>> Carla Hayden: Welcome.
I'm Carla Hayden, the 14th
Librarian of Congress.
And last year I announced the
selection of Danielle Allen
as the winner of
the Kluge Prize,
the most prestigious honor
given in the humanities.
Dr. Allen is the James Bryant
Conant professor of government
at Harvard University.
She is internationally known as
a leading scholar of the origins
of democracy and is
active in efforts
to support civics education
and democratic practice.
Last year, she brought together
a multidisciplinary group
of academic and public leaders
that developed the highly
influential "Roadmap
to Pandemic Resilience."
This year, as the Kluge Prize
Laureate Dr. Allen is leading a
series of public events,
as well as workshops
for K-12 educators
here at the library.
This series is titled
"Our Common Purpose.
A Campaign for Civic Strength"
at the Library of Congress.
Today we are holding the
second of these events
with the distinguished panel
drawn from around the country.
A discussion of electoral
institutions
and how they may be reformed.
Thank you for tuning into
this important conversation.
Now I'd like to turn
to Dr. John Haskell,
Director of the Kluge
Center at the library
to introduce the panelists.
John.
>> John Haskell:
Thank you, Dr. Hayden.
And thank all of you for
joining us for the second event
in "Our Common Purpose.
A Campaign for Civic Strength"
at the Library of Congress.
Here we are in the third
decade of the 21st century
and American's faith
in the functioning
of our major political
institutions is at a low end.
It is not an overstatement
to say our institutions have
faced unprecedented challenges.
Kluge prizewinner Danielle Allen
worked with us at the library
to put together a panel
that includes people working
on the ground, at the
state and local level,
to initiate major
institutional reforms.
Joining us today are Katie
Fahey, Executive Director
of The People, an
organization committed
to empowering individuals
to get involved
in the political process.
And create a more responsive
government at all levels.
Katie is a leader in the
democratic reform movement,
including a successful
effort in Michigan
to pass a ballot proposal
that made political
gerrymandering illegal.
Cara McCormick cofounded
and co-leads the Committee
for Rank Choice Voting,
the historic campaign
that made Maine the
first state in the nation
to adopt the rank choice
voting for its state
and federal elections.
She is the CEO of the
Chamberlain Project
and the volunteer
Executive Director
of the Chamberlain
Project Foundation.
Entities that support rank
choice voting in Maine
and around the country.
And last, we have Lee
Drutman, a Senior Fellow
in the political reform
program at New America.
And the author of "Breaking
The Two-Party Doom Loop:
The Case For Multiparty
Democracy in America."
He is cohost of the podcast
"Politics in Question."
And he writes for
"The New York Times,"
"538," among other outlets.
Before I turn the program
over the Danielle Allen,
I want to recognize the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences,
which has supported this
effort every step of the way.
[ Music ]
>> Narrator: The
American Academy of Arts
and Sciences launched a project
to examine, and then address,
what people feel and experience
in America's ongoing
experiment in self-governance.
What's working?
What isn't?
What can be done?
The project's final report
is "Our Common Purpose.
Reinventing American Democracy
for the 21st Century."
Kluge prizewinner,
Danielle Allen,
developed the recommendations
with co-chairs Eric Liu
and Steve Heintz, and 30
other commission members.
They consulted experts across
the political spectrum.
And talked to Americans
from every walk of life.
>> Danielle Allen:
What we're trying
to do is inspire commitment
to American democracy
and to one another.
[ Music ]
>> Amy Wisehart: I think
we are at a crisis point
in our democracy where a lot
of people feel they
aren't being heard.
A lot of people feel
disconnected
from our political institutions.
>> Julio Medina: So, I always
quote my mom with this.
You know, I always say, you
know mom why don't you vote?
And she would say you
know [foreign word].
Basically, why?
Nothing's going to change.
We'll still be poor.
I'll still have to
work three jobs.
And you look at it
again and when you think
of that generational sense,
that people have just been
so disengaged that politics
will not change their status.
>> Vanessa Grossl: Democracies
are kind of built on this idea
that people's voices are heard
and that everyone has one vote.
And you know we're all equals.
But unfortunately, I felt
like it isn't that way.
>> Luis Farias: I think
government is a big machine.
I think government represents
the interest of those
who speak up the loudest.
>> Amy Wisehart: I think
a lot of people are more
and more aware of the
money in politics.
That if money has
outside influence
on what your legislatures do,
then the people themselves are
not having as much of an impact.
>> Kim Covington: People
don't trust the data.
They feel like there are certain
people who hold the power.
And that they are the
ones making the decisions.
>> Julio Medina: Sometimes
you think about it.
Is it intentional?
Is it a way for us to be
able to look at government
and say you know what they're
not going to do anything for me,
so I'm not going to vote.
>> Luis Farias: So I think it
gets back to the frustration
that people feel about
engaging government.
>> C. Seth Sumner: Our citizens
are not engaged with us.
They're not engaged in
finding and working together
to build solutions to
community problems,
because they don't see
the problem as theirs.
We have to do everything
in our authority as leaders
in our beautiful republic to
re-frame those conversations.
To re-engage our citizens
and therefore re-invigorate
our republic.
>> Chatham Kitz: Democracy
demands that we all participate.
>> Amanda Baker: One
of the big values
that we need is commitment, and
that shared civic commitment
to say this is important enough
to give our time
and our energy to.
Because without that commitment,
it's simply not going to fly.
>> Luis Farias: If
we can stay engaged,
we can help government evolve,
then maybe we can
have a more modern
and truly representative
democracy going forward.
>> Vanessa Grossl:
Progress takes time.
We have to be patient.
This is hard work.
And someone has to do it.
Making sure that our experiment
in democracy is a success.
>> Danielle Allen: Hello.
We are so thrilled that you
are here with us at the Library
of Congress for a conversation
about how political
institutions shape outcomes
and how we might reform them.
This conversation grows out of
work that I had the privilege
to do over several years
for The American Academy
of Arts and Sciences.
We ran a commission
and released a report
in June 2020 called
"Our Common Purpose.
Reinventing American Democracy
For The 21st Century."
Before we released this report,
we spent a lot of time talking
with Americans all
over the country
about their frustrations
with our democracy.
Lots of people have
frustrations right now.
Oftentimes, we'll
say to ourselves,
gosh we should all
participate more.
But the truth is, it's hard to
believe in participating more
if you don't think that the
institutions are responsive.
If they feel as if they
leave you disempowered,
or if you think you
don't have equal voice
or representation
in the institutions.
So the truth is that having a
healthy constitutional democracy
requires both institutions that
deliver what we ask of them,
and the culture of
participation.
We need both of those
things operating together.
Today we're really going to
focus on that conversation
about political institutions
with a set of people
who have made a tremendous
difference for the health
of our constitutional democracy.
It's a real pleasure for me to
have the chance today to talk
with these three
extraordinary reformers.
We're going to start by learning
about their experiences.
Their stories and work.
And then dig into the question
of what's wrong with
our democracy?
What's our diagnosis?
And what do we think
the pathway forward is.
But the very first thing I want
to do is actually just ask each
of them to share what they hear
when they hear the words
political institutions.
What does that phrase
mean to them?
Cara, can I start with you?
>> Cara McCormick:
Sure, Danielle.
Thanks so much for having me.
And it's great to see
you, Lee, and Katie.
And thank you to the
Library of Congress.
So what I hear when I hear
political institutions,
specifically, is I kind of hear
that that's the way
that we vote, to me.
So it's first past the post
plurality voting, is what I hear
when I think about that word
institution in the context
of at least my work in the
democratic reform movement.
>> Danielle Allen: Great.
Thank you, Cara.
And how about you, Lee?
What does the phrase political
institutions mean to you?
>> Lee Drutman: So, to me it
means the broader structures
by which we do politics.
So, elections are an incredibly
important part of that.
And it's something like Cara,
that I think a lot about.
But I also think about governing
institutions, like Congress
or the presidency as you know,
sort of formal institutions.
And then, you know, we can
think even more broadly
about informal institutions
like norms or traditions.
But broadly, you know, I think
you think of institutions
as just kind of the both
written and unwritten rules
of how we do politics.
>> Danielle Allen: Great.
Thank you, Lee.
And how about you,
Katie, in your work,
what does that phrase mean?
>> Katie Fahey: Yeah,
I think very similar
to what both Cara and Lee said.
I think political institutions
are really the organizations,
the people, the bodies,
that make the rules
and implement the rules
of how government happens.
I'd also include nonprofits
to traditionally bring
about policy changes
or help write laws.
I think the overall political
landscape when you think
about what does government
have to do?
How does it pass laws?
How does it regulate things?
I think all of that is part
of a wider institution,
including the political
parties too, all part of that.
>> Danielle Allen: That's great.
Thank you so much.
So, each of you has really been
working on moving a boulder.
Katie, you've made
incredible changes
around independent
redistricting.
Cara, you've moved rank choice
voting forward, we'll talk more
about what that is, exactly.
Lee, you really challenged
us all
to rethink our two-party
duopoly, as you call it.
And before we dig into
the specific bodies
of work you've each been doing;
I'd love if you could
just share a story
about how you got started.
What was that ah-ha
moment, that wake up moment
that made you believe you have
to devote your time and energy
to working on the
health of our democracy.
Katie, can I ask
you to go first.
>> Katie Fahey: Sure.
And I'm actually here
kind of by accident.
My background is in
sustainable business.
I worked in grocery stores.
And I made a Facebook
post one day that led
to me leading a charge to
amend our Constitution,
to have an independent
citizen's [inaudible] instead
of gerrymandering.
So, but how I got
there, you know,
I was recently out of college.
And our government I
just saw was failing us.
I had always participated in
voting, kind of paid attention,
didn't really love the
party aspect of things.
And there was a law passed
in Michigan called the
emergency manager law.
Which is a really
unpopular law that the people
of Michigan actually
voted to get rid of.
And then, our legislature,
which had just gotten elected
[inaudible] district cycle,
decided that the first thing
that they were going to do
as a new legislature,
was to find a loophole
to reinstate that law.
Even though millions of people
had voted to get rid of it.
What's lesser known is that
that law is actually one
of the root causes of the Flint
water crisis that happened
in Michigan, which from
a decision to switch
where the source of
water was coming from,
ended up poisoning
an entire city.
Government officials ended up
covering up the actual data
and information so that
people couldn't respond
to that in a timely fashion.
And afterwards as just
a citizen of Michigan,
it looked like everybody
was just pointing fingers
at each other saying,
oh, it's your fault.
It's your fault.
Meanwhile you have kids still at
schools who can't drink water.
And I just kept thinking
about how like,
how is this the America
I thought I lived in?
How are there people who are
going to school right now
who don't have water and
nobody even really cares?
And nobody is really taking
seriously how do we prevent this
in the future.
That's kind of what
for me personally,
when I kind of thought of how do
we actually get accountability
back into our politics?
How does it make it so that
when clearly there are millions
of people, the majority of
people want a change to happen,
our government will actually
respond to that change.
And truly be for, by,
and of the people.
Have the power be vested in us.
And that's really
when I decided,
you know I can't keep
just going to work,
hoping somebody else
is going to fix it.
Because I really, really wasn't
looking around and seeing people
who seemed serious
about doing that.
And that's when I made
that Facebook post.
>> Danielle Allen: that's great.
So just remind us
again, the year you made
that Facebook post
was what year?
What year was that?
>> Katie Fahey: Yeah,
it was 2016,
right after the presidential
election.
The other thing I had been
seeing was that a lot of friends
and family for the first time
ever were actually motivated
to vote.
Mostly because of Bernie
Sanders and President Trump.
They were seeing a
candidate talking
about reforming the
system, tearing it down,
draining the swamp, all that.
And I thought, you
know, maybe something
that unites us is
wanting to fix the system.
And so I kind of threw
that out into the universe.
>> Danielle Allen: So that's a
really powerful story you tell,
the Flint water crisis.
And you're drawing
a real bright line
between how our democracy works,
and important things that matter
in people's lives
on a daily basis.
So the relationship between
our political institutions
and what people would
call substantive policy.
We can talk about water,
we can care about water,
but we can't actually address
it if we're not also thinking
about the health
of our democracy.
That's a really critical point.
Now, I'm asking you to
tell these questions
about personal stories,
because one
of the things I'm
really interested
in is how the perception
that our democracy is broken
has crystalized for people
and started to bring together
the pieces of a movement,
a democracy reform
movement you could call it.
We've had other periods
in our country's history
where there's also been a
sense of a need to really look
at the root of how our democracy
operates and then make change.
And people sort of
lose sight of the fact
that that can take a long
arc of time it takes.
So you think of the years
from 1776 to 1777, '88, '89.
There's the revolution,
the wrote the Articles
of Confederation.
Tried to work with it.
It wasn't working.
Lots of sense of
frustration bubbled up.
But it took that
whole decade-long arc
for people really to have
a clear understanding
of a new direction
they needed to pursue.
Cara, I think if I am right
in understanding the arc
of your own right, your
ah-ha moment is earlier
than Katie's, is that right?
Have I got that right?
>> Cara McCormick: Yeah.
It's a little bit earlier.
I've worked in political
reform now for about 11 years.
I was inspired to
form the Committee
for Rankled Choice Voting with
Dick Woodbury, after working
with Peter Ackerman and the
Team at Americans Elect.
And also for two Independent
political candidates,
Angus King, who ran in 2012.
And then Elliot Cutler
who ran in 2014 in Maine.
And senator Woodbury and I met
in a coffee shop on Milk Street,
in Portland, Maine, downtown.
It was after I had had
a light bulb moment
in the summer of 2014.
And at that point, I really
kind of got it in my bones,
that number one, you know first
past the post voting was just
so unhealthy for our democracy.
And then number two,
it occurred to me
that rank choice voting
could actually fix this
situation forever.
And number three, that our
ancestors 100 years beforehand,
had given us very specific
instructions about how
to fix the structure by
ourselves, without the aid
of politicians by using
the initiative process.
And when all three of those
things sort of came together
for me, at that point there
was pretty much no stopping.
>> Danielle Allen: I'm going to
interrupt you for one second.
I want to hear more of the
story, but first I want
to ask you if you don't mind,
if you could just go ahead
and explain to everybody what
first past the post voting is,
what does that even mean?
What's rank choice voting,
and then we'll come back
to your ah-ha moment.
>> Cara McCormick: Sure so first
past the post voting is the
system that most of us use now,
where you go into the ballot box
and you can chose one person,
you can vote for one person.
And you can't vote
for anybody else.
So you chose one, and that's the
extent of your decision making,
and weighing of your preference.
With rank choice voting,
you go into your ballot box
and you can rank your
preferences of the candidates
in order of truly
what you think.
You can choose your
first choice,
your second choice, and so on.
And when the ballots are
counted, the candidate
that wins 50% of the vote
in aggregate is the winner.
>> Danielle Allen: Okay,
thank you for explaining that.
So, you were I think
about to tell us
that Maine's constitution, 100
years ago, roughly speaking,
and you can give us the exact
dates, introduced this power
for the people to make changes
in the basic rules of the game.
And that's what you discovered
and realized you
could take matters
into your own hands
if I got that right.
>> Cara McCormick: Yeah, pretty
much I realized, I had worked
on a series of three-way
races in Maine,
where there was a very
successful Democrat,
a successful Republican, and
a successful Independent.
With three really good
candidates in a race.
Nine out of the last
11 governors
in Maine have been elected
with the majority of the vote,
because we have a lot
of Independents who run.
And the entire conversation,
in 2014,
anyway was about who was going
to spoil the race for whom.
And that a vote for this
person, was actually a vote
for that person, and a vote
for this was a wasted vote.
And you couldn't really
make heads or tails
of how it was going to work.
And we knew that we were going
to get a candidate elected
without a majority of the vote.
And when I realized it was
the first past the post voting
system that was causing
this problem,
and not any of these
individual candidates,
and that ranked choice voting
was the solution for it.
And also that our constitution
would allow us to change it,
that was pretty cool
combination of conclusions.
>> Danielle Allen: Can
you just tell us more
about the Maine constitution,
and what it says
that gave you an opportunity?
>> Cara McCormick: So the
first thing that it says is
that the citizens are sort of
as powerful as the legislature.
That together, if
we were to collect,
I think it was the first
time 61,123 signatures
from registered voters
across the state,
in favor of putting
our initiative
for rank choice voting on the
ballot, that we would be able
to get our initiative
on the ballot.
And you know we had to
turn it in by midnight
on the third Tuesday,
before the Saturday.
You know, it was very, very
specifically prescribed,
the steps that you had to go
through in order to do this.
And so I thought, you know, well
if we just follow this exactly,
and then we get on the ballot.
And then we want to
campaign and win,
then we'll have rank
choice voting.
The story goes on
much long than that.
And we can talk about that later
if you want, but what happened
in Maine is we passed the law
for RCV in November of 2016,
and 10 months later, our
state legislature repealed it
in a special session, in
the middle of the night.
And at that point, I turned
back to the Maine constitution,
and saw that our ancestors had
also given us something called
the people's veto, which allows
us to do the same thing again,
this time in 88 days,
and we could reverse
what the legislature did
and get our law back.
>> Danielle Allen: Wow.
Okay, we're going to dig more
into that story, for sure.
I want to just go back
to one other element
of your personal narrative.
I think that you
also worked in DC,
I believe in the
'90s, was that right.
Or you were tracking changes
in Congress and also thought
that you saw our
democracy really changing
at that point in time.
Can you remind me what
that moment was for you?
>> Cara McCormick: Sure.
I started working in
politics right out of college,
my first job was with Jerry
Brown when he was running
for president, and I started
working in US Senate politics.
And you know, congressional
politics as a researcher
in 1992, was my first cycle.
And you know worked every
two cycles after that.
And I saw a situation where,
you know I always worked
for Democrats until 2012.
But I saw a situation where,
you know these elections
were just getting sort
of more and more divisive.
You know, you would
have, I remember sitting
in a campaign office in 1996,
and working for a Democrat
and being happy when things
that I cared about would fail
on the Senate floor because then
we could use the information,
you know the votes
against the Republicans.
And you know that was, how
do you expect for people,
after they run so hard against
each other in a campaign
to then go and govern together.
>> Danielle Allen: Right.
So that's really helpful.
So that was another moment,
sort of ah-ha moment for you
that there's sort of a
mismatch between our hopes
for our political institution
and what you are actually
in the process of
doing in the sort
of day-to-day sausage
making is sounds like.
Lee, I want to come
around to you.
I mean I think you've made
the question of the health
of democracy, really
also you life's work.
And I think that for you
goes back to college.
Can you say something on
your side about what it was
that brought your
attention to this subject
that made you feel a sense
of urgency about responding
to the health of our democracy?
>> Lee Drutman: Yeah.
Well, you know in my
younger days, I you know,
found myself just being kind
of anti-consumerist and feeling
that there was just
something wrong
with the American lifestyle.
And how consumerist
oriented we were.
Which got me to start
thinking about the structure
of our economy and the
power of corporations.
Which then got me to thinking
about corporate lobbying,
about the time when I
was in graduate school.
And then I wound up
doing a PhD dissertation
on corporate lobbying,
which I turned into a book,
"The Business of
America is Lobbying."
And you know trying
to understand why corporate
lobbyists seem to have
so much influence
in our politics,
I came across what was actually
a surprisingly straightforward
answer, which is that Congress
itself had basically hollowed
out its own institutional
policymaking capacity.
Congress wasn't really investing
in policymaking expertise
instead it was outsourcing
that increasingly to
corporate lobbyists.
And so I tried to understand
well why was that the case.
And I came to appreciate
that it had a lot to do
with the centralization
of leadership in Congress,
which was both a function and
an amplifier of polarization
of the time that Cara talks
about in here experiences
and it really starts
in the mid-90s.
And you know, I came
to appreciate that.
Although I continued to support
adding more staff and expertise
to Congress, that there
was a deeper problem
which was actually also
what Cara describes is
that the members of Congress and
their staff didn't really want
to solve the problems.
They wanted to have
issues to run on.
It was all focused on winning
these narrow majorities.
Now, and then of course,
there was the 2016 election
which was a wake-up call
for a lot of people.
But you know, one of the
things that I realized I
in the 2016 election, I wrote a
long essay about it for Vox was
that American politics had
become the zero-sum conflict
over two very different visions
of what is our national identity
and the politics organized
around the zero-sum fight
over who we are was a
politics that was only going
to deteriorate and
decline further.
And you know I realized that
we were stuck in what I call
that the two-party doom loops.
Which is that we've
set ourselves
up for this binary conflict
that is not really resolvable
as a binary conflict.
>> Danielle Allen: Thank you.
Thank you for sharing that.
So the reason I've been sort
of pushing on all of you
to tell your stories
and to sort of think
about where you got your
start is because I'm trying
to understand what the
shape is of this effort
to reform our democratic
institutions
for the country as a whole.
So if we're sort of thinking
in the big arc of history,
are we watching you know
a little effort here,
a little effort there.
Sort of lots of piecemeal bits,
or are we watching
the coalescence
of a real moment
of transformation.
And I think if we
look at our history,
we've seen other moments
of transformation, right.
So we saw the way in which the
suffragettes endeavor took a
real extended stretch of
time to achieve in the end,
the 19th amendment and
voting rights for women.
And sort of worked on
in different states
in a piecemeal way
eventually sums
up to this really
transformative moment.
And in some sense, we
also saw the same thing
with marriage equality.
Where over the course
of a decade you see lots
of different kinds of
efforts, experiments,
conflicts at the state-level.
Eventually a paradigm
starts to emerge
and then the Supreme
Court confirms a sort
of transformation of the
basic rules of the game.
So this is what I'm
trying to figure out,
in the democracy reform
space, are we starting
to see a movement
coalesce across states,
and these pieces come together.
It would be great if you
could share a bit more
about how you've
achieved success.
And what you see about that
broader, national landscapes.
So, Cara, maybe I'll come
back to you at this point.
And also if you could
pick up the issue
of you know you were able to use
ballot propositions in Maine,
but not every state has a
ballot proposition option.
So how do we think about
that piece of the puzzle.
>> Cara McCormick: Sure
so in Maine we have
a very robust citizen
initiative process.
I explained it a
little bit more.
It's spelled out in
our constitution.
It required us to
gather 61,123 signatures
to put question five
on the ballot.
When we won, we wrongly assumed
that the battle was over.
We did not anticipate that the
legislature would repeat our law
in the middle of the night.
And luckily for us, it was
spelled out in the constitution,
something called
the people's veto.
So that if we gathered another
61,123 signatures in 88 days,
we could get our law back
from the legislation
would had stolen it away.
And vote a second time
for rank choice voting.
I will never forget when I
discovered that people's veto
in the constitution in Maine.
I kept reading it
over and over again
to make sure that it was real.
Because what it meant to me was
that our ancestors had
predicted 100 years before,
that the legislature could try
to reverse what the
citizens had done,
and that they had given
us this way to fight back.
And so even though we
didn't have a single dollar
at that point, I knew we had to
keep fighting because you know,
we couldn't squander
this opportunity
that they had given us.
That they would anticipate
what our struggle would be.
And that they'd given us this.
And you know just about other
states not having citizen
initiative process.
It's astonishing to me that
Americans living in states
without citizen democracy
will stand
for having fewer democratic, you
know little d, democratic rights
than we have here in Maine.
And I think that citizens
are only kind of limited
by their own imaginations
when it comes
to remedying it for themselves.
You know, people power is a
real thing in this country.
Katie knows this.
You know our government
really does belong to us here.
And we have a responsibility
to our kids and our grandkids
to move things forward.
And to sort of honor all
of the different ways
that our ancestors kind
of set these structures
up to support us in making sure
that we can get the
balance right.
>> Danielle Allen: So even
though you're working in Maine
and Katie's working in Michigan.
You think you're
working on the same thing
or you think you're
working on separate things?
>> Cara McCormick: I mean,
Katie can talk, but she
and I didn't know each other
while this was going on.
But I kept hearing about this
woman named Katie in Michigan
who was doing the same work that
I was doing in Maine in 2018.
So for the second campaign
that we had to win.
And it's amazing when she and I
finally did get a chance to meet
and kind of went over all of
our war stories after you know,
and hours and hours
of conversation,
how much similarity there
was in these battles.
And also that it's
for sure a battle.
And it's not some sort
of happy kumbaya thing.
There are determined adversaries
who are trying to stop you
when you're trying to change
particularly the system
that they're used to operating
in and getting elected in.
And legislatures don't love
citizen democracy at all.
They like to keep
that for themselves.
And so there's this
real tension,
but in the tension
is the beauty.
That's where we can
hopefully come
out on the other
side of it together.
So yeah, when Katie and I
finally got a chance to talk,
we could finish each
other's sentences.
It's extraordinary how
similar the battles were,
how similar the obstacles were.
And how similar, you
know, in particular,
the fact that we were both like
religious about making sure
that our campaigns included
Democrats, Republicans,
and Independents working
together to fix a broken system.
Without fear or favor for
any one particular candidate,
or political party, or ideology.
That we were all doing
this thing that was sort
of underneath it all, and
much more fundamental.
And brought us together.
>> Danielle Allen: That's great.
Thank you, Cara.
Katie, tell us your story.
I mean you just did
amazing things in Michigan.
Can you just tell
everybody the whole story
of what you did and how?
>> Katie Fahey: Yeah.
Yeah. And just feeding off
of what Cara was saying, too.
I mean I do think that
this is truly a movement.
When we were doing our ballet
initiative in Michigan,
there were actually three
others going on at the same time
in Missouri, and in Utah,
as well as Colorado,
and then Michigan.
And you know, very
different things happening
on the ground in those states.
But I think one of the
turning points have been,
and why you also saw movements
on rank choice voting,
and lobbying reform,
and many of these kind
of institutional rule changes
is because it's very clear
that we're facing very real
world 21st Century problems
that aren't being addressed.
When you grow up
and you're hearing
about how much debt is getting
piled on and global warming,
and also just jobs, and not
being able to own a house.
At least as a millennial,
I grew up with a very clear
understanding that we were
in real trouble as a country,
and then to not see the urgency
of our institutions that
they address those things,
or even trying to
compromise on those things
to actually pass anything we
just like a breaking point
that I think people
were feeling.
But getting back to
Michigan, you know,
I put out a Facebook post
that said hey, I want to take
on gerrymandering in Michigan,
if you want to help let
me know, smiley face.
I think the emoji was very key
to helping secure volunteers.
Because I had actually made
a Facebook post earlier,
like a couple years earlier,
nobody even liked it.
But this one for whatever
reason started getting shared.
And suddenly overnight,
actually over afternoon
because I posted it in the
morning, I was connected
to hundreds of strangers all
messaging me saying I've been
thinking about this issue
for such a long time,
I didn't know we
could do anything
about it how can I help?
And then I had to Google, how
do you end gerrymandering.
I knew I didn't like
gerrymandering;
I knew there were
probably ways to end it,
I actually did not know how
we were going to do that.
Like [inaudible]
I did know vaguely
about the Ballot
Initiative Process,
but really reading our
Michigan constitution you know,
the first line article
on Section 2,
is all political power is
inherent in the people.
And then it goes down to explain
that if citizens can write
constitutional language,
gather a bunch of signatures,
then we can put this question
for a vote of the general public
and they can decide whether our
constitution will be amended
or not.
And when doing research on you
know, well has anybody tried
to really address gerrymandering
or redistrict before,
we had seen that over 14
bills had been introduced
over several decades
in Michigan,
never with bipartisan support.
Always seeming to
be from the team
that was being gerrymandered.
And in Michigan, both Democrats
and Republicans have
taken advantage
of the line drawing
processes themselves.
Also, that those bills had never
even been brought up to a vote.
So our institution that
is supposed to write laws
and make sure that it is
functioning properly is failing
to actually address
its own rule changes.
Which it made sense
for a lot of reasons,
because why would they
give themselves less power
if they think that they're going
to be able to take advantage
of the system to get
re-elected more easily.
But that's when it really
became clear that the way to try
to change this was going to be
through the Ballot
Initiative Process.
So, when writing
constitutional language,
you know we had a bunch of
people who were doing a lot
of research, calling other
states seeing what they
had done.
Thankfully, there were
examples of other states
who had other redistricting,
where they didn't have the
legislatures drawing lines.
So, Iowa, and California,
and Arizona.
And we had this moment
though of realizing that part
of the problem with
gerrymandering is
that these decisions that impact
10 years' worth of elections
at the time are all
happening behind closed doors,
with nobody really being able
to understand the intent behind
why these things were happening.
And we realized that we were
a group of Internet strangers.
We were all working
very honestly.
It was, like Cara was saying
100% like we were not going
to have a solution
that disadvantaged any Michigan
voter based on who they wanted
to vote for, what
party they vote for.
But we were still kind of,
you know, like if we're
going to amend the
constitution, let's try
and be authentic about it.
So we decided to
hold town halls,
something that at the time our
politicians were refusing to do.
And we did 33 town
halls in 33 days.
We have 14 congressional
districts in Michigan we went
to each one at least twice.
And then held some extras
too with different languages
and in different
parts of the state
that had been disproportionately
impacted by gerrymandering
by decades to ask people,
do we like the system?
If we don't like the system
who's going to draw the lines?
What should the rules
around what representation
looks like be?
What should this
process overall be.
And that's actually, we kind
of crowd sourced in the way,
our constitutional language.
But the beautiful part of
that for me is that it felt
like what I had learned
democracy was supposed to be.
It was people coming together
even though they had vastly
different ideas.
I mean some people were like,
let's get the University
of Michigan, Michigan
State football coaches have
to draw the lines together.
Like that was literally a
proposal somebody brought up.
And other people are
like well let's have
like 50 people draw the line.
So, you know they were
having very strong opinions,
but everybody was there
wanting a solution.
Wanting a solution that was
going to work best for everybody
and wanting buy-in
and consideration [inaudible]
the really rural parts
of the state to the really
urban parts of the state.
And that's when we started
forming basically a volunteer
army of people who wanted to
see this passed regardless
of a political affiliation.
So we gathered actually
428,000 signatures,
in 110 days from all 83
counties of our state.
It's the first time the Citizen
Ballot Initiative has ever had
signatures from all 83 counties.
We had to talk to people
about what this was.
There was a Supreme
Court challenge,
we filled the court with people.
Just showing that this
really was about the people
and about us using
our constitution.
We were able to overcome that.
And then ultimately, we
secured 2.5 million plus votes,
61% of the votes.
And now, in Michigan, one of
the most exciting parts is
for the first time ever, 9.9
million people are involved
in this process that
draws the districts
of who our representatives
are going to be
for the first time ever.
And our independent
commission is up and running,
which has been very exciting.
And it's a citizen's
commission meaning, you know,
we found people who haven't
been former legislatures,
or aren't about to
run for legislation.
And they all submitted essays
for why they wanted
to be one it.
And one of the most beautiful
parts, if that's the right word
to use for me, every single
one of them actually brought
up some kind of trust.
Like I feel like the people
in our state need to be able
to trust that these decisions
are being made the right way,
that's why I want to serve.
I want to do my civic
duty and ensure
that our lines are drawn
fairly, and not biased.
Like, every single
person, whether Democrat,
Republic, Independent.
And that's what we were really
hoping for and I think is
at the root of a lot of this is
that we just want our systems
being designed and implemented
for the purpose that
they're saying they are for.
And for regions saying
it's about representation,
it's about having an actual
representative government.
Having a person that will
represent your community
in your state legislature,
and in Washington DC.
>> Danielle Allen: So, that's
a really powerful story, Katie.
And I'm interested in the
resonances between Cara's story
and your story, that you're both
telling an account of people
from different party lines,
all of whom have a shared sense
of a sort of deep issue,
the need to have representative
institutions work the way
they're supposed to work.
Actually be representative,
be responsive to the people.
It's a beautiful thing to
discover that shared perspective
across those ideological lines.
And a beautiful thing to
discover a shared interest
in wanting our institutions
to be trustworthy.
I want to ask though; it must
have been kind of hard at least
at some points to get people
to be able to collaborate
and communicate across
those party lines.
What were some of the
challenges you had to deal
with to actually achieve that
shared coordination and effort.
>> Katie Fahey: Yeah,
I mean for us,
one of my favorite stories
is we had three sisters
who were volunteers for us and
they said this is the first
and only thing they've ever
been able to all volunteer for.
One was a Democrat,
one a Republican,
and one's an Independent.
At parties they're always
arguing about this, about,
like differences in
opinions, that this is
where it came to begin.
I think it was, and Cara, I
think you expand this too,
we just ran campaigns
completely differently
than they normally are run.
I mean normally you're like
trying to attack somebody.
It's always, even when we first
were able to talk to somebody
about fundraising and they were
like well who's your enemy?
And we're going to attack
over, and over, and over again.
And pushing back against that.
I was brand new; I
hadn't done this before.
I felt really strongly if I was
going to be dedicating my time,
my energy, my passion toward
something, I didn't want
to perpetuate the status quo.
I didn't want to have to
have more negative TV ads
that I'm going to watch.
Like, so let's at least try.
And so pushing back against
the kind of institutions,
or even the advice that you
get in running a campaign.
That was actually fairly hard.
I kept my ground and
said you know I think
that even just letting people
know what this is might be able
to be resonant and let's see
how what the polling says,
let's see how people respond.
And thankfully, that really
worked, being able to just talk
about what we were aspiring to
and the problem with
the status quo.
Our name was Voters
Not Politicians.
And what we meant by that was
voters should draw the lines,
not politicians.
But a lot of people took
it as anti-politicians,
which kind of worked in
our favor, there was kind
of that uniting around,
the establishment isn't
really looking out for me.
And I want it to
actually look out for me.
So, even from training.
We start with the
Facebook group.
And on social media everybody is
so ready to identify each other
and attack each other.
And it took a culture
shift in moderating people
and let them know, you know,
there are everywhere else
on the Internet you can
go and attack each other,
assuming you know
how each other voted.
But this isn't going
to be the place.
This is a place we're going
to be focused on action.
Focus on what do
we have in common
that can help us [inaudible].
And that actually I think
challenged people to rise
up to what a lot of
us maybe want to do
but isn't the default setting.
The default setting is maybe a
bit easy, like I'm just going
to come up with a
snarky meme or comment
that way I can attack you, but
isn't giving you the benefit
of the doubt, or asking
questions to understand more.
And by slowly changing that
culture, we saw a whole shift
in people's attitudes,
toward not only each other,
but even themselves
and why they felt
like this work was so important.
The number of stories of
people saying, you know, oh,
I talked to a Democrat today and
they actually said they believed
in fairness, and that's
why they want to do this.
Or I talked to a Republican
today, and he wants to donate,
you know $100 and is all
about redistributing.
I didn't know [inaudible].
I heard that over
and over again.
And I grew up in a family with
different political opinions.
So I think I just maybe took for
granted knowing that everybody
who votes a certain way isn't
evil, or another way isn't evil.
That we have a lot of
other things that are
in common, or other motivations.
But to be able to see that,
that's when; Cara, I don't know
if you experienced this too,
but I realized that yes,
we were fighting for
re-districting and [inaudible].
But actually we were like
creating a new culture
around what being in
democracy looks like.
And we were really fighting for
like, what do we want democracy
to look like in our country.
>> Danielle Allen:
True leadership.
True leadership.
And people power, real democracy
I like your idea that is was
about an authentic
democratic experience as well
and that you held
those town halls all
over Michigan that's
really extraordinary.
Cara, I'm curious
for you as well, yes.
I mean what were the challenges
for you in getting people
to actually collaborate
across those party lines?
>> Cara McCormick: I think
that, well the first time
around we had quite a lot of
time to gather our signatures
and run a proper campaign.
But the second time around
was really something.
Because they had taken
something away from us.
So at that point you had a whole
bunch of people who weren't even
for ranked choice voting
who joined our campaign
because they were so upset at
the anti-Democratic behavior
of our legislature that the
balance had gotten so off
that they would feel that they
could take something away,
you know that people had voted
for in a free and fair election
in order, what looked like,
to benefit themselves.
But even then, we really
tried very hard and never sort
of went negative on any
one particular politician.
We were relentlessly positive.
Because we were trying to
model the kind of politics
that we think that rank
choice voting will encourage
and bring about.
Which is that you know we agree
on so much more than
we disagree on .
It's just a fact that we
agree on so much more in Maine
and across the country.
And yet we have the system
that forces us to sign
up with one camp or the other.
And to make everything
right about our camp
and everything wrong
about the other camp.
And it's just completely
distorting, what's actually so.
The other thing is that it
was a lovely experience.
You know I've worked
in Democratic politics
my whole career.
And what a lovely experience
to be sitting on the floor
with you a very conservative
Republican sorting
through petitions and trying
to figure out who's going
to take what to Saco
and what to Bangor.
And that you know we
had so much work to do.
The work of it itself
was so difficult.
and so granular,
and so complicated
that we didn't have time to
do anything other than that.
And it was very unifying.
You know, there was a lot of
unity in both of our campaigns,
but particularly in
the second campaign.
Because at that point, it was
all of us against the world
and against an impossible
deadline.
And it was also in the
middle of winter, in Maine.
When, you know you're
experiencing weather threats.
You know one of them was
called a comb cyclone
and I thought okay, you know.
Again, on social media how
do you collect signatures
in the middle of a bomb cyclone.
You know how do you [inaudible]
even though the weather is
really bad today.
>> Danielle Allen: So that's
really a powerful story
of common purpose
emerging from this project
to actually secure the democracy
you believed you deserved.
So really a sense of personal
connection empowerment
to wanting those institutions
to do what they should do.
Make good on their
promises, be trustworthy,
be what we expect of them.
So that's very powerful.
And again sort of
bringing to life the way
in which democracy
itself is a living issue.
Touches our lives.
It's not three steps removed
from the matter of having
to food on the table, or
clean water, and so forth.
Lee, I want to bring you
back in here and invite you
to share some of your analysis
about the party system.
I mean both of the things that
Cara and Katie have been working
on do have the effect of
reducing incumbency advantages,
bringing more competitiveness
back into our politics.
In that regard, also
reducing the degree
to which we have a duopoly,
with our two parties have sort
of exclusive control
of the political system
of our two parties.
But do you think, you
know is that enough
from your point of view?
I mean do you see
those positive effects
on our party system coming
out of those reforms.
Again, rank choice voting and
independent redistricting?
Or is there more to the
story for how we should think
about how our parties
are operating
and what we might be working on?
>> Lee Drutman: So first off,
I just want to say how much
I admire the efforts of Cara
and Katie, and doing the hard
work of democracy you know,
I almost feel I'm not
worthy to be with them.
Because they're the ones
that are really out there
and talking to people.
And you know sometimes I feel
like here I am just you know,
sitting in an office
Washington DC, writing books
and articles, and
that's all I am.
So you know, in terms of
you know, the party system.
You know, I think it's important
to understand, you know,
Cara talks about I think rightly
so, that there's a lot more
that we could potentially
agree on,
but the way that
political elections force us
into these binary camps
makes it very difficult
to find agreement.
And there's something about the
binary nature of our politics
that really kind of turbo
charges these innate circuits
that we have in our brains that
like tend to put us into friend
versus foe, us versus them.
And you know that is you know
an aspect of human nature
that is just inherent.
But you know we can
triumph over that.
And the way to triumph over
that is not to put things
in a binary condition
that flattens
and simplifies conflict.
But rather to, you know
almost expand and you know,
multi-dimensionalize conflict.
And you know, think about how
to find different compromises
that are you know, not
just meeting in the middle,
but kind of you know Rubik's
Cube, multidimensional space
of thinking creatively.
And our politics just
prevents that from happening
in its current structure.
Our partisan conflict has really
flattened out into one party
that represents urban,
cosmopolitan America.
And has one vision
for the country.
And one party that represents
rural, traditionalist American
and has a very different vision.
And they're butting
up against each other
with no clear resolution.
So I think that the key is to
kind of change, essentially,
it's, you know it's to
find a new dimension.
It's you know like, rather
than just one dimension,
you look down on things.
Sort of like entering
flatland and seeing
that there's a different
way to approach things.
And to me it's multiparty
democracy that allows us to do
that because it fundamentally
scrambles this binary.
And breaks the constituent
pieces apart and allows them
to recombine and
re-create in different ways.
And takes away this
logic of just trying
to beat the other side.
In a two-party system,
you can be the lesser
of two evils and still win.
So there's an incredible
incentive to just demonize.
The unifying force to bring
your coalition together
because the other side is
going to destroy America.
But there's no phrase
lesser of three evils.
I actually did do some
crack research for my book.
And found that it was
the original title
of a martial arts film
that did very poorly
and was later renamed
"Fists of The Warrior."
But that was the only, you know
so that's my Googling story.
And the reason for that is
simple, it's because you have
to distinguish yourself from
you know, in a broader field.
And you do that not by saying
that the other side is terrible,
but rather having
a positive vision.
And trying to represent
an affirmative view
of what you want to stand for.
And you know, that's
the kind of politics
that I want to be part of.
I mean the other problem
with our two-party system,
and particularly the
single-member districts is
that it means that
most voters don't get
to experience actual
competitive elections.
Because when you have
districts that are drawn based
on geography, you're going to
have a lot of urban districts
that are going to be
lopsided for Democrats.
You're going to have a
lot of rural districts
that are lopsided
for Republicans.
And you know, although I
100% support independent
redistricting commissions,
I think that working
with the limits of single-member
districts is you know,
inherently a limit that you
can get some competition.
But you know, there
are limits to that.
And so, I think rank
choice voting.
You know, it comes in
a single-winner format,
which is what Maine has.
It also comes in a
multi-winner format
which is what Ireland has used
successfully for a century now.
It's what Northern Ireland
decided to implement
after the Peace Accords.
And you know, and the advantage
of that is a proportional
system is fair.
And with the ranked
voting aspect of it,
you're requiring politicians to
look beyond their limited base
of support and try to be
people's second choice,
or people's third choices.
So you know one of the
things that democracy experts
around the world will tell you
that when you have
a pluralistic,
diverse society you want to
look for political institutions
that build connections.
That build cross-cutting
coalitions that encourage people
to think beyond their
traditional base of support
and try to broaden that.
And you know, rank choice
voting is a great way of doing
that because it says you know, I
might not be your first choice,
but I want to be y
our second choice.
And it encourages that
kind of compromise
and coalition building.
Which is inherent to
successful politics.
And it's fundamentally what
our political institutions were
designed to do.
I mean, I think a lot
about James Madison.
And you know, one of the things
that James Madison is wrestling
with in Federalist Number 10
is this fundamental challenge
of how do you build a democracy
in which there is diversity.
In which there are factions
and people have different
viewpoints.
And you know Madison's
first great cause was
religious liberty.
And he was very fond of
saying from Voltaire,
which has been translated
different ways
but I think basically
translates into,
you know if there's one
religion it's arbitrary.
If there's two religions, you
know people are going to try
to kill each other
over what happens
after they kill each other.
And if there's many religions,
people can live in peace
because nobody's afraid of
somebody dominating over them.
And you know, Madison
really applied
that politics in his thinking.
And you know, he said, look
the key is to have no faction
that is ever going to
be totally dominant.
So that different factions
have to build broad coalitions.
And as a result, you get
some kind of public interest
that emerges from this rough
and tumble of coalitions
that are constantly
recombining and reshaping.
There's no permanent winners.
No permanent losers.
And that's fundamentally a
vision of multiparty democracy.
Now the challenges that the
framers just didn't understand
that political parties
are just inherent
to modern mass democracy.
And so, they were so worried
about political parties
that they didn't think about how
to create you know,
functional parties.
And you know, also at the time
there was one voting system.
The 1430 innovation of
first pass the post,
which you know was just kind of
became the default voting system
that we've had tremendous
innovation in many other areas.
And you know I think
I can tell a very,
mostly progress-oriented
story of American democracy
that each era there's
kind of a moment
in which we expand the
idea of American democracy
and make it more participatory
and more inclusive.
And you know, to your
question of whether we're
in another moment of that.
I think we absolutely are.
And you know, you see
tremendous similarities
with the late Gilded
Age in terms
of inequality and frustration.
And to the transition
of a new progressive era
in which there are lots of
social movements bubbling
up from lots of different
places.
But all of them sharing
a core sense
that our democracy
is not working.
And we can do better because
that's what we've always done.
>> Danielle Allen:
So, thank you so much
for that sort of
reflections, Lee.
And as we run to the end of this
conversation, I'm just going
to acknowledge, that for lots
of people I think probably
watching this and listening
to this what's in their mind
will be the controversies
over voter suppression questions
that are now unfolding roiling
many state legislatures.
So I'm going to ask just
for some closing thoughts,
really next step thoughts
really from Cara and Katie,
but where you think the
democracy reform movement effort
goes next?
And as you share those thoughts
about what you hope will
come next it would be great
if you could also just you know,
perhaps give us some context
for thinking about how the
work that you've been doing
on securing participation
of people in democracy.
Moving forward reforms that
make our institutions more
accountable and responsive.
How does that relate to
the broader conversation
about voting rights that
we're also having now.
I know that's a big question,
but you know, Cara and Katie,
I would welcome your
closing thoughts
on where we're all headed.
>> Cara McCormick: Well,
so I think of course,
we can actually reinvent
American democracy.
Because we're Americans.
Because it's in our DNA.
You know because I
watched it happen in Maine
with my very own eyes.
Because there's absolutely
nothing special about me.
I just saw an opportunity;
I saw a winning strategy
to make the system better.
And I went for it and then
thousands of people followed.
And you know ideas are
very, very powerful.
They are accepted in stages.
And you know what I'm hoping
for is a country where everyone
in Congress is elected
with rank choice voting.
There are no more spoilers.
Where no one can elected
without 50% of the vote.
Where everyone, including
Independent candidates can
compete on a level
playing field.
You know, where candidates
from the two major political
parties are forced to compete
with unaffiliated candidates.
And that all of that is going
to make our country stronger.
I believe that we're entitled
to and that we our capable
of having a political
system in this country
where the best idea
is the one that wins.
No matter where it comes from.
You know, I want a system
where there's competition.
I want a system where we
can solve our problems again
because our leaders are
incentivized to work
with one another, to
compromise with one another.
But I really think
that what you have
to change is this
underlying structure
in order to make it happen.
And if you change the
underlying structure,
that the benefits
will naturally occur.
That we will become
a better version
of what is already you know,
the greatest political
system in the world.
And I have huge, huge hopes for
this because I watched it happen
with almost no resources.
I watched people come out of
their houses and get involved
in the doing of the democracy.
And when I watched that happen,
I realized it was
definitely not just in me,
this drive to make
things better.
It was in all these
people who surrounded me.
It was my friends,
it was my neighbors,
it was people I didn't know.
It was people from
every political party.
Doing the democracy, makes
the democracy better.
So I have huge, huge
hope that we will break
out of the two party doom
loop that Lee has described.
And Lee, you have made
a tremendously enormous
contribution to the
political reform movement
with your scholarship, and
your work, and you know all
of the different presentations
that you've made
for people to see.
And you've caused tons of
people around the country
to have ah-ha moments.
As have you, Danielle, not just
writing it in the book that came
from the Academy of
Arts and Sciences.
When you're a person on
the ground doing this work,
and you like get this
thing that says it's
from the American Academy
of Arts and Sciences,
and it actually says
that rank choice voting
and independent redistricting
is what we need to do to fix it,
and it's from this, you know,
you can't believe
how great it feels.
Like I will never forget
when Catherine Gayle
and Michael porter wrote this
this thing in the journal
in Harvard, talking
about rank choice voting.
I thought oh my God, Harvard.
This is fantastic.
It's not just some
fringy thing anymore.
It's becoming mainstream,
it's becoming accepted.
And it matters, all of us
working together in each
of the different ways
where we all had skills,
towards something much, much,
much better for our kids
and for our grand kids.
>> Danielle Allen: Great.
Thank you.
And Katie what are your hopes
where this is all headed?
Katie Fahey: Yeah, I mean I
think the realization that lots
of people have had is
that voters should be
deciding our elections
and not politicians.
And that means many
different things.
It means rank choice voting.
It means districts that
actually are competitive,
or that are actually
representative of a space.
It also means though, that how
our elections are administered
are actually nonpartisan.
That you don't have people
running for office in control
of the election and the
rules that follow it.
I think if not in the 2020
presidential election,
I don't know when we will
have an ah-ha moment of like,
wow there's a conflict
of interest here
that really puts our
democracy at risk.
And it doesn't matter
which party is in charge.
It doesn't matter in 20 years
what the parties will look
like after they're in charge.
I mean there is just a
conflict of interest for running
for something and being
able to dictate the rules
that you are running in.
and that's where I think
especially these voter
suppression laws, we
need to address them,
make sure they don't get
passed, but we have to take away
that power to be
dictating these things.
And there are solution, I
think that's also where Lee,
but many other people
come into mind.
I mean one of the ah-ha moments
I had was seeing my inbox
flooded and realizing
for the first time
that I wasn't actually alone
with feeling so frustrated
and like man somebody should
really do something about this.
The ah-ha moment I had
though was like I'm somebody.
Like I can actually
try to do this.
And that's what a bunch
of other people saw too.
It was kind of like
I know the problems.
I know what's at stake, but like
what can I actually do about it?
That's the part of the narrative
that I really hope we
can continue to add to.
Is like, what are the real
ways to make these changes.
What are the real solutions
to like ranked choice voting,
like independent redistricting.
Those are very important
as well.
But it's like, if we're all just
waiting for the next election
and hoping the right group
of people get put into play,
they actually going to
fix the system or not.
And I think that's also
up for debate right now.
You know how important is it to
have a functioning [inaudible]
and who's going to put their own
re-election at stake to ensure
that power is given up.
Or is it going to
have to come from us,
the people of our
country ensuring
that our government is
actually going to be for,
by, and of the people.
Which it never really has been.
And we continue, as
we were just talking
about to make those
strides toward more.
But I think that's at the
top of my mind every day.
We're about to go into the
next redistricting cycle.
Lines are going to be
drawn that determine
who will be your representative.
And that is going to last
for the next decade
worth of elections.
And I often think about the
voters who can't even vote yet,
but over the next ten years,
the first time they vote
in an election, it's going to be
one that their vote was targeted
to try and make count less than
their neighbors, all because of
who they're voting for.
And that's what we have to work
so hard and diligently to stop.
What's really amazing is
that there's organizations
like the [inaudible] and
there's people like Cara and I
who are working on this and who
are finding other people to try
to see what are the ways
that we can actually work
and address this.
But it's going to take people
from every single
community showing up.
One of the nice parts that I
would just add is that a lot
of politicians are counting
on us not showing up.
They're counting on
business as usual.
Or, oh, I just you
know pushed through
and nobody's paying attention,
in winter, and nobody's going
to want to go gather signatures.
I mean that's part of their
own political calculus.
And when you show up anyway.
When you know about the laws,
when you can go an advocate
for yourself, for
your community.
I think that really
is an ability
to change the power
dynamics there.
Whether you have the
ballot initiative process,
or whether you don't.
And so I hope that
that's what we continue
to see is more moving away
from the conflict of interest
of politicians taking these laws
and dictating these processes
that are so fundamental
to the actual institution
of our government.
>> Danielle Allen: Thank you.
Thank you so much.
So I mean you're really telling
us that the story of the shape
of our political
institutions is a story of us.
It's not a story of
somebody ought to.
It's a story of we can,
and it's on us to step up
and bring the changes
and transformations that,
as you said, take conflict of
interest out of the system.
Help our institutions succeed
as accountable, responsive,
and empowering tools of
democracy that they should be.
Cara, I think you said it,
democracy fixes democracy.
That is the big take away
from this conversation.
You've given us all a
lot of reason for hope.
I want to thank you for that.
And thank you for your
extraordinary leadership
examples in the field,
Cara and Katie.
And on the page, Lee, you
are reshaping our collective
understanding of our democracy.
Thank you very much.