How two-party systems foster conspiracy theories, the “Japanese First” Party, Rank MI Vote, college reform stacking, and timely links
The Expand Democracy 5
Welcome to the latest edition of The Expand Democracy 5. With the help of Rob Richie and Juniper Shelley, we highlight relevant links and stories about democracy at local, national, and global levels. Today's stories are:
🕳️ Deep dive - Why Conspiracy Theories Thrive in a Two-Party System
🌊 How the “Japanese First” Party is Making Waves
⚡ Michigan’s RCV Push via Rank MI Vote
🎓 College Reform Stacking
🕙 Timely Links
#1. Conspiracy Theories and the Democratic Deficit
[Donald Trump, Melania Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell in February 2000. Source: BBC]
The Epstein files have resurfaced in the news, including a Wall Street Journal report that Donald Trump sent a “bawdy” birthday card to the financier. The House Oversight Committee is also planning to subpoena Ghislaine Maxwell, prompting renewed public speculation, suspicion, and conspiracy theories. Recent revelations about Trump's connections to Jeffrey Epstein’s influential network have reignited interest in the case and, more broadly, in how conspiracy theories influence American political culture today. While speculation about elite misconduct has long existed, the widespread and persistent nature of such beliefs raises critical questions about public trust, democratic accountability, and how institutions are structured.
Rather than focus solely on the details of any one case, it is worth asking: Why are conspiracy theories gaining traction among Americans across the ideological spectrum? And what might this tell us about deeper structural issues in our political system?
Distrust in Institutions and the Appeal of Conspiratorial Thinking: According to a 2023 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), 25% of Americans agree with the broad claim that “the government, media, and financial worlds in the U.S. are controlled by a group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles.” While extreme, this finding underscores a significant level of institutional distrust and alienation.
Scholars Joseph Uscinski and Joseph Parent, in American Conspiracy Theories (2014), argue that conspiratorial beliefs are not fringe irrationalities but consistent features of political life, often intensified in moments of perceived exclusion or disempowerment. Conspiracy theories, they argue, provide a cognitive framework for understanding why desired political outcomes fail to materialize. When institutional processes appear opaque or rigged, especially when elites seem immune from consequences, alternative explanations that bypass formal channels of accountability become more attractive.
Russell Muirhead and Nancy Rosenblum (A Lot of People Are Saying, 2019) build on this by identifying the emergence of what they term "the new conspiracism," a form of political discourse that rejects evidence-based reasoning in favor of repetition, innuendo, and partisan loyalty. Unlike older conspiracies, which at least feigned investigative rigor, the new conspiracism operates without traditional proof. Its power lies not in persuasion but in performing distrust.
Similarly, political psychologist Lilliana Mason (Uncivil Agreement, 2018; Radical American Partisanship, 2022) demonstrates how affective polarization, characterized by growing hostility between partisans, can heighten susceptibility to anti-system thinking. When political opponents are seen not just as wrong but as existential threats, conspiracy narratives that delegitimize them are more likely to spread and stick.
This research in political science and psychology demonstrates that conspiracy theories flourish in environments where citizens feel disempowered or excluded from formal channels of influence. When institutional processes are opaque, unresponsive, or appear to shield elites from consequences, individuals may turn to alternative explanations for why systemic problems persist. Conspiracy theories often serve not only as explanations but as expressions of a broader democratic deficit.
Structural Features of the U.S. Political System: While cultural and psychological factors influence conspiracy beliefs, the structure of the American political system also plays a significant role in creating the conditions for such beliefs to develop. The winner-takes-all, first-past-the-post system restricts political competition and limits the range of feasible policy options. Voters who feel unrepresented by either major party may become disengaged or turn to anti-system narratives. When an issue is especially important to a particular party’s base, such as believers in the Epstein conspiracy, it may become more salient in elections than more substantive issues, even if those issues are strongly opposed by the other major party.
In addition, partisan gerrymandering and incumbency advantages further reduce electoral competitiveness, especially in legislative races effectively decided in low-turnout primaries. Lastly, campaign finance systems, dominated by large donors and Super PACs, fuel perceptions that politicians are beholden to moneyed interests rather than to constituents.
These institutional features do not directly cause conspiracy thinking, but they do erode public confidence in democratic responsiveness. When combined with high-profile cases like Epstein’s, which seem to confirm that powerful actors operate above the law, a broader narrative of elite impunity becomes hard to ignore.
Moreover, efforts to suppress conspiracy theories can backfire. The Streisand effect, where attempts to censor or discredit a claim only increase its visibility, demonstrates the limits of fact-checking and content moderation as standalone solutions.
Toward a More Inclusive and Accountable Democracy: If conspiracy theories are symptomatic of a democratic deficit, then addressing them requires more than debunking misinformation. It demands reforming the democratic infrastructure itself. Electoral reform, including ranked choice voting or proportional representation, could expand ideological representation and reduce the binary us-vs-them logic that fuels affective polarization. Stronger ethics enforcement and independent oversight bodies would increase transparency and reduce perceptions of elite impunity. Participatory local governance, from citizen assemblies to budgeting initiatives, can rebuild trust by giving people a more direct stake in decision-making. Political scientists such as Jane Mansbridge (Beyond Adversary Democracy, 1980) and Archon Fung (Empowered Participation, 2004) have long argued that democratic legitimacy depends not only on voting, but also on meaningful inclusion and responsive institutions.
In short, the prevalence of conspiracy theories in American life should not be dismissed as a fringe phenomenon or mere irrationality. Rather, it serves as a warning sign, a cultural and political response to a system that often appears unresponsive, exclusionary, and unaccountable. A more inclusive and accountable democracy may not eliminate conspiratorial thinking, but it can help address the conditions that allow it to thrive.
#2. A Far-Right “Japanese First” Party Gains Ground in “Mid-Term” Election
In Japan’s recent upper‑house elections, the far‑right Sanseitō party (also known as the “Japanese First” party) made striking gains, expanding its representation from a single seat in 2022 to 15 out of 248 seats this year. This surge offers insight into broader structural and political shifts within Japan’s democratic system.
Founded in 2020 and led by Sohei Kamiya, Sanseitō has leveraged YouTube and social media to build a devoted following. Its platform blends anti-vaccine and anti-globalist rhetoric with nationalist themes, consolidating under a simplified “Japanese First” slogan reminiscent of populist movements abroad. Sanseitō’s rise corresponds with significant erosion of the ruling coalition’s majority. Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), long dominant since 1955, lost its upper-house control, securing just three fewer seats than needed. Economic concerns, rising costs, stagnant incomes, and consumer frustration have fueled dissatisfaction with established parties. Sanseitō has campaigned on reducing immigration, curtailing welfare for non-Japanese residents, resisting gender and diversity reforms, and advocating for more traditional societal roles. Although a small percentage of Japan’s population is foreign-born (~3.8%), those economic and cultural anxieties have enabled Sanseitō to tap into broader voter concerns.
This electoral shift reflects several structural dynamics that have recently shifted. When mainstream parties fail to address public grievances, fringe actors can transition from social media virality to electoral success, creating an opening for populist outsiders. In addition, the LDP’s long-term control is fracturing, with voters exploring alternative nationalistic and populist voices. This led to the weakening of one-party dominance. Lastly, Sanseitō’s leveraged media to gain the youth vote. Core support includes younger voters and those mobilized via digital platforms, underscoring generational and technological shifts in political engagement.
This realignment prompts several system-level questions: Is Japan entering a phase of political pluralization, moving beyond LDP dominance? Could nationalist-populist parties shift policy debates around immigration, defense, and social cohesion? And what reforms might reinforce democratic resilience, such as civic education or structured media oversight? Understanding Sanseitō's rise requires situating it within the context of systemic vulnerability, rather than focusing solely on individual rhetoric. It highlights how democratic systems can become vulnerable to populist surges when traditional parties appear unresponsive or out of touch—a potential lesson for American leaders, who oversee many state legislatures that have been run by one party for decades.
From a systems perspective, the Japanese upper house elections serve an analogous function to midterm elections in the United States. That is, between elections for the most powerful offices in a country, there can be elections that give voters an opportunity to send a message to those in power.. This “pressure valve” might help voters feel more in control, while also giving those in power more chances to respond to voters and adjust course before the next election.. Some of our states and cities lack such “mid-terms” and are missing out because of it.
#3. Building Momentum in Michigan: Rank MI Vote and a Grassroots Push for RCV ⚡
[Executive director Pat Zabawa signs the first signature for the petition to bring ranked choice voting to Michigan at the Ann Arbor Art Fair. Source: Detroit Metro Times]
In 2018, Michigan made national headlines with its citizen-led campaign to end gerrymandering. Out of that victory came a new wave of grassroots energy, and with it, the formation of Rank MI Vote, an organization dedicated to bringing ranked choice voting (RCV) to elections across the state. Today, Pat Zabawa is leading that effort as its executive director and this week sat down for an interview with me
Unlike many reformers who advance through the traditional political route, Zabawa entered this work as a civic-minded technologist. “I didn’t get involved through partisan politics,” he said. “But I’ve always been drawn to projects that make the world better.” As a software developer, he was particularly struck by RCV’s systems-level logic: it reduces vote-splitting, expands choice, and encourages more civil campaigning. “It solves so many things at once,” he said. “I had to get involved.”
Zabawa’s case for RCV is grounded in the political realities of his home state. “Michigan is a true 50-50 state,” he noted, “and we have a strong third-party tradition.” In 2016, third-party candidates received nearly 5% of the presidential vote. The result is a growing number of candidates winning major offices, including U.S. Senate and House seats, with less than a majority of the vote. Looking to 2026, popular Detroit mayor Mike Duggan is running for governor as an independent, with a non-majority winner increasingly likely.
RCV, Zabawa argues, can address this legitimacy gap. It’s also a solution to crowded primaries where candidates can win nominations with as little as 25% of the vote. “That’s not representative,” he said. “RCV ensures the outcome better reflects what voters want — not just who happened to split the vote the least.”
Why does Rank MI Vote succeed where straight RCV measures failed, quite markedly in MA in 2020 and OR in 2024? Rank Mi Vote has already had a string of city ballot measure wins. Furthermore, in Oregon and Massachusetts, RCV was pushed via statewide ballot measures with limited in-person outreach. Massachusetts advocates struggled to “get air time for complicated public policy” in the midst of COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020. That contrasts with some of the city campaigns for RCV, where 31 of the last 32 measures have been successful, including a big 73% win in Washington, D.C. in 2024, where a strong grassroots campaign contributed to wins in every precinct in the City.
Rank MI Vote is taking a grassroots, volunteer-led approach, starting with individual conversations, town halls, and localized education before launching signature collection. Rank MI Vote’s current focus is qualifying a 2026 statewide ballot initiative that would bring RCV to Michigan’s state and federal primaries. The organization began collecting signatures earlier this month and has just 180 days to gather over 445,000 valid signatures, employing a grassroots strategy and relying on volunteers rather than paid canvassers.
“The biggest challenge and opportunity is reaching Michigan voters,” Zabawa explained. “When we talk to people one-on-one, we find they want what RCV offers. They just need to know it exists.”
To meet that challenge, Rank MI Vote has launched a statewide town hall series and ramped up volunteer outreach. For Zabawa, this is both campaign strategy and community building. “People are eager to do something meaningful,” he said. “These little conversations, at the grocery store, walking down the street, they matter. They add up.”
While the 2026 campaign is the current focus, Zabawa is clear-eyed about what comes after. “Democracy work doesn’t end with the ballot,” he said. If the measure passes, Rank MI Vote will shift its focus to implementation, local expansion, and education. “We want to make sure RCV is used effectively, and that voters trust it.” The amendment also allows cities and towns to adopt RCV for local offices. “Our vision is not just one reform at the top, but a more representative system at every level,” Zabawa added.
#4. Reform Stacking on College Campuses
Universities have historically been on the forefront of innovation and reform - from advocating for divestment in South Africa in the 1980s to supporting women’s suffrage in the 1910s. Today, students have taken an increasing role in championing electoral reform. According to FairVote, more than 100 universities from across the country use RCV in campus elections, ranging from Arizona State to LSU. In a promising sign for the reform movement, RCV rarely gets implemented alone.
Students overwhelmingly like RCV, with many of their campus uses requiring a vote of the student body. They can also implement RCV more and more easily in online voting. As technology and AI play an increasing role in dictating American behavior and interactions, discussions about the viability of mobile voting have become increasingly relevant. While successful pilot programs have been run in states across the country, most notably West Virginia, security concerns have prevented many lawmakers from endorsing a national rollout of online voting.
College campuses, however, are not burdened by these concerns. In colleges and universities across the country, RCV implementation has been accompanied by the use of innovative online voting systems, many of them student designed. As more universities adopt online voting systems, their experiences will provide a proving ground for mobile voting, serving as early indicators of best practices.
George Washington University provides a strong example of the value of “stacking” electoral reforms. GW adopted RCV for its student body presidential and vice presidential elections in 2020. In order to implement the program successfully, they used a university specific student organization program called Engage, which allowed registered students to vote during a specific time period. Before GW used Engage, their student voting system OrgSync, had no capacity to carry out RCV. Without a technological upgrade, RCV would have been beyond GW’s reach.
GW joins a number of other schools that use online platforms to implement RCV, including Northwestern University, Georgia State University, Purdue College, and Grinnell College. Grinnell College has gone so far as to use software created by an undergraduate student, allowing them to effortlessly tabulate complex RCV results. These schools serve as a small-scale model of use, both of RCV and mobile voting, that can be adapted by other universities and private institutions. They also provide a compelling look into the interdependence of electoral progress. Reforms like these often complement one another, providing a helpful tool that can and should be used to facilitate collaboration and forward motion.
#5. Timely Links
“House Delegation Reintroduces Fair Representation Act to Reform Congressional Elections” From The office of Congressman Don Beyer: “U.S. Representatives Don Beyer (D-VA) and Jamie Raskin (D-MD) today led a House delegation in reintroducing the Fair Representation Act, an election reform bill to address structural gerrymandering issues and extreme partisanship in federal elections. The bill would implement measures to elect U.S. House Representatives through ranked choice voting in multi-member districts drawn by independent redistricting commissions and would require ranked choice voting to elect U.S. Senators.”
“How We Voted in 2024”: From the introduction of this important report from MIT’s Charles Stewart: “The Survey of the Performance of American Elections provides information about how Americans experience voting in the most recent federal election. Conducted in every presidential election since 2008, the SPAE is the only national survey of election administration that focuses on the voting process and offers insights into the performance of elections in the individual states.”
“Democrats Are Their Own Worst Enemy”: From Steven Hill in Democracy SOS: “Democratic leaders are rightfully assailing President Donald Trump over his many anti-democratic transgressions. But they should look in the mirror. Because on many occasions, Democrats have had a chance to improve and open up our democracy, and make it work better for regular people, but more often than not they have refused to do so. With a toxic form of “minority rule” now allowing Trump and his MAGA Republican faction to wage near-total power, often contrary to the actual ‘will of the people,’ one would think the Democrats might see it to their advantage to unlock the box of “more democracy.” But unfortunately no.”
“GOP’s Latest Voter Suppression Target: Overseas Americans: From the Democracy Docket - “Over 4 million U.S. citizens are eligible to vote through the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), signed by former President Ronald Reagan. But voter turnout from overseas U.S. citizens overall remains low at less than 10% of those eligible…’Until 2024, all overseas voting was a bipartisan-supported issue and then there was a false accusation that there were non-citizens voting from abroad,’ Susan Dzieduszycka-Suinat, president of U.S. Vote Foundation, told Democracy Docket. ‘There’s an unfounded animosity and suspicion of voting from abroad. There’s no supporting evidence of fraud or malfeasance by these voters.’ In battleground states, GOP lawmakers have introduced legislation and litigation that would make voting much harder for overseas citizens more broadly.”
WIU student wins Simon Democracy Prize by proposing RCV referendum: Winter Hurst-Leadicker is one of four university students to win the 2025 Paul Simon Democracy Prize. The Western Illinois University student project proposes placing a referendum on the ballot that asks voters in Macomb to approve a ranked choice voting system for the city’s municipal elections. She tells Tri States Public Radio, “‘I believe that if you, as a citizen of the city of Macomb, truly want to be able to elect your local leaders that are able to have a sizeable mandate from the voters in a way that maximizes democracy, you should vote ‘yes’ on implementing a democratic, ranked-choice voting system for the city of Macomb municipal election.’”
NYC and RCV: Changing Behavior, Not Outcomes: From Jonathan Madison of the R Street Institute – “Rather than shape who won, RCV helped shape how Mamdani won. He reached beyond his core supporters and created a coalition to help him reach majority support… The race provides a useful case study for how RCV incentivizes better candidate behavior without undermining a fiercely ideological candidate in favor of a moderate or “establishment” candidate. While RCV is no silver bullet reform, it remains a viable option for conducting runoff elections in an efficient manner that allows candidates of all kinds to compete.”
Shawn Griffith of Independent Voter News analyzes electoral reform in New York City - “[The charter review process] in 2025 did a disservice to independent voters and reformers because the commissioners decided on a single avenue to pursue that was broadly opposed and gave voters a limited window to either take the offer on the table or reject it…The CRC pitted RCV advocates against open primaries advocates in 2025 when the right marriage between both reforms can be successful and has shown to be extremely popular among voters in polling and at the ballot box from San Diego to Washington, DC.”
Homeland Security’s “SAVE” Program Exacerbates Risks to Voters. From the Brennan Center - “The Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or ‘SAVE’ program was designed to help states verify the citizenship and immigration status of people applying for government benefits…. But SAVE’s results — sometimes based on incomplete or outdated information — have never been perfect. For that reason, the information gleaned from the SAVE program should be considered useful, but not definitive, in assessing an individual’s citizenship… DHS has allowed state and local election officials to search for hundreds of thousands of voters simultaneously. This increases the risks that state officials will carry out erroneous voter purges and disenfranchise eligible voters.”