Connect with us

Published

on

When Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania announced in September that the nations largest swing state would implement automatic voter registration, Donald Trump threw a conniption. Pennsylvania is at it again! the former president posted on Truth Social, his social-media platform. The switch, Trump said, would be a disaster for the Election of Republicans, including your favorite President, ME!

Trumps panic is consistent with his (baseless) view that any reforms designed to increase voter turnout, such as expanding mail balloting and early voting, are part of a Democratic conspiracy to rig elections in their favor. But he may be wrong to fear automatic voter registration: Although Shapiro is a Democrat, if either party stands to gain from his move, its likely to be the GOP. In Pennsylvania, the reform really has a potential to lean more Republican, Seo-young Silvia Kim, an elections expert who has studied the system, told me. Its not great news for Democrats.

First implemented in Oregon in 2016, automatic voter registration is now used in 23 states, including threeAlaska, Georgia, and West Virginiathat are governed by Republicans. Rather than requiring citizens to proactively register to vote, some states that use the system automatically enroll people who meet eligibility requirements and then give them the option to decline or opt out. The shift is subtler in Pennsylvania; the state has simply started prompting people to register to vote when they obtain a new or renewed drivers license or state ID.

David A. Graham: Actually good news about voting, for a change

The seemingly minor change, which voting-rights advocates still place under the umbrella of automatic registration, is based on behavioral research showing that people are less likely to opt out of a choice than to opt in. By including voter registration as part of a commonly used process such as obtaining a drivers licenseand by presenting it as the default option rather than a form that citizens have to requeststates have found that they can increase both registration and turnout in elections. Even though the process isnt that big of a shift, the effects are great, Greta Bedekovics, the associate director of democracy policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, told me.

Democrats have led the move toward automatic voter registration, and their 2021 comprehensive voting-rights legislation known as the For the People Act included a requirement that state-elections chiefs implement the policy. (The bill died in the Senate.) But automatic registration does not inherently favor one party or the other, and it has appealed to Republicans in some states because it helps officials clean up voter rolls and safeguard elections. I dont know who it will help, and thats kind of the point, Sean Morales-Doyle, the director of the voting-rights program at NYUs Brennan Center for Justice, told me.

A 2017 study by the Center for American Progress found that the voters who enrolled through Oregons automatic-registration system were more likely to be younger, more rural, lower income, and more ethnically diverse than the electorate as a wholea demographic mix that suggests that Republicans might have benefited as much as Democrats.

Other research shows a more partisan advantage. While an assistant professor at American University in 2018, Kim, the elections expert, studied the effects of automatic registration in Orange County, California, the site of several hard-fought congressional races that year. She found that among residents who needed to update their registration because they had moved within the county, automatic registration resulted in no meaningful shift for Democrats. But it substantially boosted turnout among Republicans and independentsby 8.1 points and 7.4 points, respectively. I was actually very surprised, Kim said, adding that shed expected that if any party gained, it would be Democrats. She suspects that Democrats may have been unaffected by the change because in 2018, they were already motivated to vote by Trumps recent election.

The impact of automatic registration on any one election is likely to be marginal, but even small shifts could be significant in a state such as Pennsylvania, where less than one percentage point separated Trump from Hillary Clinton in 2016 and just more than one point separated Joe Biden from Trump four years later. Several factors suggest that the new system could benefit the GOP in Pennsylvania. Although Democrats have more registered voters in the state, Republicans have been closing the gap during the Trump era as more white working-class and rural voters who stopped voting for Democrats years ago have chosen to join the GOP. Democrats have countered that drift by capturing wealthier suburban voters, a group that helped Shapiro and first-term Democratic Senator John Fetterman win their races during last years midterm elections. Because this demographic already goes to the polls pretty reliably, though, automatic registration is more likely to boost turnout among the right-leaning rural working class.

An early-2020 study also suggested that the GOP stood to gain from higher voter turnout in Pennsylvania. The Knight Foundation surveyed 12,000 chronic non-voters nationwide before Democrats had settled on Biden as their nominee. Across the country, nonvoters said that if they cast a ballot, they would support the Democratic candidate over Trump by a slim margin, 33 percent to 30 percent. But in Pennsylvania, nonvoters went strongly in the other direction: By a 3628 percent margin, they said theyd prefer Trump over the Democrat. The eight-point gap was the second largest (after Arizona) in favor of Trump in any of the 10 swing states that the organization polled.

Jerusalem Demsas: Americans vote too much

Democrats sometimes have the mistaken opinion that anybody that doesnt show up is going to vote Democrat, Mike Mikus, a longtime Democratic strategist in Pennsylvania, told me. Its been one of the myths in Democratic circles for years. Quite frankly, given the changing of the respective party bases, it makes sense that [automatic registration] may somewhat benefit Republicans. Other recent polls have suggested that the political realignment of the Trump era has made the GOP more reliant on infrequent voters.

The place where Democrats could most use stronger turnoutparticularly among the partys base of Black votersis Philadelphia, which provided about one-sixth of Bidens statewide vote in 2020. The city had higher turnout than Pennsylvania as a whole in both 2008 and 2012, when Barack Obama led the Democratic ticket, but it has lagged further and further behind in each election since. Last year, turnout in Philadelphia was just 43 percent, compared with 54 percent statewide.

Yet automatic voter registration might have less impact in Philadelphia than in other parts of the state. Studies have found that the switch drives higher turnout outside urban areas, where Democratic voters are most concentrated. Thats partly because automatic voter registration is operated through the state Department of Motor Vehiclesan agency with which people who rely on public transit are less likely to interact. For that reason, when New York implemented automatic registration in 2020, voting-rights advocates lobbied aggressively for the state to enroll voters through other agencies in addition to the DMV; as of 2018, a majority of the more than 3 million households in New York City did not own a car.

Pennsylvania has no plans to implement automatic voter registration beyond the state DMV. Democrats have been adamant that in enacting the new system, Shapiro was not trying to benefit his party but merely trying to reach the 1.6 million Keystone State residents who are eligible but not registered to vote. Although Republicans argued that the change should have gone through the state legislature, they have not formally challenged automatic registration in court. Few of them seemed to agree with Trump that the reform would doom the GOP. Its impact will be somewhere etween inconsequential and a nothingburger, Christopher Nicholas, a Republican consultant in Pennsylvania, told me.

Democrats say its too early to assess the electoral impact of automatic voter registration, but they acknowledged that Republicans might gain more voters as a result. More than 13,500 Pennsylvanians registered to vote through the new system during its first six weeks of implementation, according to numbers provided by the Shapiro administration. Of that total, Republicans added about 100 more voters than Democrats. Our former president is almost always wrong, Joanna McClinton, who leads a narrow Democratic majority as the speaker of the Pennsylvania state House, told me. The fact that Trump is so opposed to the reform, she said, reveals something weve always known, which is Republicans want to keep the electorate small, selective, and they dont want to expand access to voting even if they could be the beneficiaries of it.

Whether Trump regains the presidency next year could hinge on the tightest of margins in Pennsylvania. I asked McClinton if she worried that by implementing automatic voter registration, Shapiro had unintentionally bestowed an electoral gift on Republicans ahead of an enormously significant election. McClinton didnt hesitate. Not at all, she replied quickly. I look forward to seeing the full data, but I definitely am not looking at this from a political perspective but from a big-D democracy perspective.

Continue Reading

World

Why Putin won’t agree to latest Ukraine peace plan

Published

on

By

Why Putin won't agree to latest Ukraine peace plan

The Americans were given the full VIP treatment on their visit to Moscow. 

There was a motorcade from the airport, lunch at a Michelin-starred restaurant, and even a stroll around Red Square.

It felt like Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner were on more of a tourist trail than the path to peace.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Trump’s envoys walk around Moscow

They finally got down to business in the Kremlin more than six hours after arriving in Russia. And by that point, it was already clear that the one thing they had come to Moscow for wasn’t on offer: Russia’s agreement to their latest peace plan.

According to Vladimir Putin, it’s all Europe’s fault. While his guests were having lunch, he was busy accusing Ukraine’s allies of blocking the peace process by imposing demands that are unacceptable to Russia.

The Europeans, of course, would say it’s the other way round.

But where there was hostility to Europe, only hospitality to the Americans – part of Russia’s strategy to distance the US from its NATO allies, and bring them back to Moscow’s side.

Vladimir Putin and Steve Witkoff shaking hands in August. AP file pic
Image:
Vladimir Putin and Steve Witkoff shaking hands in August. AP file pic

Putin thinks he’s winning…

Russia wants to return to the 28-point plan that caved in to its demands. And it believes it has the right to because of what’s happening on the battlefield.

It’s no coincidence that on the eve of the US delegation’s visit to Moscow, Russia announced the apparent capture of Pokrovsk, a key strategic target in the Donetsk region.

It was a message designed to assert Russian dominance, and by extension, reinforce its demands rather than dilute them.

Read more:
Michael Clarke answers your Ukraine war questions
‘Thousands’ of Westerners applying to live in Russia

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Everyone must be on this side of peace’

…and believes US-Russian interests are aligned

The other reason I think Vladimir Putin doesn’t feel the need to compromise is because he believes Moscow and Washington want the same thing: closer US-Russia relations, which can only come after the war is over.

It’s easy to see why. Time and again in this process, the US has defaulted to a position that favours Moscow. The way these negotiations are being conducted is merely the latest example.

With Kyiv, the Americans force the Ukrainians to come to them – first in Geneva, then Florida.

As for Moscow, it’s the other way around. Witkoff is happy to make the long overnight journey, and then endure the long wait ahead of any audience with Putin.

It all gives the impression that when it comes to Russia, the US prefers to placate rather than pressure.

According to the Kremlin, both Russia and the US have agreed not to disclose the details of yesterday’s talks in Moscow.

I doubt Volodymyr Zelenskyy is filled with hope.

Continue Reading

UK

Rachel Reeves hit by Labour rural rebellion over inheritance tax on farmers

Published

on

By

Rachel Reeves hit by Labour rural rebellion over inheritance tax on farmers

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has suffered another budget blow with a rebellion by rural Labour MPs over inheritance tax on farmers.

Speaking during the final day of the Commons debate on the budget, Labour backbenchers demanded a U-turn on the controversial proposals.

Plans to introduce a 20% tax on farm estates worth more than £1m from April have drawn protesters to London in their tens of thousands, with many fearing huge tax bills that would force small farms to sell up for good.

Farmers have staged numerous protests against the tax in Westminster. Pic: PA
Image:
Farmers have staged numerous protests against the tax in Westminster. Pic: PA

MPs voted on the so-called “family farms tax” just after 8pm on Tuesday, with dozens of Labour MPs appearing to have abstained, and one backbencher – borders MP Markus Campbell-Savours – voting against, alongside Conservative members.

In the vote, the fifth out of seven at the end of the budget debate, Labour’s vote slumped from 371 in the first vote on tax changes, down by 44 votes to 327.

‘Time to stand up for farmers’

The mini-mutiny followed a plea to Labour MPs from the National Farmers Union to abstain.

“To Labour MPs: We ask you to abstain on Budget Resolution 50,” the NFU urged.

“With your help, we can show the government there is still time to get it right on the family farm tax. A policy with such cruel human costs demands change. Now is the time to stand up for the farmers you represent.”

After the vote, NFU president Tom Bradshaw said: “The MPs who have shown their support are the rural representatives of the Labour Party. They represent the working people of the countryside and have spoken up on behalf of their constituents.

“It is vital that the chancellor and prime minister listen to the clear message they have delivered this evening. The next step in the fight against the family farm tax is removing the impact of this unjust and unfair policy on the most vulnerable members of our community.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Farmers defy police ban in budget day protest in Westminster.

The government comfortably won the vote by 327-182, a majority of 145. But the mini-mutiny served notice to the chancellor and Sir Keir Starmer that newly elected Labour MPs from the shires are prepared to rebel.

Speaking in the debate earlier, Mr Campbell-Savours said: “There remain deep concerns about the proposed changes to agricultural property relief (APR).

“Changes which leave many, not least elderly farmers, yet to make arrangements to transfer assets, devastated at the impact on their family farms.”

Samantha Niblett, Labour MP for South Derbyshire abstained after telling MPs: “I do plead with the government to look again at APR inheritance tax.

“Most farmers are not wealthy land barons, they live hand to mouth on tiny, sometimes non-existent profit margins. Many were explicitly advised not to hand over their farm to children, (but) now face enormous, unexpected tax bills.

“We must acknowledge a difficult truth: we have lost the trust of our farmers, and they deserve our utmost respect, our honesty and our unwavering support.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

UK ‘criminally’ unprepared to feed itself in crisis, says farmers’ union.

Labour MPs from rural constituencies who did not vote included Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower), Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury), Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire), Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley), and Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall), Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk), Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby), Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk), Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth), Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay), Perran Moon, (Camborne and Redruth), Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire), Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal), Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire), John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) and Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr).

Continue Reading

Politics

Gensler separates Bitcoin from pack, calls most crypto ‘highly speculative’

Published

on

By

Gensler separates Bitcoin from pack, calls most crypto ‘highly speculative’

Former US Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler renewed his warning to investors about the risks of cryptocurrencies, calling most of the market “highly speculative” in a new Bloomberg interview on Tuesday.

He carved out Bitcoin (BTC) as comparatively closer to a commodity while stressing that most tokens don’t offer “a dividend” or “usual returns.”

Gensler framed the current market backdrop as a reckoning consistent with warnings he made while in office that the global public’s fascination with cryptocurrencies doesn’t equate to fundamentals.

“All the thousands of other tokens, not the stablecoins that are backed by US dollars, but all the thousands of other tokens, you have to ask yourself, what are the fundamentals? What’s underlying it… The investing public just needs to be aware of those risks,” he said.

Gensler’s record and industry backlash

Gensler led the SEC from April 17, 2021, to Jan. 20, 2025, overseeing an aggressive enforcement agenda that included lawsuits against major crypto intermediaries and the view that many tokens are unregistered securities.

Related: House Republicans to probe Gary Gensler’s deleted texts

The industry winced at high‑profile actions against exchanges and staking programs, as well as the posture that most token issuers fell afoul of registration rules.

Gary Gensler labels crypto as “highly speculative.” Source: Bloomberg

Under Gensler’s tenure, Coinbase was sued by the SEC for operating as an unregistered exchange, broker and clearing agency, and for offering an unregistered staking-as-a-service program. Kraken was also forced to shut its US staking program and pay a $30 million penalty.

The politicization of crypto

Pushed on the politicization of crypto, including references to the Trump family’s crypto involvement by the Bloomberg interviewer, the former chair rejected the framing.

“No, I don’t think so,” he said, arguing it’s more about capital markets fairness and “commonsense rules of the road,” than a “Democrat versus Republican thing.”

He added: “When you buy and sell a stock or a bond, you want to get various information,” and “the same treatment as the big investors.” That’s the fairness underpinning US capital markets.

Related: Coinbase files FOIA to see how much the SEC’s ‘war on crypto’ cost

ETFs and the drift to centralization

On ETFs, Gensler said finance “ever since antiquity… goes toward centralization,” so it’s unsurprising that an ecosystem born decentralized has become “more integrated and more centralized.”

He noted that investors can already express themselves in gold and silver through exchange‑traded funds, and that during his tenure, the first US Bitcoin futures ETFs were approved, tying parts of crypto’s plumbing more closely to traditional markets.

Gensler’s latest comments draw a familiar line: Bitcoin sits in a different bucket, while most other tokens remain, in his view, speculative and light on fundamentals.

Even out of office, his framing will echo through courts, compliance desks and allocation committees weighing BTC’s status against persistent regulatory caution of altcoins.

Magazine: Solana vs Ethereum ETFs, Facebook’s influence on Bitwise — Hunter Horsley