One of the notable surprises of last week’s Presidential Election is that it appears that Donald Trump has become President-elect while getting fewer votes than Mitt Romney received in his losing Presidential bid in 2012.  You heard that right, while there are still results being counted in Michigan, as of now Donald Trump received roughly 60.3 million votes, while Mitt Romney in 2012 received nearly 61 million votes.

Hillary Clinton appears to have garnered nearly 61 million votes (more than Trump), but far less than Barack Obama’s 66 million in 2012.

What happened?  We do know that the population of the nation grew during that time, as did the number of voters.  In 2016, there are an estimated 323.4 million Americans with nearly 226 million eligible voters.  In contrast, in 2012, there were 308.1 million Americans and 215 million eligible voters.

Yet fewer people voted.  Why?

Part of it is the increasing difficulty in voting in America.  As part of the ongoing – and false – campaign about so-called voter fraud, laws are now in place that makes it more difficult for eligible Americans to register and for voters to vote.

In 2016 alone, at least 14 states installed restrictive voting laws around the country, including limitations on voter registration, photo ID mandates and narrower time periods for early voting, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

But it’s also part of an “institutional voter suppression” effort.  By that I mean the way in which the elections are conducted.  In New York State, for example, the longest lines to vote are usually in the City of New York.  Voters who see long lines can be turned off and choose not to vote.  Low turnout in New York City is a key reason why New York State is at the “bottom of the nation’s barrel” in voter participation.

Since New York State is a “blue state” why would it allow long lines in the Democratic Party-dominated City?  Current elected officials win because the current crop of voters turns out.  Bringing in new voters can put incumbents – of any party – at risk.  There is less incentive to overhaul the system.

Another factor is the toxicity of the election itself.  The more ugly the election, the more likely voters will be turned off.  That has to have been a factor in last week’s election.  Less-partisan voters are less likely go to the polls and that suppresses turnout.

There is not much that can be done to reduce the toxic nature of American politics.  But there are things that can be done to make voting easier.

Americans have a constitutional right to vote.  However for some, voting is seen as a privilege that citizens should strive to achieve.  Thus, for those individuals, registration requirements are no big thing.

Yet, in other democracies, voting is treated as a right.  In most countries, the government takes the lead in getting people’s names on the rolls – whether by registering them automatically once they become eligible (as in, for example, Sweden or Germany) or by aggressively seeking out and registering eligible voters (as in the UK and Australia).

In the U.S., by contrast, registration is mainly an individual responsibility. And registered voters represent a much smaller share of potential voters in the U.S. than just about any other advanced democracy: Only about 65% of the U.S. voting-age population was registered in 2012, compared with 91% in Canada and the UK, 96% in Sweden and nearly 99% in Japan.

Democracy is a work in progress.  But when it comes to voting, progress – not retrenchment – is needed.  Hopefully, Governor Cuomo can figure out a way to move New York State from one of the worst states in the nation when it comes to voting, to an example of what should be done.

As the election staggers across the finish line, the question for New Yorkers is what next?  At the state level, Governor Cuomo weighed in to support legislative candidates who embraced his agenda.  The governor went so as far as to circulate a questionnaire to candidates quizzing them on their support for ethics law changes, asking their position on limiting lawmakers’ outside income and stricter campaign contribution requirements for Limited Liability Companies (LLCs).

Urging reforms in those two areas are mightily important.  The loophole that allows those controlling Limited Liability Companies to donate essentially unlimited amounts of campaign contributions is an example of the loophole that swallows the law.

That loophole is based on a decision by the New York State Board of Elections – there is nothing on the law on this – that says that LLCs should be treated differently from other companies and allowed contribution limits that far exceed those for corporations.  Corporations, for example, are limited to no more than $5,000 annually in campaign contributions.  LLCs each can donate as much as $60,000 for candidates for governor and more to other candidates.  For them, essentially the sky is the limit.

Real estate developers in particular, have used the LLC loophole to donate enormous sums.  The network of LLCs controlled by real estate tycoon Leonard Litwin (who controls scores of LLCs) has admitted to contributing over $10 million in this way.

Given that LLCs have become the “honey pot” of campaign contributions for elected officials, they are also found at the heart of some of the state’s most recent political scandals.  In the cases that led to the convictions of the former Senate Majority Leader and the former Assembly Speaker, LLCs were used to enrich both men and their families.

Allowing lawmakers to “moonlight” – have jobs outside of their legislative ones also can create temptations for officials to trade on their public offices to enrich themselves personally.  Again, in both cases of the former legislative leaders, the corruption conviction stemmed from their efforts to use their public offices for personal gain.

But the needed ethics reforms go beyond merely closing the LLC loophole and limiting outside income for lawmakers.  The allegations and convictions of corruption in state government are so widespread that additional reforms are needed.

The investigation into apparent misconduct by top aides to the governor and his close allies underscore the need for real changes in the way the state’s contracts are awarded – bringing much greater openness and accountability to state contracting is a must.

The investigations into the state’s contracting also identified allegations of a “pay-to-play” system in which government contracts were allegedly awarded to big campaign donors.  As a candidate for governor, Andrew Cuomo advanced a proposal to place new, strict, and lower campaign contribution limits on those seeking and receiving government contracts.

Since becoming governor, however, little has been done to advance that plan.

Also, all of these investigations were brought by federal prosecutors, not state ethics watchdogs.  It is clear that overhaul of these entities must be part of a reform agenda.

The state’s leading ethics watchdogs for the executive branch, lobbying, the legislative branch, and campaign finance system are far too beholden to the political elites that run the state.  Truly independent watchdogs are needed.  And these agencies must be directed by individuals who are empowered and protected to enforce the law without fear or favor.

To clean up the mess of unprecedented corruption that has, sadly, become the hallmark of New York State government, Governor Cuomo needs a comprehensive approach and use all of the tools he’s been given to boost ethical standards and public confidence.

In 2010, then-candidate Cuomo launched his campaign for governor on the steps of the Tweed Courthouse, pledging to reform Albany.  Since then he has talked grandly, but has simply not accomplished enough.

New Yorkers have heard enough talk about reform, now is the time to actually deliver on it.

As the national election races to the finish line, one issue that has made its way to the top of the debate is voter “fraud.”  It is stated frequently and consistently that voter fraud is a huge problem that could undermine the results of the national elections.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

National experts say that credible allegations that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls are incredibly rare.  The most comprehensive review of these allegations found only 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000–anywhere in the country. Included in that analysis were all general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014.  In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion votes were cast in that period.

While some of these 31 incidents have been thoroughly investigated (including some prosecutions), many have not.   The author of the study guessed that some of the 31 were just honest mistakes, but he wanted to err on the side of caution.

And that conservative approach still found only 31 credible allegations out of over 1 billion votes cast.

Hardly sounds like a widespread problem.

Yet, the relentless message that somehow there is a widespread problem with election fraud is having an impact on the nation.  According to one recent poll, nearly half of Americans believe that voter fraud (defined in the poll as “like the same person voting multiple times or someone voting who is not eligible”) is a problem.

Nearly half of Americans believe that there is a problem, when the research says there is none.

What evidence do proponents of the “voter fraud” myth use to advance their cause?  While the charges are usually based on anecdotes, a recent study issued by the independent think tank, the Pew Research Center, which estimated that there are approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States that are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate.  This is an argument proponents like to use.

But that report, “Inaccurate, Costly and Inefficient: Evidence That America’s Voter Registration System Needs An Upgrade,” was an examination of the problems with voter registration.  It wasn’t a report that looked at voter fraud.  Ironically, it also found that over 50 million eligible voters were not registered.

That seems like a much bigger problem.

There is evidence that the use of the term “voter fraud” is just an attempt to suppress the vote – particularly among young voters, other first time voters, and voters of modest means – including voters of color.

A national – or even statewide – debate over voting in America should be based on the facts, not overblown – or false – allegations.

Efforts to suppress the constitutional right to vote is much more of a problem than voter fraud.  Candidates for office should use their time to advance measures to protect and expand that constitutional right, not dream up ways to sow public unease for their own narrow partisan advantage.

Here in New York our voter registration and voter participation rates are anemic. A U.S. Elections Project analysis showed New York to have among the five worst turnout rates in the nation among eligible voters. New York must take immediate action to address systematic problems that disenfranchise voters and remove barriers that suppress voter turnout.  Here’s a checklist of three reforms that would help:

1. Allow automatic voter registration and automatic updates to enrollment information of citizens interacting with all state and local government agencies.
2. Allow voters to register and vote on Election Day. In the interim, New York State should shorten the registration and change of enrollment deadlines to 10 days before the election, the current minimum under the State Constitution.
3. Eliminate the patronage-controlled Boards of Elections, starting with the merit selection of permanent Board employees across the state.

Reforms are needed, but they must remove obstacles to registration and voting, not respond to myths that are easily debunked.

During the lazy, hazy days of last summer, the Cuomo Administration approved a plan to hike New Yorkers’ electric utility bills by billions of dollars. The hike is to bail out three upstate nuclear power plants in central and western New York. Some of these plants, built during the Vietnam War era, were slated to be shut down because they were no longer efficient or profitable, having run well past their projected lifespan of 40 years.

Instead, New York ratepayers – be they commercial, industrial, municipal governments, schools, nonprofit groups or residents – will have to pay an estimated $7.6 billion more on their electric bills to bail out three nuclear power plants operating near Oswego and Rochester.

The $7.6 billion estimate was calculated by the Public Utility Law Project, an independent think tank. Of that amount, an estimated $2.3 billion will be paid over the next 12 years by residential consumers—homeowners and renters.  Niagara Mohawk residential customers, for example, will pay nearly a half of a billion dollars more; Con Edison consumers in downstate New York, will pay over $700 million more.

New Yorkers will be paying more for electricity so that the Illinois-based company Exelon, the owner of two of these plants and prospective buyer of the third, can turn a profit.  Exelon is already a hugely profitable energy company that makes billions every year; the plan to transfer billions of New York ratepayer dollars to Exelon has been described as one of the biggest transfers of wealth in state history.

Despite the magnitude of the subsidy, there was little public debate or transparency about the process. The Cuomo Administration downplayed the possible impact. In its initial reports last spring, the Cuomo Administration estimated that the cost of the bailout could range from as little as $59 million or as much as $658 million. It wasn’t until July that the true cost of the bailout began to emerge.

In mid-July, the Cuomo Administration unveiled the biggest—and most accurate—cost estimate right before the August 1st vote to approve the deal; the time when many New Yorkers were barbecuing and enjoying vacations.

The new estimate was a ten-fold increase over the highest that had been projected in the spring.  And then New Yorkers were given less than two weeks to comment.  Certainly not enough time during any part of the year, but particularly difficult to engage the public during the middle of the summer.

There can be no doubt that New Yorkers would agree that investments in the state’s renewable energy future are worth it, but spending billions of dollars to bail out old, dirty, unprofitable 20^th century energy sources makes no sense at all. It’s the equivalent of spending big bucks to keep the horse-and-buggy industry alive while Henry Ford is moving cars off the assembly lines.

It is crystal clear that instead, New Yorkers should invest in clean, renewable, 21^st century energy technology and reap the economic, health and environmental benefits that brings, while at the same time keeping the cost as low as possible for ratepayers. Renewable technologies and energy efficiency programs are already cheaper than nuclear power, so these investments would save money while greening the state’s energy system.

This November, the Cuomo Administration will decide whether to go through with the bailout by approving the sale of one upstate nuclear plant and drafting a contract to subsidize all the upstate plants.  If the governor chooses to pull the plug on the deal, then the state entities involved will have to come up with a new plan for better, cleaner, cheaper energy.  If that happens, there is a good chance New Yorkers will be part of that process, not out of the loop and then stuck with the bill.

College students are not the ones that we think of when identifying people who are hungry in America.  Yet, as the income gap has grown, there are an incredible number of college students who go hungry.

Last week, a national report documented just how serious the problem has become.

Four campus-based organizations – the College and University Food Bank Alliance, the National Student Campaign Against Hunger and Homelessness, the Student Government Resource Center, and the Student Public Interest Research Groups – surveyed college students on food insecurity in 12 states.

Food insecurity – the lack of reliable access to sufficient quantities of affordable, nutritious food – is common at colleges and universities across the country, potentially undermining the educational success of untold thousands of students.

In their report, the groups surveyed almost 3,800 students at 34 community and 4-year colleges across 12 states – the broadest sample to date.  The report, Hunger on Campus: The Challenge of Food Insecurity for College Students, found that over 20 percent of those surveyed had the very lowest levels of food insecurity, and 13 percent of students at community colleges were homeless.

The report also found that consistent with prior studies, nearly half of those surveyed reported food insecurity in the previous month, including 22 percent with very low levels of food security that qualify them as hungry.

The report also found that students experiencing food insecurity often also suffer from housing insecurity, such as difficulty paying the rent, mortgage, or utility bills.  Nearly two-thirds of food insecure students reported experiencing some type of housing insecurity. Fifteen percent of food insecure students reported experiencing some form of homelessness – the most extreme form of housing insecurity – in the past 12 months.

Not surprisingly, the impacts of food or housing insecurity make it harder for students to perform in college.  Of the food insecure students in the study, over 30 percent believed that hunger or housing problems had an impact on their education. These students reported a range of consequences: Over half reported that these problems caused them to not buy a required textbook or missing a class; and twenty-five percent reported dropping a class.

Remarkably, these problems existed for students who were employed, participated in a campus meal program or received other forms of financial aid.  Over half of food insecure students reported having a paying job. Of those employed students, nearly 2 in 5 worked 20 hours or more per week.  Being enrolled in a meal plan with a campus dining hall does not eliminate the threat of food insecurity. Among the respondents from four-year colleges, over 40 percent of meal plan enrollees still experienced food insecurity.

And financial aid programs appear to be insufficient for college students in need.  According to the report, three in four food insecure students received some form of financial aid. More than half (52 percent) received Pell Grants and nearly 40 percent took out student loans during the current academic year.

What should be done?

A good place to start is for policymakers to examine the problems of hunger and homelessness among college students.  There is a real need to address these concerns through creative measures, such as making it easier for students to access financial aid, food programs, and offering housing and meals to needy students.

No person should ever have to worry about how they’re going to get their next meal. Unfortunately, that situation is the reality for far too many of today’s students.