United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Allows Unusual G.O.P. Strategy to Pump Money Into Senate Races

      by

      Democrats had claimed that the advertising strategy may have violated federal election laws establishing strict limits on spending by national party committees to aid individual candidates.A federal judge ruled on Friday that Senate Republicans may continue to pump tens of millions of dollars into key swing state races in the final days of the 2024 campaign by employing an unusual advertising strategy that Democrats had claimed was potentially illegal.By reclassifying campaign ads as fund-raising appeals, Republicans have been able to avoid strict limits Congress has placed on spending by national party committees to aid individual candidates, helping to offset a significant fund-raising deficit they face in states with critical Senate races, such as Arizona and Pennsylvania.House Democrats’ campaign arm sued the Federal Election Commission for failing to stop the Republicans and sought to either ban the practice or clear the way to use it themselves.But Judge Randolph D. Moss, of the U.S. District Court in Washington, wrote Friday that he was “unpersuaded” to outlaw a practice that the commission had not. He said Democratic and Republican campaign committees — those that support Senate and House candidates — are “all on an even playing field” and the lack of action taken by the Federal Election Commission had not tilted it.His ruling could give Republicans a last-minute boost in the fierce contest for the Senate, where they are favored to pick up the one or two seats they need to regain control of the chamber, but where polls show that several races are close.Sean Cooksey, the Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission, also welcomed the ruling. “This is a huge win for the rule of law and political speech!” he wrote on social media.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      A Brief History of Messy Elections

      by

      Three times the results were disputed after the votes were in.This article is part of A Kid’s Guide to the Election, a collection of stories about the 2024 presidential election for readers ages 8 to 14, written and produced by The New York Times for Kids. This section is published in The Times’s print edition on the last Sunday of every month.America is the world’s oldest democracy. And part of why it has worked for so long is that people have faith that its elections are fair and honest. But not every election has gone smoothly. In the more than two centuries that we’ve been electing presidents, there have been a handful of elections in which people disputed the results.1876: A divided nationAbout a decade after the Civil War ended, America was still deeply divided between North and South. The 1876 election, between Samuel Tilden, the Democrat, and Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican, came down to three Southern states where the results were disputed. Neither candidate had a majority of the Electoral College without those three states. So Congress appointed a committee to decide, and a deal was struck: Hayes would become president. But in exchange, the federal government would ease control over the Southern states that had been part of the Confederacy.2000: A 537-vote winThe 2000 election was very, very close. The Democratic candidate, Al Gore, won more votes across the country than his competitor, George W. Bush. But he didn’t have a majority in the Electoral College. It all came down to a single state, Florida, where Bush had a very slim lead. Gore went to court to challenge the vote counts in several counties there. But after a 36-day legal battle, the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 to end the recounts. That left Bush with just 537 more votes in Florida, which meant that he won the Electoral College and the presidency. After that, Gore conceded. “I accept the finality of this outcome,” he said.2020: A capitol riotIn 2020, Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by seven million votes nationwide and won the Electoral College. But Trump wouldn’t accept the loss. He filed many lawsuits and pressured state officials, the Justice Department and his own vice president to help switch the results to him. It didn’t work. On Jan. 6, 2021, Trump told supporters to march to the Capitol, where Congress was counting the Electoral College votes. His supporters stormed the Capitol, and many people were hurt. Eventually, the police cleared the mob out, and Congress declared Biden the winner. More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      So … How Does the Electoral College Work, Again?

      by

      It’s weird. It’s confusing. It’s how we elect the president.This article is part of A Kid’s Guide to the Election, a collection of stories about the 2024 presidential election for readers ages 8 to 14, written and produced by The New York Times for Kids. This section is published in The Times’s print edition on the last Sunday of every month.Every four years, there’s one thing everybody is talking about: the Electoral College. It’s not a school, despite what it sounds like. It’s the unique way that the United States elects its presidents. And if we’re honest, it’s pretty confusing. Here’s a breakdown of how that process works.When your school elects a class president, the math is simple: The kid who gets the most votes wins. The presidential election is more complicated. When people cast their ballots, their votes won’t go straight to Kamala Harris or Donald Trump. Instead, they go through the Electoral College, a system in which people who represent different states elect the president.So what is the Electoral College, specifically? It’s a group of hundreds of people called electors who speak for voters in their state. They are usually people involved with politics, like activists or volunteers. You can sort of think of them like team captains who speak for their fellow Pennsylvanians, Coloradans, Wisconsinites and so on. Each state has a different number of electors, and each elector gets one electoral vote.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 38 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Play: Election-Night Bingo

      by

      Listen up for these terms as the votes roll in. Find them on the board to be the night’s big winner.This article is part of A Kid’s Guide to the Election, a collection of stories about the 2024 presidential election for readers ages 8 to 14, written and produced by The New York Times for Kids. This section is published in The Times’s print edition on the last Sunday of every month.After months and months and months of hearing about it, the election is finally here! Every four years, millions of Americans cast their ballots for president. Then, they wait and watch for the results on election night. It’s exciting! But also kind of … a lot.The news is a jumble of numbers, some very intense maps and a bunch of politics wonks talking a mile a minute about “exit polls” and “returns.” Not the most kid-friendly introduction to participatory democracy. But like most things, the more kids understand what’s going on, the more interesting it can be.That’s where this game comes in. Think of it as a mash-up of bingo and a language scavenger hunt. LINGO!InstructionsPrint out the bingo board and the definitions of the terms on it. Skim the terms to familiarize yourself.Set a timer for 30 minutes and settle in for an evening of election excitement.Anytime you read or hear one of phrases from the board, check it off. Check your printout (or scroll below) to read the explanation, too!We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Those Voters Who Are Still Undecided

      by

      More from our inbox:Michelle Obama’s Plea to American MenAn Ex-N.F.L. Player, on Marijuana ReformBipartisan Action Needed to Support Our Children Rob VargasTo the Editor:Re “These Voters Aren’t Exactly Undecided. They’re Cringing,” by Megan K. Stack (Opinion guest essay, Oct. 20):I am struck by undecided voters who are still, at this point, paralyzed by the feeling that neither of the candidates are “good” options, or that they don’t “like” either choice.To those struggling to vote outside their party affiliation, or to vote at all: The cognitive dissonance you feel is uncomfortable, yes, but consider who benefits most from the resulting inaction. It’s not the voter, it’s individuals and groups who use political power and tribalism for their own gain.This election is not a sporting event, it is real life, and we owe it to ourselves and to each other to use our hard-won right to vote thoughtfully, no matter how uncomfortable it is.Natasha Thapar-OlmosLos AngelesThe writer is a licensed psychologist and a professor at Pepperdine University.To the Editor:Re “Battle Is Fierce for Sliver of Pie: Undecided Votes” (front page, Oct. 22):Women can save our country, and I believe they will. They know what is at stake — not only free choice regarding their bodies but also a democracy that celebrates the diversity of its citizens.As the online summary said of the undecided voters: “Both campaigns are digging through troves of data to find these crucial Americans. They both think many are younger, Black or Latino. The Harris team is also eyeing white, college-educated women.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      How a Tiny Panel, Up for Election, Could Steer Arizona Away From Clean Power

      by

      The vote, in a sunny state with huge solar potential, reflects a growing nationwide fight over America’s energy transition.As Arizona voters go the polls, they have more control over their state’s power plants and climate policies than they might realize.This year three of the five seats are up for grabs on the Arizona Corporation Commission, which regulates electric utilities. The commission has authority over how electricity is generated, among other things, and what customers pay.In recent years, it has taken steps toward rolling back a clean-energy mandate passed by a previous Republican-led board. It has also made it harder to build community solar in a state renowned for its sunniness, its critics say, and easier to build new fossil-fuel-burning power plants.These boards exist in states nationwide, and while most are appointed, similarly contentious races playing out in states like Louisiana and Montana, where they’re debating the future of coal power, which is particularly dirty, and what role natural gas, another fossil fuel, should have.“It’s a fourth branch of government that nobody knows about who’s in your pocket every day,” said Robert Burns, a Republican who served on Arizona’s commission for eight years.Starting two decades ago, the Republican-controlled commission had encouraged a transition to renewable energy based on simple economics: Renewables were getting cheaper than fossil fuels. It initially required utilities it regulates to become 15-percent renewable by 2025 and later, during Mr. Burns’s tenure, he sought to eliminate greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants by 2050.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Millions of Movers Reveal American Polarization in Action

      by

      Aside from their political views, Joshua Fisher and Ryan Troyer have a lot in common. In 2020, they lived across the street from each other in Sioux Falls, S.D. They are both white men of a similar age. Mr. Fisher, 42, is an auto technician; Mr. Troyer, 39, is a sanitation worker. They are both […] More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      House Covid Panel Refers Andrew Cuomo for Potential Prosecution

      by

      The Republican-led House subcommittee asked the Justice Department to investigate Mr. Cuomo for possible prosecution for “false statements” in his testimony.A House subcommittee has referred former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York to the Justice Department for potential prosecution, accusing him of lying to Congress about his involvement in a state Covid report on nursing home deaths.Mr. Cuomo was accused of engaging in a “conscious, calculated effort” to avoid accountability for his handling of nursing homes where thousands of people died of Covid, according to the referral from the Republican-led House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.The referral, which was sent Wednesday night to the Justice Department, was signed by the subcommittee chairman, Representative Brad Wenstrup, Republican of Ohio. No other committee member, including the ranking Democrat, Representative Raul Ruiz of California, signed the referral letter, in a potential sign of political partisanship.The referral centers on closed-door testimony Mr. Cuomo gave to the committee, when he asserted that he had not reviewed a State Health Department report that deflected blame for the deaths of people in New York nursing homes in early 2020.The New York Times reported last month that Mr. Cuomo had reviewed the report and had personally written portions of early drafts, according to a review of emails and congressional documents.Richard Azzopardi, a spokesman for Mr. Cuomo, said that the former governor testified that he did not remember having any role in the report, and rejected assertions that Mr. Cuomo had lied.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More