SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " cynthia " 39 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Sign in to save shuffle history.
Making virtual exams routine: what health systems need to do
Clinical validation, patient training, reliable data workflows and clear responsibility for follow-up will determine whether remote examinations can scale.
Downtown restaurant founder makes urgent plea to business community
Hell’s Kitchen’s Cynthia Gerdes calls on CEOs to save local restaurants.
Republican blocks Senate resolution criticizing Trump’s taxpayer-funded ads
Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming) argued that past presidents in both parties have aired similar announcements.
Rep. Harriet Hageman, who defeated Liz Cheney, announces run for Wyoming Senate seat
Wyoming’s lone U.S. representative is running for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Cynthia Lummis, who isn’t seeking re-election.
Get dark money out of politics
By Tam Bresler, Barbara Dunn, Debbi and Brad Fincher, Susan Grout, Mark and Darlene Hampton, Beth Helstien, Diane Martindale, Cynthia McVeigh and Audrey Stewart
Four GOP US Senate candidates face off at Casper’s Politics in the Park
CASPER, Wyo. — Four Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate seat held by retiring Sen. Cynthia Lummis met in Casper on Wednesday for the second Politics
Building momentum for new health care price transparency laws
Consumers and employers emphasize the power of competition to lower prices
Video Health care in jeopardy for millions as Senate votes down competing proposals
Cynthia Cox, vice president of health policy group KFF, says premiums will likely increase next month for people who buy their health insurance on the ACA marketplace.
Nikki Fried dodges questions about Cynthia Chestnut crossing party lines for Byron Donalds
The FDP leader declined a chance to clear the air about a Democratic defection.
Video Practical ways to support gut health
Nurse practitioner Cynthia Thurlow shares how to prioritize your health goals this new year, starting with your gut health.
Christine Baranski and Cynthia Nixon tease ‘The Gilded Age’ season 4: ‘Serious complications in the household’
‘The Gilded Age’ season 4 sees the characters dealing with some big changes. Christine Baranski and Cynthia Nixon exclusively share what’s to come for the HBO series: ‘She’ll do what she needs to do to save her and her family members.’
GOP Rep. Harriet Hageman launches Senate run in Wyoming
Hageman is looking to replace retiring Republican Sen. Cynthia Lummis, and touted her support for Trump's agenda in her campaign launch video.
The LGBTQ+ Advocate and Entertainment Queen Cynthia Erivo
Cynthia Erivo fame has come with a range of charitable issues that she is passionate about. From uplifting LGBT communities to inspiring the next…
Richmond Council President meets with Shockoe business owners days after deadly shooting
Richmond city council president Cynthia Newbille finally met with business owners after the deadly mass shooting in Shockoe Bottom.
Rogers: Fairy tale of the $1 billion Norman arena entertainment district
Economist Cynthia Rogers challenges $1B Arena and Entertainment District claim, citing $623M value and financing differences.
Video Health costs to skyrocket for millions losing ACA subsidies
ABC News’ Trevor Ault spoke with KFF vice president Cynthia Cox about the higher costs 20+ million Americans will face starting today with the expiration of ACA subsidies.
Lionsgate Sets Early Winter 2027 For Cynthia Erivo Movie 'Karoshi'
Lionsgate has set a Jan. 29, 2027 release for the 87Eleven Cynthia Erivo Movie 'Karoshi'
Outdoor learning at Burke Lake shows students science career pathways
Environmental science and policy professor Cynthia Smith organizes outdoor education programs for seventh graders across the county, diving into the importance of hands-on research and environmental conservation.
‘Children of Blood and Bone’ first-look photos depict Regina King on her throne, Cynthia Erivo ready for battle
First-look photos from the ‘Children of Blood and Bone’ movie show the all-star cast wearing colorful threads on sweeping sets.
Ralph Lauren delivers modern take on romance with sensual silhouettes
Ralph Lauren's New York Fashion Week show featured a starry guestlist with actors from Meghann Fahy, Cynthia Erivo, Viola Davis and Elizabeth Debicki in attendance. The designer's Spring 2027 show
Cynthia Chestnut says Gwen Graham LG pick drove her endorsement of Byron Donalds over David Jolly
'You chose to go backward, not forward.'
‘Wicked: For Good’ is coming to Prime Video on December 30—here’s how to watch it
Watch the sequel to ‘Wicked,’ starring Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande, on Prime Video.
Sunny Hostin says Cynthia Erivo phoned her with concerns over ‘The View’ host’s remarks about Cornell case
Cynthia Erivo called Sunny Hostin with concerns over ‘The View’ cohost’s controversial remarks about the alleged Cornell sexual assault case: ‘Sis, I know you.’
Broncos will explore bringing in TE Taysom Hill
Denver Broncos head coach Sean Payton told NFL Network’s Cynthia Frelund that they will explore bringing in former New Orleans Saints veteran tight end/quarterback/running back Taysom Hill. Hill flourished under Sean Payton with the Saints and had teams scrambling to find the next Taysom Hill every year since. Now, the soon-to-be 36-year-old tight end who […]
Four GOP US Senate candidates face off at Casper’s Politics in the Park
CASPER, Wyo. — Four Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate seat held by retiring Sen. Cynthia Lummis met in Casper on Wednesday for the second Politics
UAPB School of Business and Management celebrates class of 2026
The School of Business and Management (SBM) at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff recognized the achievements of its graduating Class of 2026 during its annual Graduates Banquet recently at the STEM Conference Center. The event, coordinated by Cynthia Sims, SBM project/program specialist, brought together students, faculty, administrators, alumni, family members and supporters to […]
The ‘Great Healthcare Plan’ Leaves Open Questions for People with Pre-existing Conditions
President Trump announced a health care framework that leaves open key questions, including those about out-of-pocket costs, premiums, federal spending, and health coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.
April B & Shenelle Simone give the latest in entertainment headlines
Cynthia Erivo speaks out about she and Ariana Grande's friendship, and Brooklyn Beckham writes a note to wife Nicola Peltz.
Music Review: 'Wicked: For Good – The Soundtrack' raises the stakes
"Wicked: For Good — The Soundtrack" offers a fresh take on the original musical's second act. Cynthia Erivo shines as Elphaba, while Ariana Grande brings depth to Glinda. The soundtrack
Man accused of breaking into Cynthiana business and stealing from cash register
A man was arrested after police say he broke into Gasser Landscaping by prying the door open with a crowbar.
Hooksett’s Macy Industries, other NH small businesses get big recognition
A year before they got married, Marcel Mercier told his wife, Cynthia, he wanted to start a business.
Can AI solve our mental health access problem?
Last week I asked you what worries you most about AI in health. It was close, but your top answer was “AI giving bad health advice.” Last week’s poll results: You’re in good company. This concern was top of mind at a conference I joined at Stanford last week, where researchers, clinicians, and people who build AI systems spent a day debating trust and safety in health AI. Stepping back, I’m also hearing your emerging concerns about AI’s impact on our well-being generally. I see this as a matter of public health, and we’ll take it in pieces as we learn together. Today we’ll focus on AI chatbots used for therapy for mental health. Early this month, Governor Newsom vetoed Senate Bill 903, California’s most ambitious attempt to regulate AI use for mental health. It’s at the center of active debate, and raises the questions patients, family members, citizens, and voters will face as AI moves deeper into health care. Let’s work through it. What is “AI-based therapy”? It’s really two things: purpose-built mental health apps designed to deliver structured support, and general chatbots like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini that people increasingly use for emotional support—even if they weren’t built for it. Spoiler alert: I don’t know whether the shift toward AI therapy is good or bad. The evidence isn’t there yet. But I do know it’s already happening, and I have some ideas about how we can roll it out with safety in mind. The therapy dilemma, in a nutshell Mental health challenges are common, and strain health and well-being across populations. Therapy (interactive dialogue with a trained, empathetic practitioner) helps many people heal. The demand for licensed therapists far exceeds the supply in California, and AI-based therapy can narrow that gap. AI-based therapy remains novel, unproven, and not well tested. Right off the bat, we can see we’re dealing with trade-offs here. Since the main driver of demand for therapy from a robot is lack of access to therapy from a human, we’ll start there. It’s too hard to find and afford a human therapist California is short roughly 55,000 licensed, non-prescribing therapists and counselors, about 40% of what we need. Psychiatrists, who rely on talk therapy as a complement to prescribed medications, are even more scarce. Eight counties have none, and density ranges from 1.7 per 100,000 residents in San Benito County, to 68.1 in Marin County. My wife is a psychiatrist in Marin, and even here access is tight. If it’s hard in the best-supplied county, imagine rural Sierra County, or the San Joaquin Valley. In 2024, more than half of Californians who tried to make a mental health appointment struggled to find a provider who took their insurance, compared with 14% for physical health care. When Senate staff posed as “secret shopper” patients and called 120 mental health providers in Medicare Advantage networks, they landed an appointment less than once for every five tries. Insurers pay behavioral health clinicians about 22% less than medical and surgical clinicians for comparable office visits. On top of that, billing denials and prior authorizations hit hardest at the solo and small practices common in mental health. Psychiatrists opt out of Medicare at the highest rate of any specialty. In many places, a cash practice for therapy fills quickly with patients paying $250 or more an hour, with no insurance paperwork at all. Families who can pay cash find providers more easily. Those who rely on insurance, including Medi-Cal enrollees, older adults, rural residents, and non-English speakers, compete for what’s left. So we can’t pretend the human system works, and we can’t blame people for turning to AI for support when they’re in distress. AI is filling the gap It’s estimated that roughly a quarter of AI users use it for mental health support. If you have internet, it’s available 24/7, it’s cheap, and it speaks your language. Uninsured adults are about twice as likely as insured adults to do it (30% vs. 14%). It feels anonymous in ways that may enable people to ask things they’re unsure or embarrassed about. The largely hidden, personal use makes it hard to study whether it’s actually helping people with their mental health issues, but researchers are trying. Does AI therapy work? A 2026 analysis of nearly 40 randomized trials found chatbots showed a real but small reduction in depression symptoms. But most of these trials were compared to an alternative of no therapy, not a human therapist. So the benefit of AI therapy is probably real, but modest, and mostly untested against the alternative of human contact. We need more studies. Serious concerns OpenAI’s own estimate is that more than a million ChatGPT users each week show signs of suicidal planning or intent. These are high stakes encounters, and AI doesn’t always get it right. That’s partly because a chatbot can sound like a therapist, but it has no license, no duty of care, and it’s not clear who to hold accountable when it gets things wrong. AI is also designed to help users in whatever task they’re seeking to accomplish. People may feel like they’re getting therapy, but they’re mainly getting a convincing conversation. It’s easy for an AI companion to wander into gray areas, like playing along with “creative writing” that may be about the user’s own suicidal intent. Courts are driving safety conversations A wave of lawsuits have been filed on behalf of families claiming that chatbots pushed people they loved toward self-harm, including teens who died by suicide. The first settlements came this year. OpenAI is headquartered in San Francisco, and dozens of cases alleging that ChatGPT drove users to suicide or self-harm are now before a San Francisco judge. Character.ai has filed for bankruptcy after several states brought lawsuits accusing the chatbot of pushing dangerous content to kids. But the technology seems to be improving. Last month, an independent evaluation found that newer AI models “almost never endorse suicide.” That’s progress, but our societal appetite for even one preventable death is very low. So how do we move forward? Finding a middle ground Earlier this month the governor vetoed Senate Bill 903, a bill designed to place guardrails on the use of AI for therapy. The bill would have prohibited any AI-based platform from being advertised as psychotherapy, and would have required a licensed professional to review and approve each encounter where AI was used to support therapeutic decisions. Newsom called it overly broad, since even routine screening questions would have needed clinician sign-off. Knowing we’re already short on mental health providers, requiring human review of AI encounters may not relieve our access problems. Still, the answer isn’t no oversight. Here’s one feasible short term solution. Rather than reviewing each encounter, a licensed clinician can design the guardrails: what counts as a crisis, what triggers an immediate handoff to a human, and what gets sampled for audit each month. The AI runs inside that structure. Conversations get checked, failures get reported, and a real clinician owns the framework. Medicine already has models to learn from. The FDA process for rolling out newly approved medications is an example. After a product reaches patients, we keep watching for adverse events. Patient-facing AI needs the same “digital pharmacovigilance”: systematic tracking of harms, near misses, and the types of groups that get hurt and why. It’s also critical that users know that they can reach a human if they’re in crisis. Most chatbots now include messages like these: Bottom line The rush to use unproven AI tools for mental health support is mostly a workaround, a sign of a health system people can’t get into. We need better access to proven care from licensed clinicians. That takes reimbursement that makes accepting insurance viable, and a bigger workforce. But, built and tested well, AI could be part of the answer. It could be the 2 a.m. check-in when no one else is awake, or a way for patients to practice skills their therapist taught them. It could be the first step to get someone the right level of care, and take paperwork off clinicians’ plates so they spend more time with patients. None of this is simple. The SB 903 veto doesn’t end the debate, and the legislature will be back. In the meantime, those of us using these tools need to stay informed, ask hard questions, and hold the companies building them accountable. I’ll try to do my part, and we’ll keep learning together. Love,Matt P.S. If you or someone you know is struggling with mental health challenges, emotional distress, substance use problems, or just needs to talk, call or text 988- you’ll reach a real person— or chat at 988lifeline.org 24/7. Dr. Matt Willis is the author of Your Local Epidemiologist in California. A California native, he’s served as a primary care physician, CDC epidemiologist, and public health officer for Marin County, where he guided the pandemic response. He lives in Marin with his family and their dogs, Teddy and Ramona. Thank you Cynthia He, MD, PhD, and Parnika Saxena, MD, for their guidance in preparing this article. Cynthia works in an outpatient mental health clinic, treating patients who have Medi-Cal or, sometimes, no insurance. Parnika works in an inpatient psychiatric unit, treating patients with public or private insurance or self-pay ability. All opinions are their own and do not represent their employers.
Harriet Hageman announces run for Wyoming Senate seat
Wyoming’s lone U.S. representative is running for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Cynthia Lummis, who isn’t seeking re-election.
What can seashells teach us about the health of our oceans?
Seashells: They're beautiful remnants to carry home from the beach—and so much more! According to environmental journalist Cynthia Barnett, seashells record history more accurately than the humans who first wrote it down. In this episode, we talk about the science of seashells, their impact on humankind and the scientist behind a very famous tongue twister.Check out Cynthia’s book The Sound of the Sea and check out Emily’s reporting on sandcastles.Interested in more marine biology stories? Email us your question at shortwave@npr.org.Support public media with NPR+ and enjoy perks for over 25 podcasts like this one. This show’s hperks include sponsor-free listening. Learn more at plus.npr.org.
Why do we like being scared? The science behind Halloween
Why do we enjoy being scared? Clemson psychology professor Cynthia Pury explores the science behind fear and why feeling safe is important.
Shaky political science: using "simulated" elections over real-world elections
[Dear DSOS readers – this article is the latest in our “Shaky Political Science” series. In our 38 page report, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting,” released in early December, we examined over 40 studies focused on ranked choice voting. We found that many of these studies suffered from puzzling research methodologies, poorly constructed surveys, unrealistic simulated elections, cherry picked data, and faulty analyses that often were contradicted by results from real-world elections (a link to our full paper is here). Here are links to the first three articles in our series: the first one summarizing the overall results of our report, the second one analyzing a study co-authored by University of Minnesota academic Larry Jacobs, which was one of the most error-prone of all the research we reviewed in our report, and a third article showing an admirable example of two political scientists holding two other political scientists accountable for their flawed, sloppy research]. In this fourth article in our “Shaky Political Science” series, we shine a spotlight on seven studies that were web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group (the ERRG is an ad hoc committee headed by New America’s Political Reform Program and joined by the American Enterprise Institute, the Unite America Institute and Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law). This research consortium has been led by Lee Drutman, senior fellow with New America’s Political Reform Program. These seven studies are simply not credible from any objective standard about how political “science” is supposed to illuminate our understanding of either ranked choice voting or politics in general. The feature that six of these seven studies have in common is that they all used surveys – artificial, simulated elections -- to attempt to say something cogent or interesting about ranked choice voting (RCV) elections. None of them used real world data from actual RCV elections – either the 1000+ elections in the US or the many thousands of elections from places like Australia, Ireland and elsewhere where RCV has been used for 100 years. While a few of these studies conclude with some mixed positives about RCV, our analysis here is content neutral. The idea that, with a political reform like RCV, you can ask respondents in a mock, artificial election to vote with that method, with only the barest of explanation about how RCV works or its likely impacts (i.e. no spoiler candidates, majority winners, voters liberated to pick their favorite candidates, coalition-building), and then ask them their thoughts/reactions about voting in that system, with fake candidates and no real campaigning, no real exposure to an actual election or actual candidates, rests on some very puzzling assumptions. The findings of these seven studies actually are contradicted by the findings from many other studies based on real-world RCV elections. These New America studies also failed to list the real-world RCV studies in their own citations, instead including those studies that reinforced their conclusions. The seven studies featured in this article were chosen because they form a cohesive cohort which precisely illustrates one of the main points of our research paper, namely that using surveys, i.e. artificial elections, or mathematical/theoretical models, instead of real-world data, is in fact “shaky political science.” Below are summaries of our analysis of five of the seven New America studies. You can read our complete analysis of all seven studies at our paper, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting.” Choosing to “Vote As Usual” by Andre Blais, Carolina Plescia, and Semra Sevi. New America. (Blais et al., 2021). This study, web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group, used two surveys in which respondents completed ballots for simulated elections using plurality, approval, RCV and point (Score) voting. In both cases the authors provided the respondents with only minimal explanation of each method. For example, the entire explanation for RCV was “For this vote, rank the candidates from your first to your last choice (you do not need to rank them all). This is called the ranked vote.” That’s it. The study did not provide any context or explanation to survey respondents about why she/he might want to rank multiple candidates. Participants were not even told that ballots would be tabulated using an “instant” runoff, not to mention any description of RCVs ability to eliminate the spoiler effect or liberate voters to rank their favorite candidates without fear of helping the “greater evil” candidate to win. That’s like taking an iPhone back in time to 1970 and asking someone if they like it better than their rotary phone without explaining how it works. Their first survey targeted states that held 2020 Super Tuesday Democratic primaries and used the real candidates’ names in the survey; the second survey used fictitious candidates. In other words, they surveyed respondents who had only ever participated in plurality elections, had no history or background with using RCV or any of the other methods, had no clue about its likely impacts, and did not communicate how the alternative methods would be counted, and then asked them: “How satisfied are you with using each system?” Predictably, the winner was plurality elections, the system used for president, Congress, gubernatorial and state legislative elections – in other words, the method they have been using, year after year, all their voting lives. With so little explanation of RCV and its impacts, this study is simply not credible in discovering anything useful about real-world RCV elections. It merely shows that a basic voter education campaign is needed when adopting a new election system. Additionally, the result contradicts many other post-election surveys following real RCV elections, asking opinions from voters who had just participated in a RCV election, that showed a great deal of satisfaction with RCV (see details on that in Studies 22-25 in our paper, as well as the four studies cited in the review for Study 28). Share Other studies on “satisfaction” and “understanding” make similar mistakes, in terms of basing their surveys on inadequate explanation to respondents and lack of education about context. How could any survey ever hope to measure accurately, in essence simulate a real-world election, without actual campaigning candidates, the media writing about those candidates, organizations endorsing candidates and voters being inundated with crucial information? More than anything, what these “studies” based on surveys show is that if you ask voters about something they don’t know very much about, and fail to adequately educate them, their responses will unsurprisingly reflect their confusion. Equally puzzling is that New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group, headed by political scientist Lee Drutman, found this to be a credible enough study that they not only published it but highlighted it in Drutman’s own discussion of research related to ranked choice voting. This pattern was repeated in study after study featured by New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group. For example in Ranked-Choice Voting and Political Expression: Voter Guides Narrow the Gap between Informed and Uninformed Citizens by Cheryl Boudreau, Jonathan Colner, and Scott MacKenzie, the researchers based their analysis on a survey which found that respondents who were asked to vote in a simulated RCV election, with minimal explanation of RCV or how it works, displayed less evidence of being informed about how to use RCV effectively, with the least informed voters ranking fewer candidates. As pointed out under the study above, in a real election voters are informed by a wide variety of methods, including public education by the election administration, by interested political groups, the media, and the candidates themselves who benefit from voters being aware of how to vote in the new system. In Support for Ranked-Choice Voting across Race and Partisanship by Joseph Anthony, David C. Kimball, Jack Santucci and Jamil Scott, the researchers used respondents from different parties and races voting in simulated plurality and RCV elections, who indicated their satisfaction with each voting method. Instead of using real world election results, the authors fell back on the easy, armchair and less reliable academic research methodology of making up mock elections. As with the other studies, little explanation was given of how RCV works or what its implications might be (electing majority winners or eliminating spoilers, for example). Unsurprisingly, this study found that respondents were not very satisfied with RCV. However, when the authors added an explanation that RCV has a tendency to elect more women and people of color, they found that this greater explanation increased the preference for RCV. The more voters were familiar with it, and the more they understood potential positive impacts – surprise! -- the more they were open to switching away from the status quo. Of note, the results from this study are thoroughly contradicted by a number of other studies whose data was obtained from real RCV elections with real voters. Those studies show a great deal of satisfaction with RCV. More “fake election” research An interesting wrinkle on this “research by fake elections” approach, which only served to illustrate how unreliable such “research” can become, was taken in Ranked-Choice Voting, Runoff, and Democracy: Insights from Maine and Other U.S. States by Joseph Cerrone and Cynthia McClintock_,_ also web-hosted and funded by New America’s ERRG. It gets high marks for creativity, but an eye-roll for thinking this could possibly add anything meaningful to our understanding of real world RCV elections. This study tried to determine whether RCV, plurality or two-round runoff elections provided greater voter satisfaction and acceptance of election results. To determine that, the authors conducted a survey asking if voters were satisfied with a fictional newspaper report of an election, with three different versions given to respondents – plurality, runoff and RCV, with variations of Republican/Democrat winners and variations of “come-from-behind” winners,” i.e. candidates not initially in first place but who win the “runoff.” Again, a minimal explanation of RCV or how it works was given, and the survey showed that respondents had the greatest unfamiliarity with RCV than the other methods. The unsurprising result? Respondents were much more satisfied with “come-from-behind” victories in a traditional two-round runoff election than in RCV, even though RCV is also a runoff system but with a single round of counting. Interestingly, the dissatisfaction with RCV disappeared for those who were more familiar with RCV. In fact, among those respondents who were “very familiar” with RCV, they were equally satisfied with RCV, runoff and plurality. Surprise, surprise. Again, what this study revealed, more than anything, is not only the inadequacy of the explanation for RCV given by the authors of this study, but the failure of the research format itself, thinking that such an artificial mock election could somehow simulate what actually happens in the real world in a real RCV election. Those four studies reviewed above are fitting examples of inadequate and shaky political “science.” Other studies reviewed in our paper from the New America/Electoral Reform Research Group cohort which also used mock elections included: Ranked-Choice Voting is an Acquired Taste by Joseph Anthony and David C. Kimball. New America. (Anthony et al., 2021). Ranked-Choice Voting is No Refuge for Extreme Candidates by Melissa Baker. New America. (Baker, 2021). Also included in this New America cohort is Does Ranked-Choice Voting Reduce Racial Polarization? by Yuki Atsusaka and Theodore Landsman, which actually did use real-world election results data but applied an odd and unconventional methodology to the data which relied on shaky assumptions and non-real-world scenarios that were too divorced from reality. To determine levels of “racially polarized voting,” the researchers imagined “ethnic parties,” by which they mean political parties for each ethnic group, which was especially odd since the election data they were using came from nonpartisan RCV races. But then they made an even odder assumption, namely that since race and ethnic characteristics of studied voters were not available, the authors tried to infer that information based on who voters selected and the racial make-up of voters in each district. This amounted to little more than vague and ambiguous guesswork dressed up with a bunch of mathematical equations used to give it a veneer of scientific appearance. Indeed, it seemed to assume racial polarization in order to prove racial polarization. Based on this questionable methodology, the authors concluded that RCV doesn’t reduce racial polarization. But the premise of this study missed an obvious reality: since RCV incentivizes more candidates to run and can result in more diverse fields of candidates, one would expect more racially-polarized voting in voters’ top rankings, not less, because more voters would have someone on that ballot who represents their racial or ethnic identity and more freedom to vote for their real first choice. By encouraging more diverse candidates and eliminating the spoiler effect, RCV facilitates voting for a favorite candidate of your own race and then selecting a second choice with the best likelihood of winning. The real measure is what voters do with their additional rankings – do they consider other candidates and vote “for the best of the rest”? This study didn’t tell us anything useful about that. But readily available data shows this is common in real RCV elections, and candidates act on this knowledge by engaging with voters outside their racial group. So the authors of this study failed to consider or account for what actually happens in real-world elections, and their conclusions are tainted by this failure. New America has contributed a great deal over the past 2.5 decades to our understanding of many policy areas, including politics and political reform (full disclosure: Steven Hill, one of the authors of this article and of the “Shaky Political Science” research paper and series, is a former senior fellow and former director of New America’s political reform program, 2005-2010). So it was especially disappointing that New America funded and published such a large batch of dubious studies about ranked choice voting. The stated praiseworthy goal of its Electoral Reform Research Group was to inspire new academic research about ranked choice voting that would shed light and help the public better understand the impacts of RCV. Instead, the ERRG research did just the opposite. It produced dubious research that created more confusion and misinformation. In so doing, New America’s political reform program contributed to “shaky political science.” Steven Hill and Paul Haughey Share Upgrade to $5 subscription Thanks for reading DemocracySOS, a reader-supported digital portal for the pro-democracy movement. Subscribe for only $5 per month to receive full benefits and to support our work. Subscribe
Hannah Einbinder, Susan Sarandon arrested in protest against Netanyahu
Hannah Einbinder and Susan Sarandon were arrested after protesting the arrival of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the United Nations in New York City. Cynthia Nixon, Elliot Page, Indya Moore, Mary Beth Barone, Caleb Hearon and Sarah Sherman were also at the demonstration.
Ecologist Cynthia Malone and her crusade to decolonize science
As a kid growing up in Bushwick, Brooklyn Cynthia Malone was fascinated with monkeys, apes, and tropical forests.