Jeffrey Powell
float:right; border:1px solid #FFB81F; background-color: white; width: 250px; font-size: .9em; margin-bottom:0px;
} .infobox p { margin-bottom: 0; } .widget-row { display: inline-block; width: 100%; margin-top: 1px; margin-bottom: 1px; } .widget-row.heading { font-size: 1.2em; } .widget-row.value-only { text-align: center; background-color: grey; color: white; font-weight: bold; } .widget-row.value-only.white { background-color: #f9f9f9; } .widget-row.value-only.black { background-color: #f9f9f9; color: black; } .widget-row.Democratic { background-color: #003388; color: white; font-weight: bold; } .widget-row.Republican { background-color: red; color: white; font-weight: bold; } .widget-row.Independent, .widget-row.Nonpartisan, .widget-row.Constitution { background-color: grey; color: white; font-weight: bold; } .widget-row.Libertarian { background-color: #f9d334; color: black; font-weight: bold; } .widget-row.Green { background-color: green; color: white; font-weight: bold; } .widget-key { width: 43%; display: inline-block; padding-left: 10px; vertical-align: top; font-weight: bold; } .widget-value { width: 57%; float: right; display: inline-block; padding-left: 10px; word-wrap: break-word; } .widget-img { width: 150px; display: block; margin: auto; } .clearfix { clear: both; }
Jeffrey Powell (Democratic Party) ran for election for North Dakota Secretary of State. He lost in the general election on November 8, 2022.
Powell completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2022. Click here to read the survey answers.
Biography
Jeffrey Powell earned a Ph.D. from the University of Northern Colorado in 2003.[1]
Elections
2022
See also: North Dakota Secretary of State election, 2022
General election
General election for North Dakota Secretary of State
Michael Howe defeated Jeffrey Powell and Charles Tuttle in the general election for North Dakota Secretary of State on November 8, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Michael Howe (R) | 63.2 | 147,816 |
 | Jeffrey Powell (D)  | 27.5 | 64,254 | |
 | Charles Tuttle (Independent) | 9.2 | 21,517 | |
| Other/Write-in votes | 0.1 | 241 | ||
| Total votes: 233,828 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Democratic primary election
Democratic primary for North Dakota Secretary of State
Jeffrey Powell advanced from the Democratic primary for North Dakota Secretary of State on June 14, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Jeffrey Powell | 99.7 | 21,897 |
| Other/Write-in votes | 0.3 | 57 | ||
| Total votes: 21,954 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Republican primary election
Republican primary for North Dakota Secretary of State
Michael Howe defeated Marvin Lepp in the Republican primary for North Dakota Secretary of State on June 14, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Michael Howe | 67.6 | 44,790 |
 | Marvin Lepp | 32.1 | 21,280 | |
| Other/Write-in votes | 0.2 | 163 | ||
| Total votes: 66,233 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Campaign themes
2022
Ballotpedia survey responses
See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection
Jeffrey Powell completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2022. The survey questions appear in bold and are followed by Powell's responses. Candidates are asked three required questions for this survey, but they may answer additional optional questions as well.
| Collapse all
Jeffrey Powell is an educator and a university administrator. His role demands an understanding of broad implications of federal and state policies and this experience will translate easily into the tasks assigned to the Secretary of State.
- Powell plans to promote prosperity by advocating for moderate laws and improved access through the FirstStop portal to encourage small business formation and success.
- Powell plans to ensure secure elections that encourage North Dakotans to vote and to address the damage to voter confidence exacted by “the big lie” and its proponents.
- Powell plans to advocate for tabulation methods other than first-past-the-pole in races where those make sense. Approval voting is doing what it promises to do in Fargo races, Ranked Choice can change the dynamics of State House races, and changing our Electoral College vote distribution could put us on national strategy maps.
I believe in the Constitution and I believe in civil rights. I believe government officials should work to be transparent and I believe they must make it clear they care about their constituents more than they care about currying favor with their political party compatriots.
The first historical event in my memory is two uncles going to Vietnam. I was scared for them and happy ... relieved when they returned home after their tours.
In the same timeframe, something light and funny. There is a private but open-to-the-public museum and wildlife preserve about 25 minutes outside of my hometown. There are buffalo on the preserve, and to keep these buffalo from walking onto the parking lot there is a cattle guard, the pipes in the ground that keep hoofed animals from crossing over. It is next to a small creek.
The sign at this crossing identifies it as the "Buffalo Watergate." Imagine being a six-year old when the news of Nixon's illegal conspiracy becomes known. What does the President's behavior have to do with this odd cattle guard at this museum outside of Tulsa? I was confused for quite some time.
I started working at a Pizza Hut at the age of 15, and have worked since then. I'm currently in my 30th year of work in college administration - kind of a teacher and kind of an administrator. I work with college students who may have broken a rule and assign sanctions to help them learn to do better. I work with students who have some special challenges to their success. I work with our best student leaders to help them influence our protocols. I provide regular, unsexy services in a consistent manner, daily, which is precisely what the Secretary of State does. I'm ready for this job.
Note: Ballotpedia reserves the right to edit Candidate Connection survey responses. Any edits made by Ballotpedia will be clearly marked with [brackets] for the public. If the candidate disagrees with an edit, he or she may request the full removal of the survey response from Ballotpedia.org. Ballotpedia does not edit or correct typographical errors unless the candidate's campaign requests it.
Campaign website
Powell's campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
Advocacy for Voting Rights A central task of the Secretary is being the chief elections officer for the state. It will be my honor and it is my pledge that no one will care more about the rights of North Dakotans to have access to a ballot, to know their vote will be processed in accordance with the law, and have confidence the results of our elections will be diligently and duly counted and recorded. We’re going to make sure we lobby the legislature in their law-making processes to protect North Dakotans and protect the right to vote, to protect access to a ballot, to make sure they can submit the ballot with a justifiable belief the ballot will be accepted. The processes described in law and honed by non-partisan elections officials will be respected and increased ballot access - not less - will be of chief concern as I work to protect our democracy. I pledge submitted ballots will be counted and tallied and not randomly thrown out because of the politicization the GOP is visiting upon our elections nationwide. We have seen legislatures in other states declare they - not your county auditor and the canvassing board - show determine if a ballot count in your county was accurate. Given how unfriendly to local control this legislature can be, we must be ready to fight against that kind of concentration of control. My job is to protect all of us, every single North Dakotan and their right to vote and know their ballot will be properly handled, counted, and tallied. Citizens entitled to vote should get to vote, and it should be easy and there should be different ways to submit a ballot. No doubt, those who are not eligible shouldn’t get a ballot. We can agree to that basic notion and still all recognize the other side is going way too far in their contrivances to make our elections break their way. I will protect democracy - I will see this as job one. (Note: in a recent interview I indicated "there is a really terrific explanation of our voting systems on the Secretary of State's website." It describes the protocols and the safety measures in place. Read here.)
Introduce Ranked Choice Voting for House seats while retaining our current one-senator-two-house members distribution of legislative seats. This will increase competition in at least 1/3 and as many as 1/2 of our districts and could broaden the range of voices of people who announce as candidates for the House. Advocate for the use of Ranked Choice Voting What’s wrong with our current voting system? A legislature should reflect all of the voters who elect them. For this to be the case, voters must be able to elect representatives in proportion to their number. Fair representation voting describes American, candidate-based forms of voting that respect this principle of proportional representation. Instead of adopting voting methods that would lead to more fair representation, most elections in North Dakota are winner-take-all. That means that instead of reflecting all of the voters, our legislators only reflect the one biggest or strongest group of voters that elected them, while leaving all others unrepresented. The results of winner-take-all voting systems often result in either partisan gridlock or a legislature that fails to represent its population. This are the conditions we see at our federal level and at our state legislative level. A supermajority can infringe on the rights of women or minority groups or concerns that a substantial – just not quite a voting majority – have, and frequently lack accountability because these same elected officers can gerrymander themselves into power. Having politicians face the voters in a truly meaningful election makes a better representative democracy. What races are you suggesting should have RCV?
What is the likely outcome of RCV races for seats in the North Dakota House? Under our current State Constitution, each North Dakota Legislative District sends two house members to Bismarck from their district. There are 47 districts and in most situations we send either two Dem-NPL’ers or two Republicans. It rarely happens where enough people split their votes (for example, one Republican and one Democrat) such that there is a split decision within the legislative district. Of the 47, there are currently six with a 'split delegation.' It can be argued the system we’ve constructed has an unnecessary redundancy that presents as disproportionate representation, such as that we currently see in the North Dakota legislature. Sending two people of the same party will occur less often under this new system. I believe if we implemented a Ranked Choice voting system, half of the districts could send one Republican and one Dem-NPL'er, nearly every election. That's not a certainty, but it provides a variety of choices for voters. Even districts where one party is more heavily favored, there is a reduced likelihood of sending two people from the same party in this scheme. While it's assumed the two major political parties will continue to solicit or endorse two candidates for their election, it is possible in this scheme they bid only one candidate. Is this just a Republican and Democrat thing? Maybe, but if doesn't have to be that way. A central concern of the two-party system and the current winner-take-all system is that it forces party affiliation when many of the views on issues by people within the same party are not compatible. On a national level, we see that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is in the same party as Colin Peterson or Joe Manchin. Both are welcome in the party – we’re a big tent, but their priorities are vastly divergent. The same diversity occurs in the Republican party, right? While the limited use of RCV in North Dakota won’t fix the two-party national system, it does permit some interesting possibilities in our state. This could help people who believe the Republican Party is too moderate and needs to have a harder right-wing line – it will help these voters coalesce to elect someone with that perspective even outside of the control of the formal ND Republican Party. Similarly, this could allow for people who believe Democrats are too meek and should seek and work to elect more progressive candidates to run - citizens with such a belief could support a candidate in their district that more closely matches their outlook. This increases the voices going into an election and ideally will give us a more diverse House while simultaneously moving decisions to a moderate and moderated middle. Fringe ideas can still be considered, and good ideas are good ideas. But the vetting process will always be better if we can have a more equal balance in one part of the legislature. Would the Primary election for House seats still be necessary? I don’t know. My off-the-cuff answer is: let them all in for the general. Everyone who qualifies gets on the general ballot in November. It’s not clear if they need to file in April like we currently do, or if that date gets moved back. Reducing the number of voices who want to be part of the decision-making process is exactly NOT the goal. Some will argue that dropping this race from the primary ticket creates chaos, but – I say this with love to the Kennedy and Reagan Centers – I don’t care. Taking power away from the people – whether by the party or by members of the government – is always a bad idea. Could it work for State Senate and for federal and statewide offices? RCV is a process that can work with single-winner races, and there are other modern voting concepts that could work, as well. This proposal doesn't include it because there is no specific need and we're already asking a lot of "the other party." To be honest, I'm not certain we need a Senate, and as we work on the Constitutional changes RCV would require, that can be a point of discussion. Does RCV always favor one party or the other? RCV doesn't advantage either party. The Governor of Virginia (a Republican) and the mayor of New York City (a Democrat) recently won office on the second-choice part of the ballot. Rather than favoring either party, it brings in voters who believe their vote won't matter, and it ensures whoever is elected has broader support. RCV works. It's worth noting that allowing voters to cast ballots identifying their second and third choices (and so on) rewards candidates who work to broaden their appeal while weeding out polarizing figures. Consequently, officials elected through this system have a greater band of people to whom they should feel accountable. Is there a financial cost? Is there a financial benefit? Any taxpayer cost associated with this is nil or miminal. We're talking about adding a few extra names to a ballot and reprogramming already purchased counting machines to accept a new method of counting. There is absolutely a financial benefit, what Dr. Powell identities as prosperity from the Secretary of State race. A central problem with supermajority party states – especially given the current national climate – is that laws that are considered discriminatory (abortion restriction, trans-athlete restriction, etc.) are easier to pass. These laws do two things: they chase our best and most driven young people to places where they or their friends will be better accepted; and these laws prevent or dissuade monied organizations looking for a new branch division from locating in North Dakota. We do a lot of things well here, but we can’t project an image of intolerance and be surprised when no one wants to live here. RCV will give us a more diverse House, which will moderate the laws that are passed. If the supermajority in the House is broken, then it will force coalitions AND negotiated agreements between these diverse parties and that is always in the best interest of We The People. Break up the Supermajority? So, Republicans should willingly give up control of one of the chambers? Yes, but with an asterisk. It’s a near certainty Republicans keep the Senate and most likely Republicans will continue to be the majority party in the House for the foreseeable future. Even this Democrat acknowledges that this will not change the party-in-power. It will reduce the margin of the number of seats they hold. By lessening that margin of power, and by distributing it to other parties, this action gives power back to the people.
They cannot prioritize both. Enacting this change will help North Dakota look like a modern democracy and will help us appear more favorable to other red states where less democracy – rather than more – is a turn off. Our state can become more attractive to a blue-state investor who might want to move a company or part of a company here. Once we eliminate the supermajority structure, other red state politics that derail robust economic development will be decreased. The most urgent question we need to ask is how will the Republicans work to return to the people and share with other parties– in ways that are meaningful and beneficial to the people of the state – a piece of their decision-making power?
Advocate for the use of Proportional Allocation of U.S. Presidential/Electoral College Vote What’s wrong with our current voting system? The results of winner-take-all voting systems often result in either partisan gridlock or decision makers that fail to represent its population. Most Americans report being disappointed that our elections systems lead us to only two choices, and frequently it's difficult to be truly happy with either one of these choices. The two-party system depresses participation and creates forced choices while more competitive races can grant voters options outside of the two major parties. What races are you suggesting should have a proportional allocation? Dr. Powell is advocating we tally the votes for electors for United States President and (a) allocate those electors to three parties (if there are three), based on an "over a quota" basis, or (b) allocate a proportional number of Electoral College votes based on the results of the two largest vote-earners. This protocol applies the principle of proportional allocation to our election results. Is this just a Republican and Democrat thing? Maybe, but not likely. A central concern of the two-party system and the current winner-take-all system is it forces party affiliation when many of the views on issues by people within the same party are only marginally compatible (see Duverger). On a national level, we see that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is in the same party as Colin Peterson or Joe Manchin. Both are welcome in the party – we’re a big tent and the premise of their use of government, respect for rights of people, and economic principles are similar; still, many of their priorities are divergent. The same big tent acceptance and diversity of priorities occurs in the Republican party, right? While the use of proportional allocation of the electoral college vote in North Dakota won’t eliminate the dominance of the two-party national system, using it for this one race could be interesting. It could solidify the ability of one party to prove its dominance, or it could allow some citizens who are underrepresented in our current system to have an attainable outlet to demonstrate their discontent with our current political condition. Is there a financial cost? Any taxpayer cost associated with this is nil or minimal. Already printed ballots will be processed through already purchased counting machines which will produce counts and ratios of votes recorded in already established tables and public-facing software. The State Canvassing Board and its constituent county boards will need to accept a new method of counting and notifying party leaders of the protocols related to allocation, such that the state-level party leaders can prepare their electors. The cost in these adjusted protocols is minimal. From a voter perspective, nothing will change. One person / one vote, and a voter's ballot will probably look the same both before and after this initiative is adopted. Is there a financial benefit? Consider this: two states currently grant their electoral vote by congressional district (CD), and both of those CDs broke ‘against’ their state in the last presidential election. Millions of dollars were spent in Bangor, Maine to ensure that Maine CD-2 went for President Trump, and millions of dollars were spent in Omaha to encourage voters in Nebraska CD-2 to vote for candidate Joe Biden. The candidates flew in to Bangor and Omaha in the last two weeks of the campaign and campaigned in those cities because of how important that one break-away electoral college vote could have been. While the final tally had a difference of more than 70 electoral college votes, there were models where the result would be tied or separated by single digits, making clipping off this one-electoral college vote from the rest of their respective states was worth the cost to the two national campaigns. North Dakota has three electoral votes and, obviously, only one congressional district. Instead of ‘by congressional district,’ we could allocate those three electoral votes in a way that encourages competition (which is good in a democracy) and brings outside political attention (yes, candidates for the office of President would have to come here, instead of ignoring us for other, competitive locations). You have a couple of possible scenarios? Let's say the vote is 30-68-2 (D/R/L), then the winning party gets all three electors. Functionally, if one party gets more than 2/3 of the votes, every mathematical formula logically awards all three votes to that party. However, if the vote is 34-64-2, this scenario could (and I argue should) award one elector to one party and the second party gets two electors. This is more fair. Full stop. There are permutations to what could also occur if the dominant party is less than 2/3. Imagine if, in this scheme, the returns were something like 44 R, 30 D and 26 L, in a world where Libertarians (or a different third party) broke from their forced partner party. During the law-making process, we would need to have clear guidance on where the boundaries lie for a three-way race rather than a two-way. I believe the quota should be 20% + 1 vote, but getting lost on the quota point is not immediately necessary as we discuss the concept. We'll need to have rules, keeping an eye on the central advantage to changing the system - competition of ideas while also encouraging outside Presidential campaigns to visit, solicit a list of our needs, or spend campaign dollars in North Dakota. North Dakota is, regrettably, a forgotten entity in our presidential elections, because of the winner-take-all allocation we've adopted. By changing our allocation decision, national parties will have to respond to our concerns, candidates or their high-level surrogates will visit the state and interact with North Dakotans. From a financial consideration, outside money attached to these campaigns will flow to the state. Competition is the goal because of the externalities this competition delivers. Those numbers feel made up. They are. These aren't: in the last three Presidential elections, North Dakota went 59-39-2; 63-27-6 (and about 3% other); and 65-32-3. Before we use those values exactly, I also want to talk about the possibility (and honestly, this could be both exciting and part of a promising democracy) of a third party doing really well. Third Party? Yep. So back to possible scenarios. If the results of a Presidential election have North Dakotans voting such that three parties get over 20% of votes, then the EC split should be 1 – 1 – 1. 20% is a stretch goal for a third party, and I assert a premise that diversity of ideas on the ballot is a good thing and should be encouraged. A higher number, such as 25% each, is actually a low performance value for the two dominant parties but is probably unachievable for a third party, at least now and for the foreseeable future. However, setting a quota value in the 20% range that is operationalized only when three parties attain this vote level demonstrates and generates choice and the principle of greater choice on our ballots. Proposal Part One: if three parties exceed 20%* of the popular vote for the US Presidential electors, then each of those three parties is awarded one Electoral College vote. Note: it's possible to set the quota value higher or lower. I'd have a hard time going under *16.5% + 1 vote, or 1/6 of the vote; it's plausible to go as high as 25%, because it's mathematically impossible for there to be more than three exceeding 25%. Yes, this means a party that earns 20.01% (or crosses the quota line, whatever line is established) gets as many EC votes as a party that earns 46% or 48%, but there are only three ECs available and rewarding a party that hits the quota enforces the principle that citizens deserve more choices. This system promotes competition of ideas, and in a democracy that's a good thing. At the other end of this, what if only one party crosses the threshold (whether that threshold is 16.6% or 20% or 22% or 25%)? Answer: the winning party should get all three EC votes. That kind of win clearly demonstrates the will of the people. Proposal Part Two: if only one party receives 20%* of the popular vote for the US Presidential elector, that party is awarded all three Electoral College votes. But only two parties? A two-party split of the popular vote is, of course, the most likely scenario for the foreseeable future. By reviewing the numbers above, the goal must be to identify where the line between a 3-0 and a 2-1 allocation should be drawn. Worst Democratic Party performance in last three presidential elections is 27%. I’ll assert 27% should not qualify for an EC vote. It isn't 1/3 in an absolute way, and it's less than half of the percentage of total votes Republicans earned in the same cycle. Best Republican performance in last three cycles is 65%, and as noted above, because it is less than two-thirds that 65% should not automatically get all three ECVs. In most cases it will once the rest of the math is worked out, but if 65% reflects the best performance and half of that is 32.5%, we now have a line for the Democrats to hit. As we noted earlier, the Democratic presidential candidates hit 39% in 2012 and 32% in 2020, so in the last it's probable we go 2-1, 3-0, and likely 3-0 depending where we draw the line. Proposal Part Three: if only two parties exceed (the three-way threshold of) 20% of the vote for US President, and if and only if party B has 50% of the total votes that party A earns, then party A gets two EC vote and party B is awarded one EC vote. Votes for third party or candidates other than the two major candidates are excluded from the calculation of this ratio. If party B does not gather 50% of the votes of party A, then party A receives all three EC Votes. Putting North Dakota into a situation where we are in play in a Presidential election benefits our state, benefits our ability to influence national politics, and brings out-of-state campaigning dollars to benefit local companies. These are outcomes we should seek.
Advocate for the use of Approval Voting What’s wrong with our current voting system? Our local governing boards should reflect the voters in the communities they serve. Except for a handful of modern voting methods adopted in the state, most elections in North Dakota are winner-take-all. Boards assembled through winner-take-all elections often fail to reflect all of the voters in the community and many citizen are unrepresented. Having politicians face the voters - all their voters - in a truly meaningful election makes a better representative democracy. What races do you suggest should have Approval Voting? Dr. Powell is not suggesting this form of voting would be useful at this time for any statewide or legislative race, but it would greatly improve races such as county commissioner and school board races in many of our communities. While there is no place specifically being lobbied by candidate Powell to adopt this method of voting, discussing it here does connote a desire by Secretary of State Powell to encourage an examination of the structural voting systems used throughout the state and to help communities elect boards that better represent them. Is their a financial cost? Is there a financial benefit? Any taxpayer cost associated with this is nil or minimal. We're talking about adding a few extra names to a ballot and reprogramming already purchased counting machines to accept a new method of counting. Community participation in our local government structure is central to our American experience. Boards composed of willing citizens that better match our populations are inherently better.
Safe Polling Location, Safe Elections Workers The insurrection that occurred in Washington on January 6, 2021, and the culture of mistrust of election management that preceded and follows it, is a concern for all people who care about democracy. According to a survey by the Brennan Center, one in six local election officials have personally experienced threats, and nearly eight in 10 local election officials feel that threats against them and their colleagues are on the rise. This increase in threats made to election officials and poll workers informs us we must provide policies for threats and threatening behavior. Adding these protections to NDCC 16.1-05-09 will be encouraged by Secretary Powell. The legislature must be a part of preventing, and if prevention is unsuccessful, proscribing penalties in cases of threats or violence at polling locations or against our neighbors who work in our polling places or elections offices. Better definition, role, and parameters of election observers The same bill provides for elections observers. Few restrictions are codified, and hearings into the need for restrictions and parameters should be held. Post-election audit Finally, a bill that prohibits out-of-state auditing firms from being hired must be forwarded to the legislature. Several states paid for expensive and fruitless and unwarranted “audits” of ballots and election materials.
Explore Public Financing of Legislative Races and/or State Constitutional Races Public financing of elections amplifies the voices of all citizens in a democracy of, by, and for the people. A well-designed public finance program for elections can create an incentive for candidates to fundraise and connect with the people they seek to represent. There are multiple models for us to explore. Publicly financed campaigns can translate into a donor base that looks more like the fabric of the community, rather than a handful of wealthy elites. We deserve a real democracy. Are you suggesting there is too much money in our election system? Not suggesting: declaring it. We have too much money in politics and not nearly enough money in democracy. Without a voice calling for reform, we won’t be able to trust our elected representatives to change the system they benefit from. But money, given by companies treating legislative races as business expense and the most wealthy, rewarding the party they believe to be friendlier to their status of wealth, harms our communities by pushing one narrative or position without bringing opposing positions to the community. Money in elections does not express the will of their constituents, and often does exactly the opposite: it forces upon a community a premise that is in conflict with the beliefs most of us have. Repairing the harm and setting up systems to strengthening North Dakota election through bottom-up investments in our local civil society and democracy will be hard, but we must talk about doing so. Organizations like International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance have labeled the U.S. a “backsliding” democracy, and The Institute of Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School recently released a national poll of America’s 18- to 29-year-olds that indicates a majority of young Americans believe our democracy is “in trouble” or “failing.” Many people who care about improving their communities choose to donate to political elections as their primary strategy to advance preferred policies. That is logical, of course, but insufficient. Public financing of elections amplifies the voices of all citizens in a democracy of, by, and for the people. A well-designed program can create an incentive for candidates to fundraise and connect with the people they seek to represent. And this translates to a donor base that looks more like the fabric of the community, rather than a handful of wealthy elites, because we deserve a real democracy. Proposal We must explore options that provide for public financing of some of our elections. I have options, sure, but I also need partners. What would you hope for in such a system?[2] |
” |
| —Jeffrey Powell's campaign website (2022)[3] | ||
See also
2022 Elections
External links
.contact_entity {font-size: 1.5em ;margin-top: 0.6em; margin-bottom: 0em;margin-right: 0.5em;}
.contact_office { margin-top: 0.3em; margin-bottom: 0em;margin-right: 0.5em;}
.external_links_table { width: auto !important; }
@media (max-width:600px) {
.contact_entity {font-size: 1.0em ;margin-top: 0.6em; margin-bottom: 0em; margin-right: 0.5em;}
.contact_office { font-size: 0.8 em; margin-top: 0.6em; margin-bottom: 0em;margin-right: 0.5em;}
}
Footnotes
- ↑ Information submitted to Ballotpedia through the Candidate Connection survey on May 8, 2022
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Jeffrey Powell for Secretary of State, “Home,” accessed October 31, 2022
 |
State of North Dakota Bismarck (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
