The authors include big-name conservative former federal judges Michael Luttig and Michael McConnell, former Bush Solicitor General Ted Olson, and others.
Video of presentations by the leaders of the Conservative, Libertarian, and Progressive Teams. Plus, my thoughts on a comparison of the three reports by Progressive Team leader Ned Foley.
The project includes reports by conservative, libertarian, and progressive teams. I am coauthor of the Team Libertarian report.
Most of those open to evidence already know that Trump tried to reverse the outcome of an election he legitimately lost. Reaching the rest is likely to be extremely difficult, at best.
One of the world's leading experts on public knowledge and ignorance explains why consumers of misinformation are often as much to blame as producers.
In an important new article, political philosophers Jason Brennan and Christopher Freiman explain why standard justifications for paternalistic restrictions on consumers also apply to voters.
Harvard Law Professor Guy-Uriel Charles has some useful insights on the problem.
The answer, as Tyler Cowen and Matthew Yglesias, argue, is probably not. But political ignorance is still a serious problem.
Ignorance and bias played a major role in the attack on the Capitol and in the continuing belief of many Republicans that Biden didn't really win the 2020 election. The issue is part of the broader problem of political ignorance and bias, which is by no means confined to any one side of the political spectrum.
One of the greatest political economists of the 20th century passed away earlier this month.
It could make the Court more vulnerable to political attack and to measures such as court-packing. But the vulnerability might not be great - or last long.
The article explains how expanding opportunities for foot voting can enhance political choice, help the poor and disadvantaged, and reduce the dangers of political polarization.
Being jerks is just the way some people try to make themselves feel dominant.
The system routinely excludes not only those who might be familiar with a given case, but also those who have relevant background knowledge that might improve the quality of jury deliberations.
The previous administration had made some reasonable changes, but also introduced questions based on factual errors and questionable normative assumptions smuggled in under the guise of factual knowledge.
Some of the changes are reasonable. But many of the new questions are badly designed and incorporate serious errors. Moreover, such tests raise the deeper issue of why immigrants are required to pass a test to get the right to vote, but natives are not.
His promotion of far-fetched conspiracy theories about the election is highly unlikely to change the results. But it is damaging, nonetheless.
There could be in some situations. But less often than many assume. And, ironically, the same reasoning suggests many people would have a duty NOT to vote in such cases.
Recent works by longtime intellectual antagonists Cass Sunstein (author of "Too Much Information") and Mario Rizzo and Glen Whitman (authors of "Escaping Paternalism") have a surprising amount of common ground.
Could paying less attention to politics be better for you, your relationships, and society?
The poll shows extensive ignorance among millenials and Generation Z, and is consistent with many previous studies showing widespread ignorance about politics and history. But one of its findings may be less bad than it looks.
Political philosopher Jason Brennan explains why.
The law is a step in the right direction, but has significant limitations, that should be a warning sign for future reform efforts.
Second in a series of posts based on my new book "Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom"
The first in a series of posts based on my book "Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom"
Professor Balkin asked me many great questions in interview just published at his Balkinization blog.
It's available for preorder now, and will be delivered on April 23
Recent controversies over election rules and the coronavirus threat have bolstered advocates of decision-making by randomly selected groups of voters. But this approach still has serious flaws.
My 2015 post on this subject includes points relevant to our current situation.
A New York Times study describes how both red and blue states use public education to indoctrinate students in their preferred ideologies. This dynamic should dampen hopes that public education can fix the problem of widespread political ignorance.
Such scientific ignorance is common in th US as well, and can have a harmful influence on government policy.
The article is now available on SSRN.
Historian Stephen Davies provides a good explanation of why fringe "cultic milieu" ideas are growing in influence. It's a troubling development, but not one that should lead us to categorically abjure non-mainstream political ideas.
The dispute over Harvard's decision to rescind the admission of Parkland shooting survivor/gun rights activist Kyle Kashuv should remind us of the reasons why we should not have given any special status to his views in the first place. The same goes for most others in similar situations.
The seemingly new version of socialism advocated by many on the left today has all too many flaws in common with old kind.
Russia's interference in the 2016 election was wrong. But the reasons why are harder to pin down than you might think. Not all foreign interference in elections is unjustified. Far from it, in fact.
Political theorist Jacob Levy reminds us that the arc of history doesn't always bend towards justice. Moral retrogression has happened before, and could well occur again.
The awful ideology of the perpetrator of the recent terrorist attack in New Zealand is one of many examples of how far-right nationalists and far-left socialists have more in common than we often think. Both worldviews rest on the dangerous assumption that we are locked in a zero-sum game in which some groups can only succeed and prosper at the expense of others.
A new symposium outlines several ideas for improving our democratic system. All are worth considering. But none are likely to be as good as expanding opportunities for people to "vote with their feet."
An Atlantic article makes the case that some very privileged people don't want to hear from the other side.
If its recent record is any indication, Winston Churchill might have been wrong about democracy.
Canadian columnist Andrew Coyne explains why efforts to combat fake news by cutting off supply are barking up the wrong tree.
The result is consistent with lots of other evidence of widespread ignorance and bias influencing public opinion on political and scientific issues.
The Introduction to the revised second edition summarizes the rest of the book, and is available for free.
Few will agree with Cambridge political scientist David Runciman's proposal to lower the voting age to 6. But standard reasons for rejecting the idea raise serious questions about many adult voters, too.
Bush lost because voters punished him for the recession of the early 1990s - an event he did not cause. This is just one example of a broader phenomenon of voters rewarding and punishing politicians for things they do not control.
If referenda are a legitimate mechanism for making political decisions, then it is also legitimate for them to be overruled by new referenda. Those who live by the referendum sword risk dying by it.
Democracy is clearly superior to despotism. But libertarians are still right to worry about voter ignorance and advocate tighter constraints on government power.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
