SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
elections
Voting Still Matters, But Only If We Fix It
A 20-step blueprint for rebuilding the foundation of US democracy.
Sep 06, 2025
Recent voices insist that federal elections are meaningless, corrupted beyond repair, and no longer worth defending. Their evidence is grim: More than $5.5 billion was spent in the 2024 presidential race while Wisconsin’s legislature stayed locked by gerrymander regardless of the statewide vote. A Senate where about 588,000 in Wyoming cancel out 39.4 million in California. An Electoral College that twice in 25 years handed the White House to the loser of the popular vote. Voting restrictions crafted to suppress minorities. Federal courts that see partisan gerrymandering and refuse to act.
On the facts, they are right. On the conclusion, they are dangerously wrong.
To say elections no longer matter is to surrender the battlefield. It is to tell millions that nothing they do will change anything. That is exactly the message authoritarians want Americans to believe. If people stop fighting for elections, those elections will not be stolen. They will be abandoned.
At the signing of the Voting Rights Act, President Lyndon B. Johnson declared, “The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice.” Months earlier, on the road from Selma, Martin Luther King Jr. had proclaimed, “Voting is the foundation stone for political action.” One spoke from authority, the other from struggle. Yet they spoke of one shared truth. The vote is the cornerstone of freedom.
Our democracy is under strain. Its foundation unsettled, its cornerstone cracked by distortion and distrust. Yet it stands. It can be repaired.
What We Can Agree On
The failures often described are undeniable. Gerrymandered maps keep parties in power regardless of popular will. The Senate’s imbalance gives a permanent veto to sparsely populated states. The Electoral College warps presidential contests. Voting restrictions disenfranchise millions. Campaign finance turns federal races into billion-dollar spectacles. Even when majorities vote for change, legislatures rewrite the rules after the fact to strip power from those elected.
The result is predictable. Citizens see futility everywhere. Why vote if the outcome is predetermined? Why care if Congress’ approval rating was 15% in 2023, when 95% of incumbents still won reelection the following year? These questions cannot be ignored. They demand an answer that is better than surrender.
Where the Conclusion Goes Wrong
History shows what happens when people believe elections are meaningless. They disengage. And when they disengage, minority rule hardens into permanent rule. This is not theory. It is the story of every society where cynicism took the place of resistance.
Americans are not exempt. We too have often waited until crisis forced our hand. As Winston Churchill allegedly observed, you can count on Americans to do the right thing, but only after they have tried everything else. That is a weakness, but also a pattern. Delay does not mean defeat. In the end we have always found a way to repair what was broken.
Concerned citizens are right that federal elections have become distorted. They are wrong to say they cannot be repaired. Consider Poland. In 1989, Solidarity forced elections that dismantled one-party rule. In 2023, Polish voters once again removed an illiberal government at the ballot box. Chile’s 1988 plebiscite ended Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship. Serbia’s 2000 election, defended in the streets, forced Slobodan Milošević to step down. South Korea’s generals conceded to constitutional change in 1987, opening the door to real elections. These are not anomalies. They are proof that entrenched systems get broken when ballots are defended.
Lessons from Abroad
Other democracies once faced problems strikingly similar to our own. Britain, Canada, and Australia abolished partisan gerrymandering through independent commissions. Germany rebuilt its democracy with proportional representation and strict constitutional limits. France capped campaign spending to prevent billion-dollar elections. Most advanced democracies automatically register citizens to vote. Many hold elections on weekends or declare them national holidays to ensure participation. Dozens of countries restrict donations and enforce transparency that makes dark money impossible.
These reforms are not utopian dreams. They are daily realities elsewhere. They show that systemic flaws get corrected when citizens demand reform and refuse to accept a rigged game as permanent.
The Blueprint for Reform
Democracy cannot be rebuilt with slogans. It requires structure: foundations that carry weight, pillars that resist pressure, walls that shield citizens from abuse.
King warned against waiting for a more convenient season for change. “We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. This is no time for apathy or complacency. This is a time for vigorous and positive action.”
Now is the time to plan and to lay the foundation for that change. What follows are 20 pillars of reform. Each is a proven step in healthy democracies.
Pillar 1: Universal Voter Registration
Millions of eligible citizens are kept off the rolls by bureaucratic hurdles. Automatic registration would eliminate these barriers. Congress could update the National Voter Registration Act to require enrollment at age 18 using Department of Motor Vehicles, Social Security, and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data, with strong privacy protections. Oregon and Colorado already run this system successfully. Registration should be a feature of citizenship, not an obstacle course.
Pillar 2: Preregistration at 16 and Civics Integration
Young voters often begin adulthood unregistered and disengaged. Preregistration ensures that turning 18 means being ready to vote. States can collect data at 16, activate it at 18, and pair the process with high school civics classes that teach how voting works in practice. Hawaii and Colorado already do this. A culture of participation starts in the classroom.
Pillar 3: National Voting Access Standards
Access to voting differs wildly by state. Some citizens enjoy weeks of early voting, others face closed polls and endless lines. A federal baseline would guarantee two weeks of early voting, secure drop boxes, no-excuse absentee ballots, and Election Day as a paid holiday. Congress has the constitutional authority to set these standards. Democracy should not depend on a ZIP code.
Pillar 4: Restoring the Voting Rights Act
The US Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County decision gutted preclearance and unleashed a wave of suppression laws. Without federal oversight, discrimination spreads unchecked. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would restore preclearance and force states to prove their laws are not discriminatory before enactment. History shows this works. Thousands of bad laws were blocked under the old system. We need that protection again.
Pillar 5: Independent Redistricting Commissions
Gerrymandering allows politicians to choose their voters instead of the other way around. Independent commissions dismantle this scheme. States like Arizona, Michigan, and California already use commissions that draw fair maps with transparency and citizen input. Congress could require them nationwide for House districts. Abroad, countries like Canada treat neutral commissions as the democratic norm. We should too.
Pillar 6: Ranked-Choice Voting
Plurality elections reward division and spoilers. Ranked-choice voting (RCV) ensures winners have majority support. Voters rank candidates, and if no one wins outright, the lowest is eliminated and votes reallocated until someone secures a majority. Maine, Alaska, and dozens of cities already use it. RCV rewards broad appeal, reduces negative campaigning, and gives voters real choice.
Pillar 7: Proportional Representation
Winner-take-all districts exaggerate partisan dominance and silence millions. Proportional representation matches seats to actual votes. Congress could repeal the 1967 single-member district law and allow multi-member districts using proportional systems. Germany and New Zealand use hybrids that balance local representation with fairness. This reform opens space for independents and new voices while reducing polarization.
Pillar 8: Expanding the House of Representatives
The US House has been capped at 435 seats since 1910, while the population has more than tripled. Districts now average about 761,000 people, based on the 2020 Census. Expansion would reduce district size, bring representatives closer to constituents, and reduce Electoral College bias. Congress could adopt formulas like the cube-root rule, which would expand the House to 600-700 seats. In the last hundred years, Canada grew its House by over 50%. Germany by about 60%. Italy by nearly 20%. The US House has not moved at all.
Pillar 9: Small-Donor Public Financing
Money tilts politics toward the wealthy. Matching small donations with public funds shifts power back to citizens. A $50 gift could be matched 6 to 1, turning it into $350. New York City’s program has proven this model. Candidates who opt in agree to limits on large contributions. Public financing amplifies everyday voices and reduces dependence on billionaires and PACs.
Pillar 10: Dark-Money Transparency
Secret spending corrodes trust. Voters deserve to know who is paying for influence. Congress could require disclosure of major donors behind election ads, the IRS could tighten rules for nonprofits, and the Securities and Exchange Commission could require corporations to disclose political spending. California already maintains an online ad library. Sunlight is not optional. It is the minimum.
Pillar 11: A Constitutional Amendment on Money in Politics
Supreme Court rulings like Citizens United equated money with speech and gave corporations free rein to spend. Without an amendment, reforms remain vulnerable to judicial veto. An amendment authorizing “reasonable limits” would secure lasting change. Amendments are difficult but not impossible. The 26th, lowering the voting age, passed quickly once demand surged. A similar movement would reset the rules of political finance.
Pillar 12: Electoral College Reform
Twice in 25 years, the loser of the popular vote won the presidency. This undermines legitimacy. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact offers a realistic fix. States pledge to award their electors to the national popular-vote winner once the compact reaches 270 votes. The compact total is 209 electoral votes as of April 2024 (NCSL). Once enacted, every vote counts equally, and no state is ignored.
Pillar 13: Statehood for Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico
More than 4 million citizens in DC and Puerto Rico live under federal law without full representation. They pay taxes, serve in the military, and yet remain second-class. Congress could fix this with admission bills. For Puerto Rico, a binding referendum would confirm the people’s choice. Statehood is not a partisan gift. It is a recognition of citizenship.
Pillar 14: Senate Filibuster Reform
The filibuster allows 41 senators representing as little as 11% of the population to block laws supported by majorities. This is minority rule hiding behind procedure. At the start of a new Congress, the Senate could change its rules by simple majority. Carve outs for democracy and civil-rights laws, or a return to the “talking filibuster,” would restore accountability. Without reform, every other measure in this blueprint remains hostage.
Pillar 15: Restoring Voting Rights for Citizens with Felony Convictions
Roughly 4 million Americans could not vote due to felony convictions in 2024, disproportionately African Americans. This is the direct legacy of post-Reconstruction suppression. Congress could restore rights for federal elections upon release from prison, with states following suit. Maine and Vermont already allow incarcerated citizens to vote without disruption. Reenfranchisement strengthens reintegration and affirms that citizenship is not permanently stripped.
As King declared during the Selma march, “So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the right to vote I do not possess myself. I cannot make up my mind, it is made up for me.”
Pillar 16: Professional, Nonpartisan Election Administration
Partisan control of elections erodes trust and invites abuse. States should establish independent boards with balanced membership and fixed terms. Congress could tie federal funds to adoption. Protecting election workers is equally critical, with legal penalties for harassment and security resources for threatened staff. Canada and India already run nonpartisan election commissions that command trust across divides. Administration must be neutral, or democracy will never be trusted.
Pillar 17: Paper Ballots and Risk-Limiting Audits
In an age of hacking and conspiracy, trust depends on evidence. Paper ballots provide a physical record that gets checked. Risk-limiting audits verify results before certification. Colorado already runs statewide audits successfully. Congress could require paper ballots nationwide and tie funds to compliance. This is not bureaucracy. It is proof. Without it, lies about stolen elections thrive.
Pillar 18: Anti-Subversion and Certification Safeguards
When local officials refuse to certify results, democracy hangs by a thread. The 2022 reform of the Electoral Count Reform Act helped at the federal level, but state rules remain vulnerable. States should set binding timelines, automatic court enforcement, and criminal penalties for willful refusal. Certification is a ministerial duty, not a political choice. This pillar locks the foundation against sabotage.
Pillar 19: Supreme Court and Ethics Reform
The court cannot remain above the law. Without binding ethics rules, recusal standards, and disclosure requirements, legitimacy collapses. Congress could pass a code of ethics and set staggered 18-year terms for justices. Expanding lower courts will reduce manipulation by partisan litigants. Other democracies enforce judicial standards. The United States must do no less. The court should protect democracy, not place it at risk.
Pillar 20: Strengthening Local News and Voter Information
Citizens need information. Yet local news is collapsing, leaving hundreds of counties in news deserts where disinformation thrives. States could fund independent civic-information consortia. Congress could provide tax credits for subscriptions and newsroom hiring. Nonprofits and libraries could publish voter guides. Switzerland and New Jersey already invest in public-interest media. Without informed citizens, no electoral system will function.
Critics’ Corner: Answering the Naysayers
And yes, there are alternative solutions. Every serious reform agenda will meet resistance. Some critics attack from cynicism, others from realism, and some from outright bad faith. Growth, discourse, and compromise are hallmarks of a strong democracy.
Bring them into the open and address them directly. Put them on the record and meet them with evidence.
“These are liberal fantasies.”
No. These reforms are not partisan dreams. They are basic democratic standards already working in red, purple, and blue states. Maine and Alaska use ranked-choice voting. Florida voters overwhelmingly approved rights restoration for people with felony convictions. Arizona voters created an independent redistricting commission. If these reforms were only “liberal,” they would never have passed in conservative states. They are about fairness, not ideology.
“You can’t reform until you’re in power, and you can’t get into power without reform.”
Yes, this is the chicken-and-egg problem. The answer is incremental and state-based change. Marriage equality, marijuana legalization, Medicaid expansion: Each began in a handful of states and spread until the national system had to adapt. Reform builds in layers, not in one stroke.
“We tried this before and it failed.”
It is true that campaign finance reform was gutted and the Voting Rights Act was weakened. But that is not proof that reform is futile. It is proof that stronger safeguards are needed. Failure is not a reason to give up. It is a reason to come back with better armor.
“The courts will strike it down anyway.”
Courts block progress, but courts are not immune to public legitimacy. When movements gain strength, courts bend rather than risk collapse. That is why judicial reform itself belongs in the blueprint: term limits, ethics codes, and lower-court expansion.
“America is unique. You can’t import foreign models.”
Yes, America is unique. But uniqueness is no excuse for dysfunction. Every advanced democracy has figured out how to prevent minority rule, gerrymandering, and billion-dollar elections. Ours will too.
“The people in power will never vote away their own power.”
They often do, when public pressure leaves them no choice. Incumbents in Maine fought ranked-choice voting, and they lost. Florida politicians resisted rights restoration, but 65% of voters demanded it. History is clear: Power yields when people force it to.
“Voters don’t care about this.”
Reform is not separate from people’s daily concerns. Gerrymandered legislatures block policies that majorities support, from wages to healthcare to climate action. Electoral reform is not abstract. It is the condition for getting anything else done.
“Too complicated. Ordinary people will never support it.”
The technical details are complex, but the principles are simple. Majority rule. One person, one vote. Transparency. Fairness. Citizens voted for ranked-choice ballots, independent commissions, and rights restoration because they understood the basic value, not because they mastered the math.
“This is too radical. It will never all pass.”
True. Not all at once. But reforms are cumulative. The civil rights movement did not win everything in a single bill. It won through steady pressure and incremental victories that reshaped the landscape. A blueprint is not a one-day project. It is a guide for decades.
“Polarization will remain even if reforms pass.”
Polarization is real, but bad rules intensify it. Gerrymandered districts reward extremism. Winner-take-all systems punish compromise. Fair rules do not erase division, but they blunt its sharpest edges.
“Liberals only want reform when they lose.”
False. Independent commissions, voting rights expansions, and redistricting reforms have passed with bipartisan coalitions and often in conservative states. The test is simple: If a party or movement opposes fair elections, it is admitting it cannot win in a fair fight.
“It is already too late.”
Authoritarians want nothing more than for you to believe that. History says otherwise. Franco ruled Spain for nearly four decades before democracy returned. South Korea’s generals held power for decades until protest cracked their hold. It is never too late unless people surrender.
The critics are not wrong about the difficulty. Reform will be hard. Entrenched interests will resist. Courts may obstruct. Cynicism will whisper that it is all impossible. But every democracy that has clawed its way back from authoritarian drift faced the same voices of defeat. And these are different, deadly, critical times that try men’s souls. And the prescription may need to be sweeping and comprehensive and great and radical.
The Real Choice
The design flaws are serious. In other countries similar strain has brought unrest and uncertainty. Here it calls for reinforcement, not retreat. The danger is not that elections no longer matter. The danger is believing they cannot. Despair cedes the field to those who want democracy to die quietly. History proves that elections topple dictatorships and open paths to reform. But only when people defend them and demand change.
Local elections matter, yes. They are vital. But abandoning federal reform is not an option. The presidency, the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court shape the lives of every citizen. If we concede those arenas as theater, we concede the nation itself.
The Path Forward
The truth is stark. American democracy is rigged, tilted toward minority rule, and riddled with flaws that delegitimize outcomes. But stark is not hopeless. Other nations have faced crises as severe and rebuilt their democracies from the ground up. So will we.
The fight ahead is not about abandoning federal elections but transforming them. Automatic registration. Independent redistricting. Campaign finance reform. Proportional representation. Expanded access. Professional administration. Ethical courts. Informed citizens. These are not slogans. They are the pillars of a rebuilt democracy.
As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” “We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Silence is not an option. Nor is delay. King called it “the fierce urgency of now.” He reminded us that “this is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy.”
That is the choice in front of us. To retreat into despair and let cynicism rot the foundation, or to rise and defend the ballot as the most powerful instrument of justice ever devised.
The question is no longer whether change is possible. The question is whether we will summon the will to fight for it. Whether we will defend the ballot or surrender it. Whether we will prove that democracy can be realized in this generation by acting, organizing, legislating, and refusing to give up.
Voting still matters. But only if we make it matter.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Not-So-Impossible Quest to Evict War Profiteer L3Harris From Northampton, Mass.
The sudden emergence of candidates for every single local office, who are eager to remove L3Harris from the city, reframes our weekly protests and actions at L3Harris from a futile gesture to a burgeoning movement.
Aug 31, 2025
On Wednesday, August, 20, I go to protest—as I do every Wednesday at 6:30 am Eastern Time—at local arms profiteer, L3Harris. I know something might be up, because one of my companions at last week's L3 demonstration warned me that people plan to block the company driveway. The police will make arrests. Protest leaps deftly over a small barrier to become civil disobedience.
I have attended countless demonstrations across my accumulating decades, but had never distinguished myself sufficiently to be chosen for arrest. As a lifelong resident of a country known across the globe for crimes against humanity, how is it possible for me to have tiptoed so gently that no cop anywhere, ever, tackled or cuffed me for a ride downtown? My spotless record indicates that I have paused at the threshold of moral opportunity and timidly shrunken myself into something tiny, almost invisible—a green aphid on a tomato leaf, a wisp of smoke from an extinguished match head, a name forgotten in the presence of a long ago face. Our weekly demonstrations at L3Harris have been too small to elicit even a single police cruiser, and even now, none have yet arrived. We live in the new US era of arbitrary arrests. Pristine criminal records have become a luxury of bygone days.
Last week we had seven protesters, and now we shatter that record-breaking turnout with an array of colorful people who number at least four times that many (maybe more)—some wear grim reaper getups, and others are masked, hooded, cloaked, or simply covered over with rain gear and warm coats on a rare, cold, rainy day momentarily punctuating a month of drought and oppressive heat. But these people (organized by Demilitarize Western Mass with a number of individual participants from Jewish Voice for Peace)—however many we have—now block the entrance with their bodies. They have stretched a yellow ribbon labeled, "crime scene" across the road. The crime itself, represented explicitly with a line of faux bloodstained body bags, each the size of an infant, might ordinarily be lost—crimes against humanity depend on the oblivious indifference of participants who work within the lower layers of homicidal supply chains. We stir the faint embers of conscience, the hypothetical internal torment of L3 workers, but we perform primarily to arouse the sleeping giant of Northampton, a city whose moral resolve has been largely illusory.
The L3Harris website might easily be seen as a parody of so-called "woke" culture. One page solicits job applications with a picture of a Black man with a child on his back. Workers at L3Harris have access to "employee resource groups" organized around diverse ethnic, religious, and racial identities. The human imagination would seemingly explode with flabbergasted disbelief at how far absurdity can be stretched—corporations have created cultures with such limitless credulity that George Orwell himself would now scream into the void. At L3Harris you can join "MENA"—a company association for people with Middle Eastern or North African descent who build sensors to guide bombs to the chosen Gazan addresses (schools, hospitals and apartments). I don't see any employees who appear to be Middle Eastern or North African at our Northampton outpost of the death industry. L3 also has an employee resource group called "PRIDE" for its LGBTQ workers. I suspect that we witness a time lag between the old jargon that characterized former US President Joe Biden's style, and the new language of current President Donald Trump's white supremacy. Both Biden and Trump align around L3Harris and massive bombing of civilians. Even the worst crimes against humanity require the balm of cultural trends. Who but god itself could conceivably imagine the roiling thoughts of L3 workers whose cars have been stymied by the accusing souls of dead babies suddenly lined up on the pavement of their employee parking lot entrance.
Ralph Nader sets the Gazan death toll at 400,000 currently—we futilely attempt to replicate the scope of suffering with theatrical props. A stretch of white cloth streaked with more red paint lies across the entire L3Harris driveway entrance, and beside that, puddles of somewhat pinkish liquid glisten in the light mist that falls.
One woman with a bullhorn leads chants: "Hey, ho! L3Harris has got to go! From Palestine to Mexico, L3Harris has got to go!" I team up with a woman in a black raincoat holding my end of a sign that reads, "L3 your boss Chris Kubacik makes $19.8 million a year supplying weapons to Israel." Another companion placard has a photograph of CEO Kubacik blandly smiling to reveal a couple of vampire teeth with a drop of blood oozing at each point. This is all wonderful—any spark of life, whimsy, or celebration these days has an aura of abrupt surprise, as if a spaceship has descended from the void of interstellar darkness and unloaded a cargo of atrophied torsos and oversized heads.
Is L3Harris, the epicenter of Northampton, the only part of Northampton that truly matters, the dusky shadow of ourselves that we paper over with slogans? Our civil disobedience acts out a theatrical production with a skeleton cast. Only the protesters, the police, a reporter for the local progressive newspaper (The Shoestring), the L3 employees, and a few passing cars are here to play their parts. The two most important roles—the 30,000 Northampton residents and the Northampton elected city officials—are not here. The guidance systems that align bombs with anatomies take shape behind the ordinary walls of a local workplace in a town that thinks of itself as a beacon of universal tolerance. An ocean of blood resolves into a moral trickle. From time to time, activists have assembled at the entrance of L3Harris, but not yet with sustained resolve. We have barely imagined an endgame for resistance, but clearly, we need to release Northampton from the bondage of neoliberal somnolence.
History will possibly link Northampton and L3Harris in the manner that we link Los Alamos, New Mexico and the atomic bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People live quietly in Los Alamos too—people who drink coffee and catch their breath, people who look at basketball scores, work as grocery baggers or nuclear physicists, but we forget the normal things that go on at Los Alamos as we may one day forget about Smith College, The Iron Horse Music Hall, or The David Ruggles Center that commemorates the role that Northampton played as a stop on the Underground Railroad.
My comparison between Northampton and Los Alamos might raise eyebrows, as I hope it will. Los Alamos, as a township, had no historical existence at all and rather coalesced around the top secret Manhattan Project begun in 1943. The township officially emerged only after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were blown to smithereens—the fruits of Los Alamos. Northampton, on the other hand, has a rich history as one of the birthplaces of the US mental health industry, and as the home of such morally uncompromising religious zealots as Jonathan Edwards and Sylvester Graham. In 1805, 15,000 Northampton residents gathered to celebrate the hanging of two Irish immigrants condemned by a kangaroo court that required no evidence. A few decades later our town became a major stop on the Underground Railroad. Northampton continues to flutter mysteriously in the political breezes. L3Harris did not build Northampton from scratch, but arrived quietly as an afterthought. Most of us don't even know that it is there, manufacturing death and selling lethal components around the globe.
The Manhattan Project was kept secret by design and centered in Los Alamos because of its remote proximity to nowhere. In our times the military-industrial complex no longer needs to conceal its intent. Our secrets are not secrets at all, but, rather, we share a repressed understanding that—whatever tiny measure of agency the masses might possess—war is none of our business. The balance of control has made ordinary people into particles of sediment carried passively downstream by the momentum of corporate aspirations and the Orwellian gifts of politicians and media. But Northampton likes to sometimes think of itself as a world apart.
Can we really do the impossible and evict a major component of the US military-industrial complex with the tools of civil disobedience and local elections?
There might be 30-35 of us here, and now the cops have arrived looking uncertain, but peeved. A line of L3 employees' vehicles wait to turn into the blocked driveway. The biggest, most muscular cop recognizes me with a smile—we both workout at Planet Fitness and I wave to my fitness comrade. Some L3 employees have parked at the mental health facility across the street and cross our picket line like so many strike breakers. A young man in his early 20s wears a particularly fierce scowl. Most armaments employees self-consciously avoid eye contact with us. The moral fault lines of the US seldom become as explicit as they now are.
The civil disobedience ends with a whimper. A couple of particularly nasty, loud-voiced cops intimidate us, and we take down the yellow tape, remove the bloody babies in body bags, and move aside while fire hoses wash away the blood of Gaza. As a piece of counter-theater, the cops grab two women from Jewish Voice for Peace and shove them roughly into cruisers. My imagination runs wild. The police are an appendage of the city, its mayor, and city council members. This protest is the tip of the iceberg—what would an event like this look like if the police were constrained by a socialist mayor—our version of Zohran Mamdani? Can Northampton—the so-called most progressive city in America—live up to the 3.5% rule. The 3.5% rule generally refers to the needed percentage of people nationally willing to engage in sustained civil disobedience in order to bring about the collapse of an oppressive regime, or a drastic shift in policy. The 3.5% rule may not be entirely applicable to town politics, but still, I wonder what would happen if Northampton elected a Zohran Mamdani sort of mayor and mobilized civil disobedience with a thousand protesters blocking the entrance to L3Harris' parking lot?
Speaking of Planet Fitness, I note that L3Harris and "The Planet" pay the town similar property taxes despite the enormously unequal revenues recorded by each business. Bomb guiding systems and periscopes for nuclear subs bring in some 40 times the national revenue generated by free weights and treadmills. Northampton politicians gave L3Harris over a decade of tax breaks—these town authorities justified this because L3Harris provided local jobs. But the act of pandering to corporate giants has not solved Northampton's financial struggles. The schools wrestle with financial shortfalls every year, and this has led to cuts and layoffs. Rents have become impossible for working people; the streets, rutted and pock marked with neglect, swallow tires and bust axels. Last winter a snow storm and brutal freeze made streets almost impassable for two weeks, but, more than any other issue, the underfunded schools have inspired an unprecedented political movement featuring younger candidates vying to unseat the centrist town council incumbents that have been faithful to Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra. Some identify as democratic socialists, including 24-year-old Will O'Dwyer, whose campaign website lists a number of laudable policy intentions including:
Oppose further tax breaks and subsidies for L3Harris and support the removal of the company and its operations from Northampton.
Niko Letendre-Cahillane is another young democratic socialist running for a councilor seat in my ward one district. His campaign website lists the following proposal:
Recognize that Northampton is part of a wider global community, and will push for divestment from weapons manufacturers and harmful and extractive businesses, while supporting the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement to end apartheid in Palestine.
Letendre-Cahillane specifically named the removal of L3Harris from Northampton as a critical campaign goal in a recent public debate.
Luke Rotello, running for a council seat in Northampton ward five, states on his website that he "will seek ways to remove war profiteers from our city." He also specifically named L3Harris as the target for removal in public debates.
The incumbent from ward three, Quaverly Rothenberg, has hosted several activists in her office for months now who wish to brainstorm strategies to remove L3 from Northampton.
I have been told by more experienced observers of local politics that it is possible to have councilors from all seven of Northampton's wards, and two at-large councilors who will all work to remove L3Harris from Northampton.
Current Northampton Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra stated in a debate on August, 26—I am paraphrasing—that she is not happy with L3Harris being in Northampton, but there isn't anything the town can do about it. This is rather par for the course for this mayor who has failed to prevent the loss of critical school staff, and who has blatantly soft-pedaled her pitch to get the local Smith College (with their multibillion-dollar endowment) to increase the college's piddling PILOT (payments in lieu of taxes) to make up for the shortfall. Sciarra calls herself an "unapologetic progressive." In Northampton every politician to the left of Donald Trump claims to be progressive. Phrases like "social justice," "human rights," and "standing up for working families" fly out of their mouths like spittle pouring from the mouth of a rabid dog.
Sciarra's strongest opponent in the upcoming mayoral election preliminaries, Dan Breindel, calls Sciarra a Republican. Nobody paying attention would mistake Sciarra for a "progressive" given her stingy refusal to apply ample resources to the critically underfunded schools and her penchant for austerity combined with gaudy, gentrifying downtown projects. The population who send their children to public schools is much poorer than the overall voting public. Northampton has the most unequal distribution of wealth in Western Massachusetts. Politicians like Mayor Sciarra can piss all over the rights of poor constituents and appeal to a substantial base of retirees and moneyed residents who can afford to send their kids to nearby Williston—a private school. And Sciarra is a dead weight upon the aspiration to force L3Harris to leave town. Mayoral candidate, Dan Breindel, on the other hand, wrote this in an email to me:
On a personal level, I am extremely anti-war, so please rest assured my aim is to rid the world of the military-industrial complex, starting with this town. 100%. Not only are they (L3Harris) here in our backyard making money off murder, when they considered leaving a few years back the city effectively gave them one of our most beautiful plots of land, which they in turn restrict all public access to. So there's nothing good about having them here and it's frankly baffling they've been here as long as they have seemingly without any real government opposition.
The sudden emergence of candidates for every single local office, who are eager to remove L3Harris from the city, reframes our weekly protests and actions at L3Harris from a futile gesture to a burgeoning movement. I had previously been discouraged by our lack of numbers, but even small protests have meaning. Some of my fellow anti-war protesters are barely aware that their struggle to evict L3Harris now has a resounding echo in the effort to overthrow the neoliberal, corporate-friendly mayor and city council. What role will a truly progressive mayor and council have in growing and energizing our protests? I fantasize about taking on the role of liaison between young socialist candidates and mostly older anti-L3Harris protesters. I also think about being arrested. My time has come to cross that threshold.
Can we really do the impossible and evict a major component of the US military-industrial complex with the tools of civil disobedience and local elections? Our efforts have escalated on many fronts—notably, Mathew Hoey, who once collaborated with Noam Chomsky to bring attention to the US nuclear expansion into South Korea, has written a superb op-ed for the local Hampshire Gazette. Hoey details how L3Harris' proximity endangers the local community which may become a "counterforce" nuclear target. It simply astonishes me that local people in our fascist times have the energy and imagination to undertake a seemingly impossible quest. It now seems less impossible than it did mere months ago.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Is Mounting an Authoritarian Takeover of Our Election System
Attempting to implement policies limiting mail voting or voting machines via executive order would be flagrantly illegal and flatly unconstitutional—a power grab.
Aug 21, 2025
After his Friday meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, US President Donald Trump bragged that the dictator had backed one of his conspiracy theories. According to Trump, Putin said, “You can’t have an honest election with mail-in voting.” (You don’t need to be a former KGB agent to know how to woo our chief executive.)
Then on Monday, perhaps emboldened by his encounter with a real-life autocrat, Trump announced a major effort to seize control of American elections.
In a Truth Social post, he declared that he would sign “an EXECUTIVE ORDER to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections” and “lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS.”
We’ve all grown used to the president’s wild claims about elections. We might be tempted to roll our eyes now, but we shouldn’t. It’s appalling.
If we do not act against these threats, free and fair elections in 2026 could be at stake. So, what can be done?
The order would likely purport to ban or seriously limit mail voting, a focus of Trump’s since 2020. To be clear, mail voting is a widely popular and long-standing practice used by about a third of citizens. Every state has well-tested security measures in place to ensure that the process is safe and secure.
Trump claimed in his post that we are the only country in the world that uses mail voting. Putin, whom he called a “smart guy,” allegedly told him that, but it is blatantly false. Dozens of countries use mail voting, including Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom. (And of course, Trump himself regularly votes by mail in Florida.)
The order could also target voting machines. “While we’re at it,” he said in the post, we should get rid of “Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES.” That’s nutty. Machines with a paper record (used by 98% of voters) are far more accurate and secure than, say, counting ballots by hand. Ironically, Trump’s blast came the same day that Newsmax paid $67 million to a voting machine company in a defamation suit arising from the last round of false claims about the 2020 election.
Attempting to implement any of these policies via executive order would be flagrantly illegal and flatly unconstitutional—a power grab. Already, earlier this year, Trump tried to seize control of elections with an executive order requiring Americans to produce a passport or another citizenship document to register to vote using the federal form. The Brennan Center and others sued, and judges blocked the worst part of that move. The new threatened executive order, too, could turn out to be vapor, essentially a malevolent press release.
But Trump’s post contained a chilling claim: “Remember, the States are merely an ‘agent’ for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes. They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do.”
This statement plainly repudiates the Constitution—the Elections Clause gives states and Congress the power to run elections. Presidents have no authority to rewrite election rules. In a democracy, the states are not personal agents of the president.
If successful, this executive order would be nothing short of an authoritarian takeover of our election system. Imagine the man who demanded that a state election official “find” him 11,780 votes in charge of “counting and tabulating the votes.”
This threat comes as federalized troops and masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents patrol the streets of Washington, DC. Last week, ICE agents massed outside a Democratic event on redistricting in California.
Again, Trump’s threatened executive order would be blatantly illegal and blocked by a court. But it’s still important to listen to what he’s saying. He’s making his goal—a federal takeover of elections—explicit. And while this particular tactic won’t work, it’s just one piece of the administration’s emerging, unmistakable campaign to undermine our elections, a drive that ranges from defunding election security programs to trying to gain access to state voter rolls.
Voters must have the final say in a democracy. If we do not act against these threats, free and fair elections in 2026 could be at stake. So, what can be done?
The courts must uphold the Constitution when it comes to elections, as they did with Trump’s earlier executive order.
State leaders and election officials must also fight back. They must stand firm in their right to oversee elections, continue to provide voters with options such as mail and early voting, resist illegal orders, and keep control over voting machines. The Brennan Center has published information about how to respond to requests to access sensitive data and machinery.
Ultimately, the integrity of the next election will be up to voters. We must all speak out against these moves to meddle with the vote. It’s harder to take over an election when everyone is watching.
Think again about Trump’s claim that states are his “agents” in tabulating the votes. Vladimir Putin’s great hero had something to say about that: “I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how,” Joseph Stalin said, “but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular