After launching this spring, The Expand Democracy 5 has been our way of sharing important ideas and developments at the intersection of democracy and reform. As we’ve listened to feedback and reflected on how best to serve our readers, one theme stood out: focus matters.
Starting this week, Rob, our new democracy fellow, Nivea Krishnan, and I will produce The Expand Democracy 3. Each edition will spotlight two stories, ideas, or resources, along with a set of timely links capturing the challenges and opportunities facing democracy today. We aim to sustain the depth, clarity, and perspective you have come to anticipate. Additionally, we intend to highlight emerging ideas or initial campaigns that we believe possess the potential to generate positive impact and achieve scalability. We also plan to launch a podcast where we’ll talk about the latest issue and typically have on a guest or two for a deep dive discussion.
Our mission with The Expand Democracy Three remains to keep you informed, engaged, and equipped to strengthen democracy. We’re excited for this next chapter and grateful to have you with us.
#1. Deep Dive: The Urgency of Confronting Political Violence
[Source: Temple University]
The appalling assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk while speaking at Utah Valley University marks another escalation in the dangerous normalization of political violence in the US. The murder of such a high-profile political figure underscores the fragility of democracy when disagreement is expressed not through debate or ballots, but through the barrel of a gun. The tragedy must be understood as part of a broader pattern of radicalization, identity threat, and inadequate safeguards for candidates and elected officials.
After the assassination of a state legislator in Minnesota, we published an analysis on the psychological roots of political violence. That piece examined how violence is often driven more by deep psychological insecurity than by ideology, which political psychologists refer to as “defensive extremism.” Individuals who feel excluded, humiliated, or stripped of control can come to see violence as the only way to regain significance. This is especially true in contexts of rapid change, social isolation, or echo chambers that amplify grievances. As research indicates, the majority of violent acts are expressive rather than strategic eruptions of anger and fear, which are framed as moral or political necessities.
Although the search for Kirk’s killer is ongoing as of this writing, his assassination seems to fit this broader pattern. It represents both an attack on a political figure and a symbolic expression of alienation, grievance, and fear. Like the Boulder ped mall attack, Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman’s assassination, ICE’s kidnappings and abductions, and the January 6th riot in the Capitol, it reveals how vulnerable our democracy becomes when individuals translate perceived threats to identity into violent action.
Understanding the psychology of political violence is only the first step. As the July Democracy Exchange Network meeting highlighted, combating this threat requires practical reforms to protect those who step forward to serve. At that meeting, Sarah Hague of Vote Mama introduced the organization’s Campaign Funds for Security (CFS) initiative, which builds on their earlier success in securing approval for campaign funds to be used for childcare. CFS would extend that principle to candidate safety, allowing campaign dollars to pay for security measures, legal protections, and cyber defense.
Representative Liz Berry of Washington State powerfully illustrated why such measures are essential. After receiving violent threats tied to her work on gun safety, she described the inadequacy of current protections and emphasized the need for clear rules, training, and resources to safeguard candidates and their families. Her testimony makes clear that political violence is a lived reality for many who seek to serve, and an especially high barrier for women and mothers considering public office. She and her legislative colleagues aim to introduce legislation that reflects her experience and learning later this year.
Taken together, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the psychological dynamics of defensive extremism, and the testimony we heard through the Democracy Exchange Network point toward a sobering truth: American democracy cannot thrive if political participation carries the constant risk of violence.
That means three things for reformers and advocates. First, we must deepen our understanding of the psychological and social roots of extremism, ensuring that prevention efforts address alienation and identity threat, not just increasing law enforcement. Second, we must scale commonsense protections, such as Vote Mama’s CFS proposal, which enable more diverse candidates to run without fear for their safety. Third, we must insist that violence is never an acceptable form of political expression, no matter one’s ideology.
Political violence thrives when democracy feels like it has failed. To honor victims, protect future leaders, and safeguard democratic participation itself, we must build systems that ensure both representation and security. Expanding democracy means expanding not only who can run and who can vote, but also ensuring that they can do so without fear of attack.
#2. Spotlighting Democracy-Affirming Technologies (DATs)
[Source: IE University]
When technology and democracy intersect, the headlines often spotlight the risks such as disinformation, algorithmic opacity, or online manipulation. Yet, an emerging field, democracy-affirming technologies (DATs), presents a more hopeful vision. These are tools deliberately crafted to uphold democratic values such as transparency, inclusion, privacy, and civic participation throughout their lifecycle.
Some DATs enhance the democratic process at the ballot. BallotReady offers nonpartisan, personalized voter guides to help citizens make informed choices. TurboVote simplifies voter registration and delivers timely election reminders to boost engagement.
Others foster deliberative participation and policymaking. Polis is an open-source platform that uncovers community consensus through structured online dialogue and has been used effectively by the Taiwanese government. Decidim, deployed by cities like Barcelona, empowers residents to propose, debate, and decide on local policy initiatives. Transparency and accountability are also central. Follow the Money opens access to campaign finance and lobbying data, illuminating the networks of political influence.
However, an IE University chapter reveals a critical insight: even when DATs are used for democratic purposes, they may lack democratic intentionality by design. Through their Tech4Democracy initiative, spanning global startup competitions across five continents and backed by the US Department of State and Microsoft, researchers found that many technologies simply adapt to democracy related use cases rather than being built from the ground up to affirm democracy. This misalignment exposes them to risks like bias, exclusion, and public distrust.
To counteract these risks, the report advocates for a principle akin to “Ethics by Design,” but expressly for democracy. By embedding core democratic principles, such as inclusivity, transparency, citizen engagement, and equitable access, directly into the development of these tools, innovators can better safeguard democratic outcomes from the outset.
Across these diverse initiatives, what unites them is a powerful design philosophy in which technology should empower rather than undermine civic agency. By lowering barriers to participation, encouraging thoughtful deliberation, and ensuring accountability, DATs present an increasingly hopeful framework for strengthening democracy in the digital age. As tech innovators, civil society, and policymakers keep innovating, these technologies show the way forward, making code a valuable ally in defending democracy.
#3. Timely Links
American Bar Association releases final report of the ABA Task Force for American Democracy: “The American Bar Association [on Sept 10] announced the release of the final report of the ABA Task Force for American Democracy, a two-year, bipartisan effort to address the most pressing threats to the rule of law and democratic institutions in the United States…Drawing on two years of hearings, listening tours, and research, the report advances reforms in 12 core areas.” [Recommendations included impartial redistricting and expanding voter options through ranked choice voting, fusion voting, and nonpartisan primaries.]
Introducing the NYU Law Democracy Project: “One of our aims is to promote understanding and analysis of the challenges facing American democracy, including putting them in the context of the similar challenges facing most Western democracies. At another level, we will also assess the evidence behind proposed political reforms and which ones are most likely to help reduce polarization and extremism. One major focus will be exploring executive power issues as well as the challenges the technology revolution now poses for democracy…With this mission in mind, we will launch this Project with a series of ‘100 ideas in 100 days’ offered by an exceptional range of contributions from the United States and abroad.”
Why democracy is backsliding, faster and faster: From Sept 9th Washington Post guest essay, “Global democracy suffers from a form of long-covid. Political freedom, already in decline, was driven to a 25-year low following the pandemic. Since 2019, the global annual rate of democratic backsliding has quadrupled, new data show. At least 112 countries have lost some political freedom, and more than a third of these were not experiencing decline before the pandemic. This group includes the United States, Canada, South Korea, Japan, Australia, and 20 of the 27 European Union countries.”
U.S. democratic backsliding in comparative perspective: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has August 25th report concluding, “While some comfort can be taken from the fact that the relatively deeply rooted U.S. democratic norms and institutions compared to those in the other cases have resulted in a less institutionalized process of backsliding thus far, the distinctive speed and aggressiveness of Trump’s aggrandizement agenda is cause for serious concern. Numerous avenues and sources of resistance to democratic erosion continue to exist, but U.S. democracy is being put to the test as never before in the country’s modern history.”
To boost turnout, ballot measure proposes moving New York City elections to even years: Bolts Magazine reports, “Local candidates who have run in odd-year elections have told Bolts that it’s challenging to campaign on policies that favor communities that are less likely to vote, such as housing policies that’d help renters. Bolts reviewed available data from the five cities of at least 250,000 residents that have elected their mayors in contested races so far in 2025, and predictably found that turnout cratered as compared to November 2024. When Fort Worth elected its mayor in May, less than 10 percent of registered voters showed up, in line with past cycles. San Antonio’s expensive mayoral race in May saw 17 percent turnout, a drop of roughly 70 percent since last fall.”
American Promise poll shows strong support for reducing the power of big donors: American Promise recently conducted a poll that shows that Americans are ready to take back our elections from elite donors.
71% support a constitutional amendment; this includes 72% of Republicans, 76% of Democrats, and 74% of Independents
82% say money in politics is a threat to U.S. elections
79% oppose unlimited political spending
Andrew Yang oped: Texas broke redistricting. Here's how Congress can fix it: In the Houston Chronicle - “We should live in a country where voters choose their politicians, not the other way around. The good news is that there’s a nonpartisan, national solution that brings fair maps and fair representation to every state, whether red, blue or purple. The answer lies with a more proportional House that elects Democrats, Republicans and even independents based on their actual support among voters, not the way politicians draw district lines. The Fair Representation Act, with the un-riggable combination of multi-member districts and ranked choice voting, would be the best way to end gerrymandering once and for all.”
Former 538 editor G. Elliott Morris releases poll showing openness to proportional representation for Congress. From an August 26th post on X on poll - “Putting on my electoral reform hat, promising support for PR in our new poll. Could approximate with multi-member districts by a simple act of Congress. 9 in 10 adults say that fair elections are more important to them than their party winning (higher than I expected, tbh)...Most voters also say that single-member districts are unfair to the minority party in deep red/blue states. We asked if voters would support a system that allocated House seats by party proportional to the share of the vote they win statewide, and 46% said yes (27% no).”
Danielle Allen in the Renovator - Fighting the wildfire with upgraded governance: From a new substack focused on democracy - “There’s much we can do to upgrade our democracy to make it effective and resilient in these turbulent times. Democracy renovation isn’t just the one change— it’s a whole suite of actions… We combine a bigger House with reorganized, multimember districts so that voters elect three members at once, instead of just one, and we use ranked-choice voting for those elections. That will give us a House that proportionally reflects the full range of interests and opinions.”