are justified? Today's episode explores our penchant for engaging in these tactics, why they regularly happen, why the line for when these are acceptable is hard to draw, and what we should ask ourselves before we use these tactics. Quality discussions, and finding solutions to our most pressing problems, greatly depend on properly addressing these things.

Government often feels unaccountable and non-transparent - but it doesn't have to be that way. Imagine an app and platform that not only significantly cuts down on the difficulty and time-consumption of researching bills and how legislators vote on them. It also allows you, the voter, to tell legislators in real-time how you want them to vote, and therefore makes them more accountable to the people. Sound too good to be true? Well, that's what the Digital Democracy Project does, helmed by today's Politics with Paul guest, Ramon Perez. A military veteran, AI consultant, and political reformer, Ramon discusses how DDP, artificial intelligence, regular citizens, and other key projects can make government officials more accountable and transparent than ever before.

It's an election year - and that means a lot of fodder about election polls and the "horse race" aspect of polls. It's easy to get caught up in who is "winning" a race, but a lot of the discussion about polls is immersed in misunderstandings about how it works, vested interests in what polls get promoted, and surface-level analysis of public opinion. For as much as people obsess over polls, many of them also love to trash polls as unreliable and even deceptive. Today's episode of Politics in Paul cuts through a lot of that noise, seeking to make polling more accessible and understandable. Listen in to get the real story masked by some of polling's biggest misconceptions, the key ingredients to look for in polling, and why a healthy dose of skepticism (but not distrust) is warranted. Equip yourself to know what is useful polling info and fodder - and what isn't - in the leadup to the 2026 election.

We often think we or like-minded people have all the answers for how to fix politics. Yet we think the solutions are far easier, more obvious, and more foolproof than they actually are. It's a trap that any of us (some people more than others) can fall into. You should be skeptical if someone says, "It's simple, we need to do X." Still, we should encourage people to share their ideas for democracy. We just need to get people to think more critically about their ideas and others they agree with. Today's episode of Politics with Paul dives into this topic, showing the pitfalls of believing our proposed ideas for fixing democracy or policy issues are obvious and foolproof, how to avoid these mistakes in overconfidence, and how to better evaluate ideas to solve our political problems.

Perhaps the most important component to any campaign is mobilizing and motivating supporters and like-minded people to support your cause. Yet just because you have broad agreement doesn't mean it's simple and easy to galvanize these voters. You need to find out who these people are, craft the right message, the resources to reach them, and the right amount of nudging to come out to vote, among other things. What are the best ways to do that? Today's Politics with Paul guest, Bert Ralston, joined the podcast to share his decades-long insights into that question. Bert has had a long career in voter turnout programs, creating communications strategy, influencing public policy and opinion, authored works, and university lecturing to draw on and imparts much of that wisdom in today's episode. If you're looking to campaign for anything or anyone, check out his insights to level up your political communications game.

Our civic culture is in precarious state, and toxicity and hyperpolarization threaten to make it even more unhealthy. It's now more critical than ever to renew our commitment to our civic ideals and to each other as Americans. But that's considerably easier said than done. How do we do that? Today's guest, Daniel Yudkin, joins the podcast to showcase what may be the key to revitalizing our civic culture and getting back to more healthy engagement with our political system. As head of the Beacon Project, he and his organization have been developing the concept of "potentialism," which states that everyone has a gift to offer our civic culture, and a right and responsibility to develop and share that gift. Is potentialism the antidote to the poison of hyperpolarization?

While voter turnout overall is notoriously low in most American elections, youth voter turnout especially lags noticeably behind older voters, even when there is an uptick in participation. Sometimes, that has led to criticisms of youth citizens as "lazy," "uninformed," "unengaged," or "selfish." But is it really that simple? And do we have to just accept low voter turnout as an unchangeable fact? In today's episode of the Politics with Paul Podcast, election reformer and seasoned political campaigner Stephanie Houghton sits down to discuss the issues facing youth voter turnout and how we can go about solving them. She shares many of her insights including why youth voters seem so disengaged, how we can go about fixing those problems, how youth voters can also help themselves, and the simple yet powerful act of genuine engagement with them.

In the discussions about how to depolarize American politics, one critical element often gets lost: How do we convince people that they need to depolarize and to become part of the political bridge-building movement? The need for these things may seem self-evident to those of us working to depolarize the nation, but we have to truly WANT to come together. And that requires not only showing polarized people why they should depolarize but also some self-awareness from bridge-builders in their approach. Today's guest, Phelosha Collaros shares a wealth of insights into how to encourage more effective depolarization efforts, drawing on plenty of research towards more effective depolarization techniques and her own heritage. Her mother and grandparents experienced the Colombian Civil War, "La Violencia," and the conflict holds many valuable lessons for how to address the increasing toxicity in America. If you're trying to level up your game on healing divisions in this country, you don't want to miss this episode.

Civic engagement is a difficult endeavor that takes a lot of time, effort, and money. Yet an app called Sway seeks to make it much more accessible, giving any voting group the power to organize and engage constituents on a wide variety of elections and political issues. Could Sway change the game for citizen outreach? One of Sway's co-founders, Claire Shoreall, joined the Politics with Paul Podcast this episode to discuss the ambitious goals for the app. Listen in as Claire discusses the current impacts Sway has had, its plans for the future, and her insights on how to improve civic engagement. If you've been looking for ways to improve your outreach as a candidate, campaigner, consultant, activist, pundit, or concerned citizen, Sway may be one of the solutions you're looking for.

Uncontested elections - races that only have one candidate - are a considerable problem in American politics. These elections aren't just uncompetitive; there's no competition at all. The choice has already been made before voting. Despite the threats uncontested elections pose to democracy and civic health, however, this issue doesn't get nearly as much attention as it should. But the first step to solving a problem is knowing it exists. Today's episode of Politics with Paul showcases how often we see these uncontested elections, many of the factors that can lead to an uncontested election, reasons why they are a problem for democracy and civic health…and perhaps most importantly, what YOU can do practically to help push back against the frequency of uncontested elections.

Elections are complicated and difficult, which makes for plenty of mistakes made on the campaign trail from newbies and veterans alike. But it's not just the actual campaigns where mistakes and misunderstandings happen - it occurs with how elections are analyzed and covered, too. Campaigners, candidates, pollsters, media, academics, and citizens all have different perspectives and interests, leading to shortcomings and exacerbating the missteps about campaigning. In today's episode, Alex Patton sits down with me to discuss these mistakes that are made by campaigns and by those seeking to understand campaigns. Alex draws on his long career in political consulting and survey research to spotlight these common errors, including some that he made early on in his career. Whether you're new to the political game, seeking to enter it, or seasoned with experience, his insights will benefit anyone.

One of the most fundamental questions a political campaign must ask themselves is this: How much are you trying to persuade voters and how much are you trying to mobilize them? Some voters are never going to vote for your side, some voters are always going to vote for your side, some are up for grabs, and some are rarely (or never) going to participate at all. Knowing who is who, and how to appeal to them, is one of the keys to winning elections. There is no clear checklist that tells you how much your campaign must mobilize and how much it must mobilize. You can also have multiple people look at the same exact campaign and give you different answers about how to mobilize and/or persuade. However, today's episode covers many of the electoral factors to consider, how they impact your mobilization and persuasion strategies, and why it's important for you to know - even if you are not involved in politics for a living.

Have you ever wondered how to make sense of the text of legislation and laws but you didn't know where to begin, or you felt the task too intimidating or daunting? Then this episode is for you! It's a crash course to introduce you to how legislation is interpreted at the federal and state levels so that is more accessible and understandable. Understanding how laws are interpreted is incredibly important for civic knowledge and the ability of citizens to hold government and political commentators accountable. Today's episode shows how the debates about interpretation have evolved from the very beginnings of US Constitutional debates to the tools used to interpret federal and state statutes - including information pulled from my own webinar I give to civics and public affairs organizations on how to understand legislation for themselves and their clients.

Could a plan called "Voter Dollars" be the key to solving the issues with campaign finance laws in American politics? The exorbitant levels of spending in political campaigns have dismayed Americans across parties and ideologies, contributing to the disenchantment many voters (and would-be voters) feel about politics. Despite concern about politicians being bought by special interests, campaign finance reform has been particularly difficult to implement in America. However, today's guest, Dan McMillan of Make Voters the Donors, makes his case for why "Voter Dollars" is the answer we've all been looking for and how his organization plans to implement it.

Pluralism is a core part of American politics--or at least, it's supposed to be. Our civic life is meant to be a blend of varied backgrounds and viewpoints coming together to improve our political system. Yet far too often, we are siloed into echo chambers and see divisiveness and polarization reign in our discourse. So how do we get back to upholding pluralism in America? That's what Liz Vogel, co-executive director of New Pluralists, discusses on today's episode, including what pluralism looks like today, what challenges to pluralism we must overcome, and how we individually can promote pluralism.

Democracy in America is fragile, yet a lot of the rhetoric surrounding it is fraught with biases and appeals that are about winning elections and political battles rather than truly preserving democracy. There are also a lot of misunderstandings and debate about what democracy is and should be. To truly uphold and preserve democracy in this country, we must truly understand what it means and the challenges that face it. Today's episode of Politics with Paul explores what the core of American democracy is about, including whether we truly are a democracy, public perceptions of American democracy, and threats that we must wary of and address.

The power of the US presidency has expanded considerably over 235 years. But has it gone too far and broken our system of separation of powers? If so, how do we (and especially the US Supreme Court) rein it back in? Retired attorney Peter Cohen looks at these questions in his new book, "In the Supreme Court's Own Words: First Principles for Checking Presidential Power and Preserving the Republic." Our conversation includes discussion about how to make legal rulings more understandable, constitutional restraints that presidents of both parties have tested, whether the "activist judge" argument has caused problems in our political discourse, and how we change our opinion on expanded presidential power based on whether we support the president.

Imagine a one-stop shop for political research where every candidate is seen, every citizen is heard, and every journalist is free to speak. Is such a thing possible? Can we create a level playing field for candidates, citizens, and journalists all through one central hub? That is what today's guest, Travis Misurell, is building through the Future is Now Coalition (FiNC). Included in our discussion are the difference between power-first and people-first candidates, how FiNC seeks to fix the ballot information problem without overwhelming voters, and incentivizing a more unified sense of purpose and action.

How do various organizations benefit from polling? How can targeted communication and unbiased polling move conversations forward? Seasoned pollster Doug Kaplan discusses these questions and more, including whether political betting markets are a threat to pollsters, public misconceptions about polling, and what polling and market research in other countries can tell us about engaging American communities in civil political dialogue.

Although it sounds cliché, it is true that those who do not know history are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past. But it is also important to look at the positive contributions to history, especially from classic political thinkers. Here to talk about those historical contributions is Crom Carmichael, co-founder of the Giants of Political Thought audio program series. Included in our discussion are the positive historical lessons and thinkers we can look to for guidance in the face of political challenges, why those lessons are still relevant today, and how to apply those lessons.

What are the biggest challenges for civics accessibility both for students in the classroom and adults that are past their school years? Where have previous civics initiatives gone wrong? What are some improvements in civics education that can be built upon? Civics4All founder (and former colleague of mine) Roneka Matheny discusses these questions and more with me on today's episode. We also talk about her new book "Civics for All: A Crash Course in US Government and Politics" and its goals, some lesser-known facts about the history of civics education, and ways that you can help civics organizations (including hers) in their work.

How big is the political middle of America? What traits make somebody part of this political middle? How can this political middle overcome the toxic political division of today? Shannon Watson, executive director of Majority in the Middle, gives her insights into these questions and more. She also discusses the biggest roadblocks to overcoming division, recent encouraging signs in building bridges across division, and practical ways anybody can overcome political division in their lives.

Being willing to reexamine, let alone change, our political beliefs can be a monumental task, but there is immense value in introspection. My guest today, Lisa Ekman, went through such a journey of questioning her beliefs. Listen in as Lisa shares insights as to why some people find it difficult to reevaluate their views, how that introspection impacted her relationships, critical thinking tips that anybody can use regardless of their political beliefs, and more.

Common ground in politics seems more and more like a fleeting dream, a relic of the past. But it is attainable--and there are actionable ways for all of us to get there. This week's Politics with Paul guest, Nathan C. Smolensky, discusses what these practical tips are. Nathan also talks about how to make constructive dialogue more conducive to winning elections, whether you can have a civil conversation with anyone, and why hostile reactions to political views (even if justified) don't help solve anything.

The US House of Representatives has remained at 435 members for over a century, despite significant population growth. Could adding more members fix Congress' issues with responsiveness and representativeness of the American people? In today's episode, we explore that question. Included is the vision of the Framers of the Constitution for the US House, a brief history of the size of the chamber, the biggest arguments made for and against increasing its membership, why it's tricky to expand it, and the ultimate goals of advocates for expanding the US House.

The freedom of speech is at the core of American civic life, but it has also been constantly tested and refined over the course of the nation's history. Today, we delve into what is and isn't free speech, how the government has tested its boundaries, how the US Supreme Court has ruled on certain free speech cases, why it is so important we promote free speech in our daily lives (not just in relation to the government), and more.

If we're going to turn back the tide of political violence, it's going to take all of us. Fortunately, there are simple steps any of us can take to start pushing against the acceptance and use of violence to achieve political goals. Today's episode of Politics with Paul covers some of the reasons why people feel justified in using or supporting political violence. If we are going to fix this problem, we need to know why it occurs in the first place. At the end, I give actionable ways that we can fix the political climate and highlight some of the groups working to build bridges. Join the movement for a non-toxic political climate.

Ideological labels are common appeals in political campaigns and battles. For various reasons, however, the actual meaning of conservative, liberal, and moderate have been intentionally and unintentionally obfuscated. Today's episode explores the most basic meanings of conservative, liberal, and moderate; how elites and voters variously define the terms and why; the difference between party and ideology; how you should view ideological labels; and more.

The vast majority of today’s political discourse focuses on extremes and polarized voices. But is moderation the solution? More specifically, is "radical moderation" the kind of moderation we should be striving for? On today's episode, Professor Lauren Hall joins the show to discuss her concept of radical moderation. She talks about what radical moderation is and isn't, how to apply its principles, how it addresses polarization, and more.

NOTE: I do not endorse or oppose any guest's political views or groups they support. In today's episode, activist and author Luis-Enrique Marquez sits down to discuss his involvement in political protests. What's it like to be on the front lines of a protest? What are the biggest challenges in forming protests? How do protesters feel about their media coverage? How do protesters engage with opposition and critics? Luis-Enrique gives his takes on these questions and much more. At the end, he also discusses his book, and what he feels liberals, conservatives, and moderates alike can take away from it.

It's important to have political convictions that you believe in and will fight for. Yet political discourse is also rife with stubbornness and an inability to consider opposing views. You have to stand for something but you must also be willing to compromise. What is the dividing line between being strong in your convictions and being willing to compromise? What does public opinion polling say about citizens' desire for compromise? What factors hinder the likelihood of compromise and where do we see compromise most often? How do we move as a country toward a willingness to compromise? These questions and more are explored on today's podcast.

Shaka Mitchell joins the podcast today to discuss how we can change education policy to positively improve civic engagement among both students and parents. Shaka is a senior fellow with the American Federation for Children, a professor of constitutional law at Belmont University, and an attorney. How does how we teach our kids (and adults) about the political process affect how invested people are in politics? Where are the areas most in need of improvement? How can parents better facilitate civic engagement in students? How do we use education to reconnect citizens to the political process. Tune in to hear Shaka's insights on these questions and much more!

On today's episode, guest Alex Vassar discusses some of the biggest challenges facing the preservation and teaching of political history and civics, and how we can make these better. Alex is the founder of JoinCalifornia.com (a repository of election data and facts for the State of California), the founder of the One Voter Project, and the communications manager for the California State Library. How do we best preserve political history? How do we make that history accessible and engaging for other people, especially if they are not as interested in history? What are some of the biggest obstacles to improving civic and historical understanding amongst the public? What is some advice for groups in other states looking to build political history databases? Tune in to hear Alex's insights on these questions and much more!

On today's guest episode, Guy and Heidi Burgess of the Conflict Information Consortium share 40 years of insights into the broken state of America's political discourse and how to fix it. Among their works are the Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base, Moving Beyond Intractability, and the Constructive Conflict Initiative, projects dedicated to making our conversations about the most divisive issues more productive and encouraging. How do we improve America's political dialogue? What are intractable conflicts that need more constructive ways to be discussed? How do we come to a better understanding of each other and take steps to solve our intractable conflicts? Are we more polarized than ever? Tune in to hear Guy and Heidi's expertise on these questions and more!

It's episode 50! There are some Americans who simply don't care about politics, or at least not nearly to the extent they should. In some respects, these citizens have a responsibility to care about politics, and to inform themselves about what is going on. At the same time, however, there are understandable reasons why some citizens throw up their hands and tune out politics. To effectively tackle the problem of political apathy, we must examine all these root causes and how to address each of them, not just simply blame people for their apathy. How do we measure political apathy? Which citizens tend to be more apathetic? In what ways does political apathy manifest? Why are some voters apathetic? And: Why does political apathy pose such a threat, including unintentionally contributing to our nation's polarization? All this and more is on tap for today's podcast.

What goes into advocating for bills in state legislatures? How do you reach out to different interests of both lawmakers and activists to build a bipartisan coalition? What are the toughest parts of the legislative process to deal with as an advocate? Here to talk about that and more on today's episode are two members of the Florida Student Policy Forum, Graham Bernstein and Jacob Kaplan. They discuss their work on Florida bills involving expedited foreclosures on abandoned properties, phone calls for prisoners on good behavior, and school corporal punishment reform. At the end, they also give advice for other advocates, especially college students, looking to make a difference in the legislative process...and an incorrect take on whether hot dogs are sandwiches.

Is split-ticket voting is US elections dead? How do we measure split-ticket voting? What impacts our analysis of it? What does split-ticketing look like from historical data and how did it shape up in the 2024 election? Is there any cause for concern? And: Will split-ticketing make a comeback? Today we explore not only data behind split-ticketing but the more descriptive aspects of how we study it and some philosophical implications behind it. Is split-ticketing really on the decline as much as some political observers have said? And how different - or similar - is it to years past? What does it all mean? What does the future hold? Let's find out.

Polling consistently indicates that large majorities of people believe a third major party is needed because the Democratic and Republican Parties do not adequately represent the American people. Despite this, third parties rarely win any elections, even at the local and state levels. Why do we not see 3rd parties be more regularly competitive in US elections despite immense dissatisfaction with the Republican and Democratic Parties? Have we had 3rd parties that were competitive in the past? What makes a 3rd party competitive? Will we soon see a 3rd party become a regular contender for big-time elected offices in the near future? All this and more are on tap for today’s episode.

Is it better to have an efficient government or a deliberative government? Can a government be both swift-acting and thoughtful in responding to the needs of citizens? Constituents often lament government as inefficient, taking too long to respond to crises before or when they arise. They also often decry government action as not taking into account their wants and opinions. Today's episode explores this seeming dichotomy between efficiency and deliberation. What makes a government efficient or deliberative? How did the Founding Fathers view this debate? How does this debate shape our conversations about the function of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches today? Are efficient and deliberation inherently at odds?

Most people can see that American politics is rife with polarization. It's led to countless examples of enmity, strife, harsh rhetoric, broken relationships…and violence. But what many people don't realize is that polarization takes on multiple forms, and thus manifests and foments in different ways. And one of the most unfortunate truths is that there is one particular type of polarization that any of us can display. What are the different types of polarization? Why is it important to understand the different types? How do we measure them? How long has America been polarized? And which particular type of polarization is one that can, unfortunately, be exhibited by any one of us? All this and more is on tap for today's episode. It's time for us all to take a step back and reevaluate how we approach politics.

The national debt has ballooned to $36 trillion. Just about everybody agrees that it's a major issue...but yet we have significant trouble tackling it. We agree that the deficit and debt are not sustainable forever, but we often have much different ideas on how they need to be lowered. It's a complicated issue to sufficiently address because of a variety of financial, structural, and political factors. What is the history of the national debt? What makes up our national debt? How is it viewed as a campaign issue? Why is it so difficult to cut spending? Is a Balanced Budget Amendment to the US Constitution on the horizon? All this and more is on tap for today’s episode.

Recall elections are a unique democratic process allowing citizens to remove elected officials before the end of their term. The mechanism has existed since before the independence of the US, but didn't become popularized until the beginning of the 20th century. Many state and local-level officials have been subjected to recall campaigns, but some political observers have increasingly called into question the reasoning behind such efforts. Today's episode explores the history of the recall in America, how recall elections work, how recalls even get on the ballot, and the normative and philosophical questions behind their use. Are political recalls being overused as partisan or ideological tools? If they are, does that mean they shouldn't be used?

Everybody has knowledge gaps when it comes to politics, no matter how much we know. There is just too much information to pay attention to, and not all of it is good. Unfortunately, that leaves the door open for political actors to try to exploit our biases or lack of understanding. Fortunately, however, there are ways to protect yourself against these attempts to manipulate our behavior and thought processes. Today covers some of the ways you can protect yourself by decreasing engagement with clickbait/ragebait, tips for researching political info, healthy skepticism about political arguments, and how to disagree in a more effective and healthy fashion. With these tools, we can better protect ourselves from manipulation by those with vested political interests.

We all have gaps in our political knowledge regardless of how well-versed we are in politics. Unfortunately, that opens the door for those with a strongly vested interest in political outcomes to exploit knowledge gaps. How exactly do these exploits happen? What determines an “exploiter”? How are our biases preyed upon? How do artificial intelligence, the fragmentation of mass media into silos, and more factor in? Today talks about the most common ways and reasons our knowledge gaps are exploited. Next week will look at how we can counteract some of those attempts to exploit.

We often lament our Congress as a “do-nothing” body, but are they truly unproductive? What about state legislatures? “Productivity” in legislatures is often thought of as simply how many bills they get passed or whether they address certain issues. However, “productivity” is not a clearly defined term, and there are some complications that arise when trying to define it. Today’s episode of Politics with Paul delves into both data and philosophical considerations of the productivity of Congress and state legislatures. How often do congressional and state legislative bills get passed? Why do so many bills die so early in the legislative process? Is the failure of so much legislation a good or bad thing? How should we define “productivity”?

New Mexico is the latest state to shift away from a closed primary in its elections, the primary election type where only members of a party can vote in that respective party's primary. Now, voters not affiliated with a party can vote in either the Democratic or Republican Primaries for the first time in the state's history. Playing a major role in that shift is today's guest Sila Avcil, the executive director of New Mexico Voters First and New Mexico Open Elections. She discusses the effort to implement semi-open primaries, including why this specific format, nitty-gritty details of New Mexico's state legislative process, her case for the open primary, and whether this could trigger more states to move away from the closed primary. Thank you to Sila for coming on the show!

Why do we make the vote choices that we do? How we fill out our ballots is inevitably shaped by a series of forces that we consciously (and subconsciously) think about. These influences are internal and external, group-based and individual-based, long-term and short-term. The interactions between these things are often represented as the Funnel of Causality, where they all filter into what our vote choice is at the narrow end of the funnel. Today's episode dives deep into this funnel: the history behind its development, how it has shaped our understanding of voter behavior, what it looks like...and why you should even care about it. Ultimately, the funnel is a representation of empathy for why people make the choices they make, including when we don't agree with them.

Last week on PwP, we dove into home rule, which is a local government's capacity to administer its affairs without state government involvement. We took a look at what parameters home rule encompasses, its historical development, its antithesis known as Dillon's Rule, and the debate over home rule vs. Dillon's Rule. This week looks at recent developments regarding home rule and some of the biggest challenges (and opportunities) facing its expansion. At the end, we discuss why you should care about home rule vs. Dillon's Rule. Knowing about the topic is one thing, but it's also important to discuss why it should matter to you. After all, local government is the most impactful on your day-to-day life.

The interactions between the federal and state governments get the bulk of the attention and study, but the interactions between state and local governments are just as important. At the heart of the discussion is the concept of "home rule," which refers to how much autonomy local governments have to administer their affairs independent of their state government's involvement. How independent should these local governments be of state government? How is home rule different and similar to the debates over federal vs. state government jurisdiction? How has the concept developed over time? Tune into today's episode of Politics with Paul for a dive into the history and debate over home rule.

The John F. Kennedy assassination has remained one of the most enduring, fascinating flashpoints in American history more than 60 years since it happened. Countless books, podcasts, TV shows, and more have spawned in the decades since. Yet there is still plenty of mystery and mystique surround the events…giving rise to some prominent conspiracy theories. The recent release of more files related to the murder of JFK has only further added interest to the mystery. What makes the JFK assassination and its context so compelling? What do we definitively know about what happened. What's still unexplained? What do the newly released files tell us? What are some things you may not know about how it all happened? Here to talk about those topics and more on today's episode is Jack Moore, a former prosecutor turned baseball pitching coach and host of his own podcast, Moore to Consider. His passions include history, Constitutional law, and sports, and the JFK assassination has been a lifelong fascination of his.

There's a lot that has changed about US voting policy over nearly 240 years: The expansion of voting rights, more times and methods that we can vote by, accessibility of voting, and so on. But now we look towards the future. What will be different about voting in US elections in the near and not-so-near future? Today, we tackle the following topics as to where we will likely see at least a little change in the coming years: What offices we vote on, what times of the year we vote, what our primaries look like, early and absentee voting regulations, voter identification laws, and current and ex-felons' ability to vote. We examine some of the arguments surrounding these debates and where we see current legislation relevant to these changes being discussed.

What do independent voters really think? My special guest today is Lura Forcum, president of the Independent Center, and she gives her insights into this question from research she's done and discussions she's had with other independents. Lura gives her take on what are common traits of independents, how cohesive a group they are, how they can address the polarization gap in America, and more. Big thanks to Lura for coming on the show! Today's random question of the day: Would you rather be able to play every musical instrument or speak every language?

Reforms to voting in US elections include monumental changes in access to voting. Much of this includes the expansion of voting rights (suffrage), removing restrictions to voting based on property ownership, race, gender, and age. Yet there are other major modifications to voting access that include the times we can vote and the candidate nomination process. Today's episode covers all these topics, including some developments in voting rights expansion that you may not have heard of, the development of primaries, and the emergence of early and absentee voting.

There's a lot that we take for granted about how voting works in US elections these days, but there has been a lot of trial and error over time in administering them. Significant changes in how voting works have occurred over the 235+ years since the US Constitution was ratified. This series takes a look at many of the changes in US voting policy. Today's episode covers how the voting process has been refined over time: WHEN we vote, WHO we vote for, and HOW our vote is counted. This includes how we came to decide when Election Day is held, the changes in which officials have been directly elected and appointed, and the technology improvements in counting votes. Some of the ways elections were administered in the olden days are bizarre to think about from today's point of the view.

How we pay our elected officials can be a touchy subject ,  especially when those officials themselves propose pay raises ,  but it's more important to discuss than most citizens realize. It's a difficult job and there are a lot of factors at play. How we compensate officials plays a big role in their efficiency, representativeness of voters, capability of performing their role, ability to hire staff, capability of devoting themselves to their role, and more. Yet there is no easy way to determine what we should be paying elected officials or what benefits should be available to them. And being government officials, that means their pay comes from our taxpayer dollars. The level of compensation can also vary dramatically based on which elected position it is, what state and locality it is in, and more. Today's episode of Politics with Paul covers the factors that go into deciding elected officials' pay, examples of compensation that we already see, and the methods we use to decide how to compensate officials.

Gerrymandering, the deliberate redrawing of legislative district lines to unfairly benefit a party or politician, is a serious problem that negatively impacts Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike. It is often described as "politicians choosing voters" instead of the way it should be, "voters choosing politicians." On today's episode, our guest Mary Noone, a seasoned campaign strategist and advocate, discusses her insight into the issue of gerrymandering, including how it impacts voter participation, how the courts have handled it, and steps we can start taking to mitigate the problem. Today's random question of the day: What superpower would you choose?

Political efficacy - how well citizens understand politics (internal efficacy) and impact politics (external efficacy) - is a crucial aspect of American politics. Efficacy is needed to ensure government responsiveness and accountability, a well-informed electorate, electoral competitiveness, and helpful public discourse. Unfortunately, however, there are many threats to political efficacy, and efficacy levels are arguably at some of the lowest they have ever been. Today's episode of Politics with Paul covers the nature of political efficacy, the ways efficacy is measured, the aforementioned threats to efficacy, why efficacy is so important to the health of our political culture, and some beginning questions and steps toward improving efficacy.

The separation of powers is a fundamental component to the American system of government. In general, the executive branch executes laws, the legislative branch writes laws, and the judicial branch interprets laws. But while the absolute basics are straightforward, there are many nuances to the debate as to what responsibilities and powers are within each branch's sphere, how each branch can and should check and balance the other two, and whether the separation of powers is being threatened by the actions (or inaction) or one or more branches. Today's episode gives a rundown of what separation of powers is and why we have it. It also discusses various general debates as to what each of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches is allowed to do, whether one branch is taking too much power, whether the other branches are allowing another to take too much power, and how Donald Trump (particularly in his 2nd term) factors into the equation. Buckle up!

Voters identifying as "independent" are a fast-growing bloc of voters, yet there are a lot of misunderstandings about the label. "What is an independent?" seems like a straightforward question. Yet if you ask 5 different independents what it means to be independent, you could very well get 5 different definitions. Today's episode delves into how "independent" is defined, how many independents are registered to vote, and more. Today's Random Fact of the Day that this episode also explores: Did you know that the US Senate, and some states' governors, used to be selected by state legislatures instead of a popular vote by citizens?

Every presidential election is important, but some have more long-lasting impacts than others. These include changes to the political landscape, fundamentally reshaping the executive branch and the presidency's power, establishing precedents, and establishing long-lasting programs. Today's episode covers some of the most consequential presidential elections in this regard, focusing on both the elections themselves and the results thereafter. (In some cases, the loser of the election had a monumental impact, too.) Then, at the end, we examine how Donald Trump's elections could potentially compare to those impactful elections of years past.

It has sometimes been remarked upon a president’s reelection that there is a “2nd term curse,” where presidential records and legacies take a hit due to lesser success than the 1st term. But are 2nd terms really less successful than 1st terms? What factors can we look at to examine the theory’s validity? What do other political observers have to say about the idea? Today’s episode covers these questions and more, including how Donald Trump (currently) compares to previous two-term presidents? Today’s Random Fact of the Day: Donald Trump and Grover Cleveland are the two presidents to serve nonconsecutive terms, but did you know that there a bunch of other prominent offices in the US that have seen people serve nonconsecutive terms?

As strong as political party attachments can be, there are times where elected officials, candidates, and voters can drift away to a different party or go independent. What are some of the reasons for this? Is it a fast or slow process? How have party affiliations shifted by demographics and region over time? Do we have statistics on elected officials that have changed party affiliation? All these questions and more are part of today's topic. Today's Random Fact of the Day: Did you know that Inauguration Day for president was not always January 20th?

The Democratic and Republican Parties are often treated as monoliths that think almost if not entirely the same way on all issues. While Democrats are becoming more uniformly liberal and Republicans are becoming more uniformly conservative, you can find some noticeable differences within the parties in different parts of the country based on political necessity, upbringing and environment, and factional struggles to lead county and state-level affiliates of the two main parties. Today’s episode discusses why we see these variations, how we measure differences within the parties, and specific examples of state-level parties that differ from their counterparts and the national parties at large. Today is our first iteration of Random Fact of the Day: Did you know that not every state has counties? Check out the episode for more details on this fact, including differences in county governments.

Happy New Year, everyone! Have you wondered how exactly the electorate is divided between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents? The answer is sort of complicated, but we do have some sense of the divide. Today's episode covers how exactly we know what we do about voters' party affiliations, how each state handles parties on the ballot, survey data on the public's party identifications, and what states actually register their voters' party affiliations. Today's random question: What is one of your New Year's resolutions?

Calls for implementing term limits on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) are not new, but they have seen amplified calls in recent years. But would term limits fix the issues with the current appointment process? Are lifetime outdated? There are a bunch of practical and philosophical considerations to think about in this debate such as the arguments made for and against lifetime terms versus fixed terms, how state supreme courts handle selection for their justices, and how an amendment to the US Constitution implementing SCOTUS term limits would be added. Today’s episode covers all this and more, including the joint resolution proposed by US Senators Joe Manchin and Peter Welch. Today’s random question: What common grammatical/pronunciation mistake really grinds your gears?

The partisanship of Congress has ebbed and flowed over its history. Yet while majority control of the US House and US Senate tends to be hotly contested between the Democratic and Republican Parties these days, that wasn't always the case. Both parties have had periods where one has demonstrated dominance over the other. Today's episode is an overview of the partisan history of the US Congress, including a brief look before the Republican Party formed in the 1850s, Republican supremacy during the Civil War/Reconstruction Era and the 1890s/1900s/1920s, Democratic supremacy during the Great Depression/World War II and the 1960s/1970s, and the heightened division of the past 30 years. Today's random question: Do you wish you could play every instrument in the world or speak every language in the world? Leave your answer in the comments below or comment on the video where available.

US presidential power and prestige has expanded greatly since the Framers of the Constitution designed the new form of American government. Yet just as heavy debate ensued at that time as to what the president can and should do with his powers, controversies have continued all throughout US history through today. Today's looks at some of those debates (such as whether checks on presidential power should be relaxed in certain cases), how previous presidents have wielded their power, and how the president interacts with Congress (legislative) and Supreme Court (judicial) branches of government. Today's random question: What is a word that is grossly overused and needs to be severely curbed?

Why do we hate politicians (particularly Congress) so much yet so often reelect the same ones? The incumbency advantage is a well-documented phenomenon in political science, and 2024 saw sky-high reelection rates for elected officials running for their same seats. Although incumbency advantage can vary by type of office (e.g. Congress, governors) and by state, those already in office tend to have an advantage by virtue of already holding the seat. Why do incumbents generally enjoy an advantage over challengers in this regard? How successful have recent and historical incumbent reelection bids been? That’s what today’s episode dives into. Today’s random question: What is your ideal Thanksgiving meal?

Another presidential election has come and gone, with Republicans walking away with generally more success than Democrats. Yet the 2024 results aren’t entirely settled. Some election winners have yet to be decided, and accurate vote totals still need to be certified. However, there are a lot of takeaways we can already glean. Today covers results for president, Congress, governor, state legislatures, and ballot measures, along with some instances of split-ticket voting. Today's random question: Was Pluto’s demotion to dwarf planet justified, or should it be granted full planet status again? Leave your answer in the comments below or comment on the video where available.

It’s finally here. We’re on the cusp of the 2024 general election, and the next president of the United States is about to be decided. Either Democrat Kamala Harris will become the nation’s first female president or Republican Donald Trump will become the second president to serve nonconsecutive terms in office. Popular votes do not decide presidential elections, however: Electoral College votes do. But if someone doesn’t win a majority of the Electoral College, what happens next? Regardless of that, where are the least and most competitive states in the Electoral College? All this and more is today’s topic. Today's random question: Who/what is your favorite musician/band? Leave your answer in the comments below or comment on the video where available.

Today's episode dives into some of the most important, competitive US House and gubernatorial races and state legislative chambers that could possibly flip majority party control. These US House races not only are critical for determining whether Republicans keep the majority or Democrats gain it, but also for their potential impacts on the presidential election (including ways you may not expect), US Senate elections, gubernatorial elections, and state legislative control. There is no random question today. That will be saved for the end of this string of episodes.

There are 9 or so seats up for election in the US Senate in 2024 that are expected to be competitive, including some states that are presidential battlegrounds. Today's episode of PwP covers the races in that chamber are expected to be the tightest, including one contest that has a slight chance of being an upset, and some of the key factors to look at in each. There is no random question today. That will be saved for the end of this string of episodes.

What kind of factors and contexts should we look at to determine whether an election is competitive? Such aspects include campaign finances, party support, the impact of simultaneous races, and candidate qualities. Yet it’s not enough to have an advantage in any of these aspects—you must be able to harness those advantages properly. This episode takes a general overview of what makes elections competitive and which 2024 contests for US Senate, US House, governor, and state legislative chamber control are expected to be competitive. Later this week, we will take a deeper dive into what exactly makes those races competitive. Today does not have a random question. That will be saved for the end of this string of episodes on competitive non-presidential races.

As important as knowing what the competitive races are is knowing where there is a lack of competition and what election results are likely or basically guaranteed to happen. But expectations aren't just about who is going to win. We also can make reasonable predictions about things like campaign spending, incumbent performance, and voter turnout. Today is part 1 of the preview of Election 2024, focusing on what the safe (or at least safer) predictions are and why they are predictable. Today's random question: Miracle Whip: Yes or no?

Political parties in America have been around since the ratification of the US Constitution and have persisted despite increasingly negative opinions Americans have about both the Democratic and Republican Parties. Why are the two major parties so ingrained in the American political system? How did we get the parties we have today? How do independents and third parties factor into politics? All this and more about the durability of the Democratic and Republican Parties are the focus of today's topic. Today's random question: Are Pop-Tarts good?

Today's episode of PwP is the first one to feature a special guest! Seth David Radwell joins me to discuss his book "American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing Our Nation," available on Amazon in ebook, hardcover, and audiobook. The book makes the case for how there are multiple strains of Enlightenment thinking that have sparked division throughout all of American history, including today's polarization. Included in our discussion is Seth's prescriptions for healing the divide, the importance of civility and compromise, and how we can come to a mutual understanding of others' viewpoints. Today's random question: Who is one person, dead or alive, that you would want to have an in-depth conversation with?

The coverage of predictions of election results ramp up the closer we get to elections. Election forecasters, both individual and organizational, have their own formulas for how they rate the likelihood of a Democrat or a Republican of winning a given contest. Today's episode dives into a variety of the factors these forecasters use to make their prediction, including election history, polling, and other elections happening at the same time. Today's random question: If you could have an exotic animal as a pet that normally is not legally allowed, what would you choose and why?

Government officials take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution before they take office, yet conservatives and liberals often have considerably different views on how to interpret the US Constitution. Do we interpret it in the context of when passages were ratified? Does the meaning change as society and times change? Today looks into the origins and development of the debate over how to interpret the US Constitution, the arguments between the two basic schools of thought known as "Originalism" and "Living Constitutionalism," and how both ideologies have shaped historical and contemporary US Supreme Court cases. Today's random question: Do you subscribe to the Shopping Cart Theory?

It takes a lot to amend the US Constitution. About 12,000 amendments have been put in front of Congress over 230+ years, but only 33 of them have been passed by Congress and only 27 of those have been fully ratified as part of the Constitution. So, when could the 28th Amendment be ratified and what will it be? Today, we look at the 27 previous amendments, some quick amendment ratification stats, and some potential candidates for a 28th Amendment and evaluations of their likelihood of being ratified in the near future. Today's random question: What is the superior font for electronic documents?

Voter turnout is the foundation of the American system of government, and studying the factors influencing turnout is a key component to understanding what makes American voters tick. So, what makes voter turnout fluctuate? How do we even measure it? How has turnout changed over time? All this and more is the focus of today's episode of Politics with Paul. Today's random question: Do you use the Oxford comma?

You hear about "red" and "blue" and even "purple" states all the time in elections—red for Republican, blue for Democrat, and purple for a mix of the two. Yet what criteria are needed to actually tell when a state is one of these colors? How did we even get to using red and blue colors for the Republican and Democratic Parties, respectively? Which states are red, which are blue, and which are purple? How have these shades changed over time? All this and more are the subject of today's Politics with Paul podcast episode. Today's random question: What is the coolest planet in the Solar System (you can't say "Earth")?

A presidential candidate must win a majority of the Electoral College (270+ electoral votes out of 538) to win the presidency. But what happens if no candidate reaches that threshold? That's where contingent elections come in. Today, I talk about how the Electoral College has changed over time, how contingent elections work, and one way 2024 could become a contingent election (though the possibility is unlikely). Today's random question: Is a hot dog a sandwich?

Why do we hold elections at the time of year we do, and why does it matter? Election timing plays a crucial role in the voting process, and depending on the time of year an election is held voter turnout rates, and who turns out to vote, can look vastly different. Today, I dive into how election timing is defined, a brief history of how election timing got to where it is today, the arguments made for and against "off-cycle" election timing, and where we find these off-cycle elections. Today's random question: With NFL season around the corner, which NFL team has the best uniforms?

Calls for implementing maximum age limits on our government officials have increased as of late. But the debate is often made out to be far simpler than it actually is. In today's episode, I dive into the arguments that supporters and opponents of a maximum age limit make. Then I talk about what other factors must be accounted for if we were to have a maximum age limit, such as what that age would be and consideration of political incentives. Finally, I then go into what potential alternatives might be proposed instead of an age limit. Today's end-of-episode random question: What Olympic sport, that you don't already play, would you most want to be good at?

Welcome to the Politics with Paul podcast, home to nonpartisan analysis of politics! In this episode, I talk about what exactly I do, how I came to do it, and why I do it. I also lay out the ground rules on what this podcast entails, including coverage of various policy debates, interviews with guests, and election analysis.