Democracy WorksWhat does it mean to live in a democracy? Democracy Works seeks to answer that question by examining a different aspect of democratic life each week — from voting to criminal justice to the free press and everything in between. We interview experts who study democracy, as well as people who are out there doing the hard work of democracy day in and day out. Democracy Works is produced by the McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State and WPSU Penn State, central Pennsylvania's NPR station. Hosts Michael Berkman and Chris Beem are political science professors, and host Jenna Spinelle has more than a decade of journalism experience. We aim to rise above partisan bickering and hot takes on the news to have informed, nonpartisan, thought-provoking discussions about issues related to democracy.
What does it mean to live in a democracy? Democracy Works seeks to answer that question by examining a different aspect of democratic life each week — from voting to criminal justice to the free press and everything in between. We interview experts who study democracy, as well as people who are out there doing the hard work of democracy day in and day out. Democracy Works is produced by the McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State and WPSU Penn State, central Pennsylvania's NPR station. Hosts Michael Berkman and Chris Beem are political science professors, and host Jenna Spinelle has more than a decade of journalism experience. We aim to rise above partisan bickering and hot takes on the news to have informed, nonpartisan, thought-provoking discussions about issues related to democracy.
The general election is going to happen in November, and candidates still need to figure out ways to get their messages out to voters. COVID-19 has changed everything about the way candidates communicate with potential voters and how they position themselves in relationship to the virus. This episode addresses the nuts and bolts of campaigning during a pandemic, but we also discuss a broader question — should we even be talking about politics at a time like this? Our guest this week makes an interesting case about why the answer is always "yes." John Sides is a professor of political science at Vanderbilt University and publisher of the Monkey Cage, a political science blog published by the Washington Post. Sides talks about the novel coronavirus has impacted campaigns up and down the ballot, and why it's valuable to consider it as a political problem apart from a public health issue. Note: You'll hear a reference to Bernie Sanders during the interview. We recorded on April 6, before Sanders announced he was dropping out of the race. Additional Information John's website The Monkey Cage A look at ethics of campaigning during COVID-19 Related Episodes Free and fair elections during a pandemic COVID-19 exposes democracy's tensions Primaries, parties, and the public Episode Credits This episode was recorded on April 6 and 7, 2020. It was engineered by Jenna Spinelle, edited by Mark Stitzer, and reviewed by Emily Reddy.
The COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S. intensified just as the 2020 Census was getting underway in earnest. As Americans fill their days with news about the new coronavirus, the Census Bureau is doing everything it can to spread the word about completing the Census online while grappling with how to do critical in-person follow up during a time of social distancing. As our guest this week explains, the consequences of an undercount directly impact public health in significant ways. Jenny Van Hook is the Roy C. Buck Professor of Sociology and Demography at Penn State and a former member of the Census Advisory Board. She was an expert witness in the legal fight over the efforts to add a citizenship question to this year's Census and has written about the Census in The Conversation and other outlets. Census Day was April 1, but there's still time to complete your Census online at 2020census.gov. This episode begins with an ad for Lyceum, a new app that's specifically for educational podcasts. Learn more and join the conversation with other listeners at lyceum.fm. Related Episodes It's good to be counted – our interview with Jenny from May 2018 Episode Credits This episode was recorded on March 31, 2020. It was engineered by Jenna Spinelle, edited by Chris Kugler, and reviewed by Emily Reddy.
As COVID-19 intensifies throughout the U.S., questions about the future of the remaining primary elections and the general election in November are beginning to surface. The last thing you want are large groups of people standing in line near each other for long periods of time. At a time when seemingly everything in life has gone remote, states are starting to think about what a remote election would look like, too.Our guest this week is one of the people helping them figure it all out. Charles Stewart III, Kenan Sahin Distinguished Professor of Political Science at MIT and a contributor to the Election Updates blog, a partnership between MIT and the California University of Technology. He's spoken with election officials across the country and about how to implement voting by mail and change processes to make in-person voting safe. Voting by mail does not come without its problems in terms of election security and electoral integrity. We explore those with Charles and discuss how planning now can help mitigate those risks in the fall. Democracy Works is proud to be part of Lyceum, a new platform dedicated to educational audio. The app includes curated lists of shows around topics like climate change, linguistics, and ancient history, as well as opportunities for listeners to connect with podcast creators and with each other. Visit lyceum.fm to learn more. Additional Information Election Updates blog Ted Recommendations to Ensure a Healthy and Trustworthy 2020 Election – a piece Charles c0-wrote for Lawfare Related Episodes The promise and peril of early voting How states are working to keep you vote safe Episode Credits This episode was recorded on Wednesday, March 25, 2020. It was engineered by Jenna Spinelle and edited by WPSU's Chris Kugler, and reviewed by Emily Reddy.
As we've seen over the past weeks and months, democracies and authoritarian countries respond to pandemics very differently. There are balances to be struck — liberty and community, human rights and disease mitigation — that every country's government and culture handle a little differently. We dive into that this week with our first ever all-remote episode as we adjust to the new normal of life during COVID-19. Our guest is Nita Bharti, assistant professor of biology at Penn State and faculty member in the university's Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics. Nita's research focuses on the interactions between social and biological processes as underlying determinants of human health — making her the perfect person for us to talk to about the response to COVID-19. There are no silver bullets when it comes to outbreak mitigation, but there are lessons we can take from other outbreaks about how information affects behavior and how the government can help or hinder that process. As Nita says, we're likely only beginning to see what the new normal looks like in the U.S. Additional Information Nita's article on COVID-19 in The Conversation The Bharti Lab of Human Infectious Diseases The Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics at Penn State is taking questions about the Coronavirus pandemic at askciddpsu@psu.edu. Each week, experts will answer your most commonly asked questions, anonymously. They will attempt to provide the most current accurate information, informed by scientific evidence. Episode Credits This episode was recorded on Thursday, March 19, 2020. It was engineered by Jenna Spinelle and edited by WPSU's Jen Bortz, and reviewed by Emily Reddy.
We know that there are a lot of episodes about COVID-19 out there right now. We're working on one of our own that we hope to bring to you soon, but in the meantime, consider something different to focus on while you practice social distancing this week. We've talked a lot on this show about the rise of authoritarian leaders around the world — from Viktor Orban in Hungary to Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil. We sometimes tend to paint these countries with same brush, often referring to the book How Democracies Die. While the book remains of our favorites, this week's episode is a reminder that populism does not look the same everywhere. We welcome back Penn State's Vineeta Yadav to look at some of the forces that are pushing back against populism around the world, and how those efforts look different in each place. She joined us last fall to discuss the rise of Narendra Modi in India. We reusume that conversation in this episode, but also touch on what's happening in Turkey and Brazil. Michael and Chris also give an important overview of the difference between liberalism and democracy — and how the two work together to form the system of government practiced in many countries around the world today. Stay tuned to the end of the episode for more information about Ways&Means;, a podcast produced by the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke. The show's current season is taking a deep dive into the relationship between politics and policy, covering topics like reparations and the decline of local news. Related Episodes Inside the world's largest democracy – Vineeta Yadav's first appearance on Democracy Works Brazil's tenuous relationship with democracy How Democracies Die author Daniel Ziblatt on the "grinding work" of democracy Episode Credits This episode was recorded at WPSU's studios and engineered by Cole Cullen. It was edited by Chris Kubler and reviewed by Emily Reddy. Additional support from Democracy Works interns Nicole Gresen and Stephanie Krane.
It's spring break at Penn State this week and we're going to take a brief hiatus to bring you an episode from a new podcast that's part of The Democracy Group, our new podcast network. Swamp Stories is produced by Issue One, a group that takes a cross partisan approach to democracy reform. The podcast follows the host — millennial Republican and former candidate for office, Weston Wamp — as he shines a light on the swampiest practices in Washington that repulse Republicans and Democrats alike: Slush funds in Congress, dark money in elections, gerrymandered districts, foreign interference in our elections, dialing for dollars on Capitol Hill, and more. The show debuted at the end of January and we are sharing its first episode with you. There are five others available if you want to binge them while we're away. We'll be back with a new episode of Democracy Works next week. Additional Information Swamp Stories website You can find Swamp Stories and all of our other network shows at democracygroup.org
Super Tuesday is this week, but voters in many states have already cast their ballots for races happening this week and throughout the rest of the primary season. From Florida to Pennsylvania, states are expanding access to early and absentee voting to give people more options to make their voices heard in our democracy. Sounds great, right? However, early voting is not without its problems for candidates, election officials, and even voters. Daniel Smith, one of the country's leading elections experts, joins us this week for a look at the pros and cons of early voting, and how it might improve voter turnout among young people specifically. Smith is Professor and Chair of Political Science at the University of Florida and President of ElectionSmith, Inc. He is a nationally-recognized expert on direct democracy, campaign finance, and voting rights in the American states. He received his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin – Madison and his B.A. in History from Penn State. Stay tuned to the end of the episode for more information about another great higher ed podcast, Ways & Means from the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University. The show's fifth season launched Feb. 19 and covers issues in politics and policy ahead of the 2020 election. Additional Information Dan's website: ElectionSmith Ways & Means podcast Related Episodes What should voting look like in the 21st century? Primaries, parties, and the public Episode Credits This episode was recorded at WPSU's studios and engineered by Andy Grant. It was edited by Mark Stitzer and reviewed by Emily Reddy. Additional support from Democracy Works interns Nicole Gresen and Stephanie Krane. Interview Highlights [5:40] What is early voting? There are a lot of different definitions of early voting. The one that Pennsylvania still does not have, and about a dozen states don't have any form of this, is allowing voters to come in before election day to some type of polling location. It can be at the county level, multiple locations, it might just be the county seat. It allows you to come in, you don't have to request an absentee ballot, and you prove your identity one way or the other, and are able to vote a regular ballot. The ballot looks just like a ballot you would do on election day in your own local precinct. Those windows might be as much as a month before Election Day. [7:55] How do states decide to adopt early voting? It could be just the culture that you have the idea that let's make voting easier, and we're going to see about making it more convenient for voters so they don't have to come on that first Tuesday after the first Monday in November and extend the absentee ballot or make it an all-mail ballot election. Others there's certainly a political game going on, and it's often on partisan lines, where Democrats generally want to expand the electorate, and make it more easy to vote. One way to do that is to give people more opportunities to turn out to vote, either in person or by getting 'em an absentee ballot and mailing it in. [9:38] What do we know about people who vote early? Early in-person voting is certainly geared to people who can't necessarily come out to vote easily on a Tuesday. And so what we have seen is a demographic on those early voting days that isn't necessarily representative of the overall electorate. It happens to be more people of color, more women, younger voters are often using early in-person voting. Early in-person voting is different from absentee voting, which is typically seen most among older people, whiter people, more partisans, people who have already made up their decision on how to vote. They don't need to wait for an eleventh hour surprise, they're gonna vote a Republican or Democratic ticket. [18:16] What happened in the early voting program the was piloted at several colleges in Florida? It was fascinating to see the excitement where these students were first kind of curious about the opportunity. And then you started to see the drives of get out the vote efforts by different coalitions. The University of Florida has a lot of Democrats as well as Republicans. And so, it was utilized by both of the political parties at the local level. The students are very energized and organized relative to a lot of other universities so I'm not surprised that we had the high turnout. And I can tell you that if the supervisor of election wanted to eliminate this or the administration wanted to eliminate it, there would be a huge backlash. [19:22] What will voter turnout look like in November's election? I think it's really going to hinge a lot on who the Democratic nominee is. The Democrats certainly have the never-Trumpers who are going to vote for a box of rocks over the incumbent. They're going to come out regardless. But there are a lot of other folks who are not terribly excited about a potential Democratic candidate. And if you don't have that excitement and that enthusiasm, we know that it is going to play with respect to younger voters. If they can't get behind the Democratic candidate, if President Trump does some things that are going to turn off some moderate Republicans, who really don't like what he's doing but are going to hold their nose and come out any way, he could still turn them off. They're not going to come out and vote for the Democratic nominee. [21:52] Will we see more states adopt early voting between now and November? I wouldn't be surprised if there are some more legal challenges. Is Pennsylvania going to adopt early in-person voting this cycle? No. But New York did last election cycle. And they had some issues rolling it out, but I think it takes a, a bit of time. But again, New York's not a competitive state. There's not going to be a lot of attention. There's not going to be a lot of money spent there in the presidential election. Turnout is going to be probably a lot lower just because people on either side know that their vote is probably not going to be decisive. And there's a lot of literature suggesting that that's one of the things that drives people whether or not that the margins are going to turn out to vote.
As the South Carolina primary approaches, all eyes are on the African American vote. This week, Michael Berkman is taking over the interviewer's chair for a roundtable discussion on black politics with Ray Block and Candis Watts Smith, who are associate professors of African American studies and political science at Penn State. Ray is the author of Losing Power: Americans and Racial Polarization in Tennessee Politics. Candis is the author of Stay Woke: A People's Guide to Making All Black Lives Matter and Racial Stasis: The Millennial Generation and the Stagnation of Racial Attitudes in American Politics. They discuss the history of black politics and how it's evolved in the years since the Civil Rights movement, how President Trump and the Democratic presidential candidates are received by African Americans, and how the Civil Rights movement and Black Lives Matter are informed by broader social and generational trends. With so much punditry going on around appealing to black voters, we hope you'll enjoy the opportunity to take a step back from the punditry and look at the broader issues in black politics and how they relate to things like representation and inequality. Additional Information Ray's book, Losing Power: Americans and Racial Polarization in Tennessee Politics Candis's books Stay Woke: A People's Guide to Making All Black Lives Matter and Racial Stasis: The Millennial Generation and the Stagnation of Racial Attitudes in American Politics Candis's website Ray's website Related Episodes School segregation then and now The ongoing struggle for civil rights Episode Credits This episode was engineered by Craig Johnson at the WPSU studios, edited by Chris Kugler, and reviewed by Emily Reddy. Additional support comes from Democracy Works interns Nicole Gresen and Stephanie Krane.
Some of the most talked-about issues in Congress these days are not about the substance of policies or bills being debated on the floor. Instead, the focus is on the partisan conflict between the parties and the endless debate about whether individual members of Congress will break with party ranks on any particular vote. This behavior allows the parties to emphasize the differences between them, which makes it easier to court donors and hold voter attention. Some amount of competition between the parties is necessary in a healthy democracy, but have things gone too far? Frances E. Lee joins us this week to explain. Lee is jointly appointed in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, where she is Professor of Politics and Public Affairs. She is the author of Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign and the forthcoming The Limits of Party: Congress and Lawmaking in a Polarized Era with James M. Curry. As you'll hear at the beginning of the episode, we are excited to announce that we are starting a podcast network! We are thrilled to bring together some of our favorite podcasts in democracy, civic engagement, and civil discourse in The Democracy Group. Visit democracygroup.org to learn more about our member shows and sign up for our mailing list to receive updates with new episodes, deep-dive playlists, and more. Additional Information Frances's book, Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign Her lecture at Penn State on lawmaking in a polarized era Frances's website Related Episodes Congressional oversight and making America pragmatic again Unpacking political polarization Episode Credits This episode was recorded at WPSU's studios and engineered by Andy Grant. It was edited by Chris Kugler and reviewed by Emily Reddy. Additional support from Democracy Works interns Nicole Gresen and Stephanie Krane. Interview Highlights [8:28] How did we get to the current situation Congress? So we are in a remarkably competitive period in terms of our two-party politics. Now, we've been in this era for a long time so that people have sort of come to take it for granted that this is how Congressional elections work that the majority's in play every two years in the House, and potentially in the Senate. If you reflect back on congressional history, you'll see that that this is not normal. The Democrats were the majority party in Congress for roughly 50 years in the 20th century between the Great Depression and 1994 in the House of Representatives and 1980 in the Senate. There was not speculation in the lead up to the 1980 elections that Republicans might take the Senate majority. But when the votes were counted, they did. The same was true in 1994. It was not expected for that Republicans would win in 1994. There was a great deal of complacency about Democrats retaining control, as you might expect considering that it had been more than a generation of the Democrats being in power. [11:30] What roles to the majority and minority parties occupy in Congress? The American system fragments power to such an extent that there is always ambiguity about who really is in power. Having a presidential election occur separately from Congressional elections means that we regularly have an outcome where you have one party in control of the Executive Branch and the other party in control of Congress. A party may not have full control of Congress, they may have a majority in one chamber but not a majority in the other. And then, of course, there's always the question of the Senate where a simple majority is not enough to govern in the Senate. One might even ask, does any party ever really have control of American government? It's a fair question and the answer is not very often. [14:13] How do the parties talk about compromise and conflict? Party messaging does go out in public and say, "Look at all these great deals that we've cut with the opposing party. That, you know, we sat down and worked out things in a reasonable basis, and here's what we produced working cooperatively together." That is not how party messaging plays out. The party not in power wants to say that the party in power is doing a bad job. How can it say that if it's taking credit for accomplishments that were bipartisan? So, it has to say what the majority wants to do is bad, and their agenda is misguided or wrong. They're continually criticizing one another and party messaging is disproportionately negative. [20:05] Does the increase in party conflict affect the number of bills Congress passes? The number of bills has come down, so the number of individual laws is less than it was before this highly partisan, closely contested era got underway. But the bills that passed these days are much longer, so they are more omnibus in character so that if we look at the total number of legislative pages enacted in a Congress, it's not less than it was in the 1980s. So what you tend to see is relatively few bills going through navigating this grueling process, but they pack a lot into them. [22:55] How does party conflict impact trust in Congress as an institution? They are cognizant of the low level of trust in Congress and it has provoked some reform effort. Right now, there is a select committee on the modernization of Congress, which, you know, sees its mission as to take action to improve public, trust in, in Congress. But these institution-wide incentives are not as powerful as the incentives to gain or maintain majority control. So the second set of imperatives are more driving of behavior. They're more important to party leaders, to donors. The power struggle takes precedence over these institutional considerations. But the institutional considerations are something they care about. [24:37] What, if anything, would need to happen to shift this paradigm? You'd have to have one party win firm grip on power, so that the other party doesn't see an immediate path back in. That would reduce incentives for constantly messaging and seeking a political angle to impeach the performance of the party in power. It would reduce the focus on partisan politics if key questions about which party the public trusted with power were sort of settled. But there's no sign of that happening. So it really boils back down to the public's views of the parties. And neither party in American politics is a majority party. They're both minority parties. And when one party wins power it tends to generate a backlash against that party in power because the public simply doesn't trust either party with power. [27:10] Would things be better if member of Congress from opposing parties interacted more socially? What I hear from members and former members is a complaint about not being able to get to know people from across the aisle. They don't have time. They're not in Washington very much and when they're there, they have to meet with constituents or with their party caucuses. And then there's fundraising, so there's just not much chance for them to get to know each other. I've heard former members complain about how hard it is to be seen as friendly to the other side. To go to dinner is something that can get you in political trouble. Somebody takes a picture, Tweets about it and your constituents see you shaking hands or being friendly and negative feedback in terms of calls coming into the office. I think they feel constrained by their supporters in the electorate to seem more hostile, maybe, than they actually feel. [28:48] Can individual voters do anything to change the situation in Congress? Voter preferences do make a difference. Now, the individual voter that's a high bar. But what voters want does restrict what parties do. Republicans struggled to repeal the Affordable Care Act because it was not seen as the popular thing to do. Republican states have expanded Medicaid in wake of the creation of the Affordable Care Act. Even though their voters never approved of Obama, the policy was popular. And so you've seen a steady growth in the number of states that have done this. So, there's a responsiveness of both parties to what voters want. It's hard for them to buck what voters want, to the opposite of what voters want.
Elections are the bedrock of any democracy. Without confidence in the process or the results, confidence in democracy itself is vulnerable. With the primary season underway and the general election just a few months away, conversations about election security are starting to enter the public conscience. We saw this firsthand in Iowa last week as conspiracy theories about results hacking swirled despite no evidence of malicious interference in caucus results. Since 2016, states have taken measures to add paper trails, intrusion detection, audit systems, and other measures to safeguard the voting records from voting interference. However, elections are conducted county by county, which means resources are spread thin, and large-scale efforts can be difficult to coordinate. Adding this additional layer of security might also mean longer wait times at the polls on Election Day at a time when turnout is already expected to be high. Our guest this week is Bill Theobald, a senior writer at The Fulcrum, a news site devoted to covering democracy-related issues. He covers election security and frequently talks with both election officials and security experts about how they are working together to safeguard the voting process and ensure a process the public can trust. If you enjoy Democracy Works, please take a minute to visit ratethispodcast.com/democracy and leave us a rating in your podcast app. Additional Information The Fulcrum's story on election security in swing states Related Episodes Protecting democracy from foreign interferance What should voting look like in the 21st century? Episode Credits This episode was engineered by Democracy Works host Jenna Spinelle, edited by WPSU's Chris Kugler, and reviewed by WPSU News Director Emily Reddy. Additional support from Democracy Works interns Nicole Gresen and Stephanie Krane. Interview Highlights [8:20] What do we know about the extent of hacking of voting in the 2016 election? I believe the public thinks that a lot more happen than really did happen. I think it was so shocking that somebody tried to do this, that the fact that they were unsuccessful sort of gets lost. There are really only two things that we know about in which they actually broke into some particular system. One is the Illinois voter registration rolls and apparently they downloaded some names of people who are registered to vote. Nothing was changed and also there was some attempts and maybe success to break into some election offices, computers in Florida, but there's not entirely clear what they actually accomplished. And the bottom line is no votes were changed. No voter names were taken off or added to the voting rolls. Again, I think people were so outraged and concerned about it that they think that things were a lot worse than they were. [10:45] What are states doing to make this year's elections more secure? They are implementing systems that create a paper record of some sort. When you cast your ballot, you have a piece of paper and they have a piece of paper that shows what you intended to do with your vote. And that way they can check it against what the actual results are and make sure that there wasn't some problem in the way it was counted. They're also adding audits, which allows them to go back and actually check the results versus the ballots themselves. [20:44] Are there specific states leading the charge for reform? The one that I hear the most about is Colorado and the reason for that is that they went to paper ballots or a ballot system or voting system that creates a paper record. And they were one of the first to mandate these risk limited audits after every election. And I think that they're considered to have a pretty well run operation and a uniformity of belief and a bipartisan support for some of these things. I think the places where this happens where it's going well are where there's an agreement that no matter what your political outlook is or what candidate you're going to vote for or who you support, that we have to come together and make sure that these systems are secure. [24:05] Has election security managed to stay above the partisan fray? I guess you could say that there's probably politics and partisan politics these days in almost anything. But it's among the least partisan of the issues and if anything it's because of the great level of concern that's out there. I think there is certainly different policy positions on how to address it, whether to have a consistent funding mechanism from the federal government or whether that should be something that's left more to the states and the local governments. So one of the things that Republicans as part of their just general philosophy is that they have a concern about federal control of local elections in that they believe that the decision-making should be left at the local level. [25:55] What changes can voters expect on Election Day? I think one of the things that's not getting a lot of attention now it's going to continue to emerge as an issue is that with the additional steps and concerns about security, there's real and with a huge turnout that's now sort of being expected you're going to have a combination of lot of people and longer process, which means a longer wait time to vote if you actually voting on Election Day.
