A proposition on the ballot to change the way voting works in Idaho failed in last week's election.

Proposition One would have opened up primaries to create a top-four system and ranked-choice voting in general elections. The measure received 30% approval.

Al Vanderklipp - senior research associate with the Northwest-based think tank Sightline Institute - said even when people dislike the status quo for elections, they are suspicious of proposals to change the way they vote.

"The default stance of most voters is 'no' for these ballot measures," said Vanderklipp, "and so there's a really high bar to educate voters on the potential benefit of why they might want to vote 'yes,' and in this case it appears that bar was not cleared."

Many top Republicans came out in opposition to the measure.

Like many states across the country, state Republicans saw success on Election Day, adding three more seats in the state Legislature to the supermajority they already possessed.

A ranked-choice measure in Oregon also failed.

However, Vanderklipp noted that candidates could win without receiving a majority of the votes.

"Let's say the independent candidate wins 33% of the vote, and the Republican wins 33% of the vote, and the Democrat wins 34%," said Vanderklipp. "That would elect a Democrat in a state that really doesn't elect Democratic candidates - and that would not be representative, probably, of the population as a whole."

Vanderklipp noted that a ranked-choice system could solve this by counting people's second choice in elections.

But with an unpopular result for Proposition One, he said other changes could be possible in the future.

"There are more incremental reforms like top-two primaries, rather than top four," said Vanderklipp. "California and Washington use those. They're pretty popular. They're effective in electing more moderate and more representative candidates."

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.




get more stories like this via email

As the world reflects on the life and legacy of former President Jimmy Carter, the Reverend Mashaun D. Simon sees a man whose ministry and authenticity continued to shape lives well beyond his time in the White House.

Carter, who taught Sunday school and welcomed thousands of visitors to Plains, Georgia, during his post-presidency years, left an indelible mark on those who encountered him.

Simon, who is studying pastoral theology and grief, sees Carter's passing as an opportunity for societal reflection. He believes it calls for a renewed commitment to continuing Carter's work.

"It's a sad moment because he is so cherished but I think also it's a watershed moment for us to be reminded to find the best ways to be impactful in our lives," Simon explained. "Creating not necessarily the same legacy that he did, but one that can be just as honorable."

Carter, the 39th U.S. president, passed away Sunday at age 100 in his Plains, Georgia, home. More than 40 years ago, he was a little-known Democratic candidate when he unexpectedly defeated Republican incumbent Gerald Ford in the 1976 presidential election.

Simon recalls meeting former President Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, during his senior year at Emory University, where, as student body president of the Theology School, he gave the blessing and invocation at a school dinner attended by the Carters.

"It was a great opportunity, very unexpected," Simon recounted. "I had no clue that when I ran to be student body president that one of the privileges of that experience would be to have an opportunity to sit down with former President Carter and his wife Rosalynn."

Carter is known as much for his post-presidency humanitarian efforts as for his time in the White House. He leaves behind a profound example of leadership rooted in compassion. Simon urged others to honor Carter's legacy by striving to create their own positive impact.


get more stories like this via email

Between endless doomscrolling and nonstop negative headlines, a New Mexico political science professor said it's no surprise the Merriam-Webster dictionary anointed "polarization" the word of the year.

Jessica Feezell - an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of New Mexico - said she believes polarization should actually be the word of the past 40 or 50 years, because she said politicians and some media outlets have encouraged the division for at least that long.

In 2024, she said both Democrats and Republicans were tending toward extremes rather than the center.

"The parties have really exploited the American public in this way to their advantage," said Feezell. "People tend to vote out of fear and hatred more than they do out of support and joy, and I think the American public is tiring of this level of hostility."

Feezell said she believes polarization has become more common in the U.S. because people don't interact with others that are cross-partisans as frequently - and when online, seek networks of like-minded people.

She noted that media companies compete for peoples' attention with snappy, negative headlines that often are more pessimistic and alarming than the actual story.

"Research shows that actually most people don't read full articles," said Feezell. "They just scroll headlines. And people tend to believe information that is consistent with their pre-dispositions. So, headlines that are partisan and negative are very easy to sort of accept or reject."

Feezell said many companies benefit financially when Americans are angry at each other.

"If people put their attention on articles that are not inflammatory," said Feezell, "then the media would respond and write that kind of content."

Running second to polarization, Merriam-Webster's said other words that stood out in its 2024 online searches were totality, resonate, pander, and weird.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

By Vanessa Davidson / Broadcast version by Farah Siddiqi reporting for the Kent State NewsLab-Ohio News Connection Collaboration.

“As Ohio goes, so goes the nation” is a saying that rang true for many presidential election cycles. Ohio was a key swing state for decades, voting with the winner of U.S. presidential elections every year from 1960 until 2020. 

But since 2012, the margin of voters in favor of Republican presidential candidates has steadily increased. In 2012, around 47.7% of Ohio voters favored the Republican presidential candidate, followed by 51.7% in 2016 and 53.3% in 2020. 

In 2024, Donald Trump won 55.2% of Ohio votes. 

Experts cite a variety of reasons for that shift — including a decline in the power of labor unions, fewer college-educated voters than the national average and the effectiveness of the Republican Party’s campaign methods.

“Because we were a big manufacturing state, and because manufacturing jobs did usually require a college education, it wasn't necessary for a lot of Ohioans to get a college degree,” said former Ohio Governor Bob Taft, now a professor at The University of Dayton . 

“And you know, one of the key breaks now between Republican voters and Democrat voters is Republicans are doing a lot better with and particularly Trump is doing a lot better with voters without a college degree,” he said. “So I think that too is one of the factors that explains why Ohio has become so red as a state.”

Like many of the states that surround it, Ohio is what’s known as a Rust Belt state. With the flourishing of automotive and manufacturing industries, many blue-collar jobs emerged between the 19th century and the 20th century.

However, throughout the later half of the 20th century and early 21st century, factories gradually closed, taking manufacturing and supporting jobs with them. As a result, numbers in labor unions dwindled, causing a lack of resources and campaigning — a hit that impacted the strategy of the Democratic Party.

“Organized labor was a big part of the Democratic strength in Ohio when I first entered politics, because the labor unions had to have more members,” said Taft.

Taft was governor of Ohio from 1999 to 2007, representing the Republican Party. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, served one term after Taft. All Ohio’s governors since 2011 have been Republicans. 

Unions at that time, Taft said, “Had more resources. They actively engaged in political campaigns, generally on behalf of Democratic candidates. We still have labor unions which still have some members, but it's not on the scale that it used to be, say, 20 or 30 years ago.”

Ohio’s working class sought out support and representation after the 2007 recession, and still continue to by voting for candidates that prioritize their needs. The focus on blue-collar workers was key to former President Barack Obama’s consecutive wins in 2008 and 2012. 

“Obama did carry Ohio twice, but Obama was, I think, perceived as a change candidate, someone that would make things better,” Taft said. “And so, he was able to appeal to a broader group of voters than a Democrat might normally appeal to in Ohio.”

Donald Trump's victory in 2024 has also been partly attributed to his focus on promising change and speaking towards the working class. 

Social media has also played a role in Trump’s victories since he was able to reach broader audiences, said Dr. Lauren Copeland, the director of Community Research Institute at Baldwin Wallace University.

“Social media has played a large role in creating divisiveness in society, and at the same time, it's also provided candidates — such as former President Trump and now incoming President Trump — with platforms to directly reach out to their base without having to go through the media,” Copeland said. 

“I don't think that Trump would have succeeded as much as he did in 2016 had he not used Twitter effectively to reach his base.”

College degrees have also had a big impact on the way Ohioans vote. People with college degrees are more likely to vote Democrat than people without college degrees. 

Voters without degrees lean toward Republicans. According to the Pew Research Center, around 63% of Republican voters in 2022 did not have college degrees, compared to 49% of Democratic voters.

This divide in education represents a broader perspective. Often, people without college degrees prioritize issues like immigration and job security, which are topics that align with more conservative policies.

“People without a four-year college degree tend to be more conservative than people who have a four-year degree, or especially an advanced degree,” said Copeland.

According to 2023 census data, 32% of Ohioans have bachelor’s degrees, 4.2 percentage points below the national average of 36.2%. 

Racial demographics also play a part in how a community votes. Outside of major cities where the majority of people of color live — like Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Akron, Toledo and Dayton — all other counties in Ohio voted red in 2024.

“People who are nonwhite, such as African Americans, tend to be more liberal than their white counterparts,” said Copeland. 

In 2023, 76.7% of Ohioans were white, compared to 58.4% of Americans overall. 

“When you have a state like Ohio that has a lot less diversity than, say, other states like Illinois, New York, or even some of the states in the southwest, then you're going to have a climate in which Republicans are going to be more likely to win,” Copeland said.

With these many different factors influencing Ohio’s political landscape, Ohio’s future as a swing state is questionable. 

“Ohio will still be overall, in all probability, a Republican state, but… not as Republican as a state like Montana,” said Taft. “So I think a Democrat will win, potentially statewide, in Ohio. But it's a little uphill for the Democrat Party.”


This collaboration is produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.


get more stories like this via email