Common Ground in the Battlegrounds?
COLORADO
Amid ongoing political debates about spending on low-income assistance programs, a new survey in Colorado’s most competitive congressional district – the 8th – reveals bipartisan common ground in favor of the federal government providing more assistance to low-income households.
When given the option to increase, decrease or maintain current levels, majorities of both Democrats and Republicans favored:
- Increasing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, also known as food stamps
- Increasing federal spending on Medicaid, to provide health insurance to more low-income people
- Raising the federal minimum wage
Proposals to increase the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for low-income workers without children, and expand eligibility, are also favored by majorities of both Democrats and Republicans.
Common Ground in the Battlegrounds?
This survey release is the fourth in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in the run-up to the November election in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts.
Surveys on eleven additional topics will be released on a rolling basis between now and the midterm elections, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending in Congress – were chosen because surveys by PPC and others consistently found majority Republican and Democratic agreement nationally. The results for all individual states and districts can be found here. Previously released surveys include: Artificial Intelligence, Housing and Healthcare.
SNAP Benefits
A majority of Democrats (81%) and Republicans (72%) say monthly benefits for individuals living alone should be higher than the current average of $170. The median Democrat says it should be $250, and the median Republican $244.
For monthly SNAP benefits to single mothers, which are currently $530 on average, a majority of Democrats (68%) and Republicans (60%) say it should be higher. The median Democrat and the median Republican say it should be $600.
The government providing discounts on fruit and vegetables bought with SNAP benefits is favored by 91% of Democrats and 88% of Republicans.
Bipartisan majorities in most competitive states and districts surveyed say benefits should be higher, and discounts should be provided for fruits and vegetables.
Spending on Medicaid
Given the option to increase federal spending on Medicaid and cover more people, keep it the same, or decrease it and cover fewer people, a majority of Democrats (79%) and Republicans (61%) say it should be increased.
Bipartisan majorities in every competitive state and district surveyed say spending on Medicaid should be higher.
The Federal Minimum Wage
Told that the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour and asked to specify how much they think it should be, an overwhelming majority of Democrats (93%) and Republicans (88%) chose a higher wage. The median Democrat and median Republican say it should be $15.
Across the battleground states and districts as a whole, the median Democrat says it should be $15 an hour, and the median Republican $12.
Tax Credits for Low-Income Workers Without Children
Bipartisan majorities favor several proposals to expand and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), specifically for low-income workers without children (who receive substantially less benefits than workers with children).
Raising the limit on the maximum amount of the EITC credit from $630 to $1,300 a year is favored by a large majority of Democrats (84%) and Republicans (76%).
Raising the limit on the amount of savings people can have and still get the EITC credit (for individuals from $18,500 to $24,000; for married couples from $25,500 to $33,000) is favored by a large majority of Democrats (87%) and Republicans (76%).
Lowering the age of eligibility from 25 to 21 is favored by a majority of Democrats (76%) and Republicans (62%).
Bipartisan majorities in every competitive state and district surveyed favored all three proposals to increase and expand eligibility for the EITC.
More Information
- Colorado + National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology
- All State and District Results
About the Surveys
The survey in Colorado’s 8th congressional district was fielded May 27 – June 24, 2026, with 500 adults. The response rate was 8.9%. The confidence interval is +/- 6.0%, and the maximum weight is 5.1.
The national survey was fielded February 11-26, 2026, with 2,509 adults nationally. The response rate was 7.6%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 2.51.
Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.
The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The national sample was further weighted by Census region. Partisan distributions in each sample were within expectations, based on voter registration or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.
About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series
This series will include surveys in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts and be released on a rolling basis between now and the mid‑term elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions.
The goal of this effort is to reveal the public’s views – in competitive states and districts – focusing on policy questions that have elicited bipartisan agreement nationally. The project seeks to educate the public, policymakers, and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.
Project partners include the Program for Public Consultation (PPC), the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP). None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.
Program for Public Consultation
The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, develops and conducts public consultation surveys, in which respondents are informed about and deliberate on policy solutions being proposed by elected officials, and give their recommendations. It seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting representative samples of citizens on key public policy proposals, and sharing its findings with officials in government, the media, other academics, and the general public.
Civic Innovation Center
The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.
Voice of the People
Voice of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.
With healthcare costs continuing to rank among Americans’ top concerns, a new survey conducted in Colorado’s most competitive congressional district – the 8th – reveals common ground between Democrats and Republicans on proposals to reduce costs and increase access to health insurance.
Proposals for making drugs more affordable are supported by large majorities of Democrats and Republicans, including:
- capping the price of prescription drugs to the price they are sold for in other developed countries
- reforming patent laws to bring more generic drugs on to the market
To increase access to health insurance, a large bipartisan majority favors restoring the recently expired enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies, which will lower the cost of insurance.
While Congress has scheduled reductions in future Medicaid spending, the surveys find little public support for this – less than one in four Democrats or Republicans. Instead, a large bipartisan majority favors actually increasing spending on Medicaid to provide coverage to more low-income households.
The surveys find strong bipartisan majority support for expanding government insurance options, including:
- allowing people 55-64 to purchase a Medicare plan
- creating a government-run health insurance plan that anyone can buy into (i.e., a public option)
For treatment of substance use disorder, a bipartisan majority favors the government investing billions of dollars more to help ensure access for all who need and want it.
These policies are derived from recent or existing Congressional legislation or White House proposals.
Common Ground in the Battlegrounds?
This survey release is the third in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in the run-up to the November election in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts.
Surveys on a total of fifteen topics will be released on a rolling basis until the midterm elections, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending in Congress – were chosen because surveys by PPC and others consistently found majority Republican and Democratic agreement nationally. The results for all individual states and districts can be found here.
Reducing the Cost of Drugs
An overwhelming bipartisan majority favors the government setting maximum prices for drugs sold in the US, based on what the drugs are sold for in other developed countries (which is about half the price on average). Over eight in ten Democrats (83%) and Republicans (91%) are in favor.
A large bipartisan majority favors a proposal to bring more generic drugs to market by making it “illegal for drug companies – whose patent on a drug has come to an end – to pay generic drug companies to hold off making and selling that drug.” (Democrats 80%, Republicans 82%)
Over two-thirds favor another patent reform proposal intended to lower drug prices: allowing the federal government to override a company’s drug patent and license other companies to produce that drug, if the government determines the price is unaffordable, and the drug was developed with federal funding. (Democrats 75%, Republicans 89%)
Large bipartisan majorities favor these proposals in all competitive states and House districts surveyed, as well as nationally.
Reinstating Enhanced ACA Subsidies
Reducing premiums and deductibles for health insurance bought on the Affordable Care Act marketplace, by reinstating the enhanced subsidies that expired this year, is favored by 87% of Democrats and 70% of Republicans.
Large bipartisan majorities favor this proposal in all competitive states and House districts surveyed, as well as nationally.
Spending on Medicaid
Given the option to increase federal spending on Medicaid and cover more people, keep it the same, or decrease it and cover fewer people, 79% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans say it should be increased.
Bipartisan majorities favor increasing federal spending on Medicaid in all competitive states and House districts surveyed, as well as nationally.
Expanding Government Health Insurance
Allowing people aged 55 years or older to purchase a Medicare plan is favored by 91% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans.
Creating a “government-run public option (similar to Medicare) and allow all individuals who want to buy into it,” is favored by 91% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans.
These proposals are favored by at least two-thirds of Democrats and Republicans in all competitive states and House districts, as well as nationally.
Funding for Substance Abuse Treatment
A large bipartisan majority favors increasing federal spending on substance abuse treatment by $13 billion, “which would mean nearly all people who want and need treatment would get it” (Democrats 88%, Republicans 70%).
In general, ensuring that every person who needs and wants substance use treatment can get it is seen as a high priority by 95% of Democrats and 87% of Republicans.
Large bipartisan majorities favor spending more on treatment, and making it a high priority, in all competitive states and House districts surveyed, as well as nationally.
More Information
- Colorado + National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology
- All State and District Results
About the Surveys
The Colorado survey was fielded May 27 – June 24, 2026, with 500 adults. The response rate was 8.9%. The confidence interval is +/- 6.0%, and the maximum weight is 5.1.
The national survey was fielded March 11-19, 2026, with 1,200 adults nationally. The response rate was 8.3%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 1.9.
Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.
The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The national sample was further weighted by Census region. Partisan distributions in each sample were within expectations, based on voter registration or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.
About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series
This series will include surveys in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts and be released on a rolling basis between now and the mid‑term elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions.
The goal of this effort is to reveal the public’s views – in competitive states and districts – focusing on policy questions that have elicited bipartisan agreement nationally. The project seeks to educate the public, policymakers, and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.
Project partners include the Program for Public Consultation (PPC), the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP). None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.
Program for Public Consultation
The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, develops and conducts public consultation surveys, in which respondents are informed about and deliberate on policy solutions being proposed by elected officials, and give their recommendations. It seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting representative samples of citizens on key public policy proposals, and sharing its findings with officials in government, the media, other academics, and the general public.
Civic Innovation Center
The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.
Voice of the People
Voice Of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.
While Democrats and Republicans in Congress recently came together to pass legislation addressing the cost of housing, a new survey in Colorado’s 8th congressional district shows that majorities of both Democrats and Republicans favor policies that go substantially further.
The recently-enacted law provides more tax incentives to build or repair affordable housing, which a large bipartisan majority favors, but they also favor the government investing tens of billions of dollars to help build more housing affordable to low- and middle-income households.
A large bipartisan majority also favors the government providing an additional $24 billion in rental assistance for the very low-income, elderly and disabled. The new law does not include an increase in spending on rental assistance.
Under the new law, corporations are prohibited from owning more than 350 single-family homes, but a bipartisan majority favors a more restrictive policy of prohibiting large corporations from owning any single-family homes.
The policy questions included in the survey were derived from federal legislative proposals.
Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series
This release is the second in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by PPC in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts in advance of the midterm elections.
Surveys on fifteen topics will be released on a rolling basis, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending legislative proposals in Congress – have elicited bipartisan agreement nationally. PPC is exploring whether the same bipartisan common ground found at the national level exists in the battlegrounds. The results for all individual states and districts surveyed can be found here.
Providing Tax Credits to Build Affordable Housing
A proposal for the federal government to provide, “tax incentives to home builders to build or repair homes affordable to low- and middle-income households” – consistent with the new law – was favored by a large bipartisan majority (Democrats 93%, Republicans 79%, overall 83%).
This proposal was favored by at least two-thirds of both Democrats and Republicans in all competitive states and districts surveyed, as well as nationally.
Investing Billions to Build Affordable Housing
Unlike the recent law, two legislative proposals call for substantial federal investments in affordable high-density housing (e.g. apartment buildings, duplexes and triplexes). Both received bipartisan majority support.
For very low- and low-income households, investing $40 billion to increase high-density affordable housing supply is favored by 84% of Democrats and 59% of Republicans (overall 71%).
For low- and middle-income households, providing $25 billion to local governments to increase high-density affordable housing supply is favored by 79% of Democrats and 65% of Republicans (overall 72%).
Each proposal was favored by bipartisan majorities in all competitive states and nearly all House districts surveyed, as well as nationally.
Increasing Assistance for the Very Low-Income
A very large majority of Democrats (89%) and Republicans (74%) favored, “spending up to $24 billion to provide more vouchers to help people pay rent who are very low income, disabled or elderly” (overall 81%). The new housing law does not increase funding for rental vouchers.
A large bipartisan majority was in favor in all competitive states and districts surveyed, as well as nationally.
Banning Large Corporate Ownership of Single-Family Homes
While the new housing law prohibits corporations from owning more than 350 single-family homes, a large majority of Democrats (84%) and Republicans (74%) favored prohibiting large corporations from owning any (overall 77%).
A large bipartisan majority was in favor in all competitive states and districts surveyed, as well as nationally.
More Information
- Colorado + National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology
- All State and District Results
About the Surveys
The Colorado survey was fielded May 27 – June 24, 2026, with 500 adults. The response rate was 8.9%. The confidence interval is +/- 6.0%, and the maximum weight is 5.1.
The national survey was fielded March 11-19, 2026 with 1,200 adults nationally. The response rate was 8.3%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 1.9.
Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.
The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The national sample was further weighted by Census region. Partisan distributions in each sample were within expectations, based on voter registration or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.
About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series
This series will include surveys in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts and be released on a rolling basis between now and the mid‑term elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions.
The goal of this effort is to reveal the public’s views – in competitive states and districts – focusing on policy questions that have elicited bipartisan agreement nationally. The project seeks to educate the public, policymakers, and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.
Project partners include the Program for Public Consultation (PPC), the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP). None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.
Program for Public Consultation
The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, develops and conducts public consultation surveys, in which respondents are informed about and deliberate on policy solutions being proposed by elected officials, and give their recommendations. It seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting representative samples of citizens on key public policy proposals, and sharing its findings with officials in government, the media, other academics, and the general public.
Civic Innovation Center
The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.
Voice of the People
Voice Of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.
AI First of 15 Topics in Common Ground in the Battlegrounds?
Survey Series to Run Through the Midterm Elections
A new Program for Public Consultation (PPC) survey in Colorado’s congressionally competitive district – the 8th – reveals common ground between Democrats and Republicans on proposals to regulate artificial intelligence.
Large majorities of both Democrats and Republicans favor the federal government:
- creating a federal agency devoted to monitoring and regulating AI
- requiring existing and new AI programs that make critical decisions to pass a government test (e.g. health insurance claims, hiring, etc.)
- requiring deepfakes to be labelled as such, and prohibiting their use in political campaign ads
Large bipartisan majorities favored the U.S. participating in international efforts to regulate AI by:
- creating an international treaty to regulate large-scale AI programs
- creating an international treaty to ban the use of weapons that can fire on targets without a direct human command
The domestic proposals tested are derived from Congressional legislation, and the international ones come from international organizations, including the United Nations and Red Cross.
Common Ground in the Battlegrounds?
This survey release is the first in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in the run-up to the November election in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts.
Surveys on fourteen additional topics will be released on a rolling basis between now and the mid-term elections, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending in Congress – were chosen because surveys by PPC and others consistently found majority Republican and Democratic agreement nationally. The results for all individual states and districts can be found here.
New Federal Agency to Oversee AI
A majority of Democrats (80%) and Republicans (84%) favored creating a new federal agency to, “monitor new AI programs and try to anticipate potential problems, define best practices for developing and using AI programs, make policy recommendations, and enforce regulations” (overall 80%).
Bipartisan majorities were in favor in all competitive states and districts surveyed, as well as nationally.
Regulating AI Programs That Make Critical Decisions
Bipartisan majorities favored two proposals to regulate, “AI programs that make decisions that can have significant impacts on people (e.g. in health insurance claims, loan applications, hiring, etc.),” that would help ensure they, “follow regulations, have data privacy and security protections, and do not have unintended biases.”
“For new AI programs, require they first pass a government-designed test.” (Favored: Democrats 84%, Republicans 80%, overall 79%)
“For AI programs already in use, allow the government to audit them.” (Favored: Democrats 71%, Republicans 72%, overall 69%)
Bipartisan majorities were in favor of these policies in all competitive states and districts surveyed, as well as nationally.
Regulating Deepfakes
Bipartisan majorities favored two new rules for AI-created images, audio and videos, also known as deepfakes.
“Require that any deepfake image or video distributed publicly – e.g. posted online or shown on TV – must have a label that states that it is not real and was generated by AI.” (Favored: Democrats 89%, Republicans 89%, overall 88%)
“Prohibit political campaigns, including PACs, from using deepfakes in their campaign advertisements.” (Favored: Democrats 89%, Republicans 89%, overall 88%)
Bipartisan majorities were in favor of these policies in all competitive states and districts surveyed, as well as nationally.
International Treaty to Regulate Large-Scale AI
Bipartisan majorities favored, “the US actively working with other nations to create an international treaty to regulate large-scale AI programs.” (Favored: Democrats 81%, Republicans 81%, overall 78%)
Bipartisan majorities were in favor in all competitive states and districts surveyed, as well as nationally.
Banning the Use of Fully Autonomous Weapons
Bipartisan majorities favored “the US actively working with other nations to create an international treaty that would prohibit the development and use of AI-powered weapons that can fire on targets without a direct human command.” (Favored: Democrats 80%, Republicans 84%, overall 78%)
Bipartisan majorities were in favor in all competitive states and districts surveyed, as well as nationally.
More Information
- Colorado + Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology
- All Battleground State and District Results
About the Surveys
The Colorado survey was fielded May 27 – June 24, 2026, with 500 adults. The response rate was 8.9%. The confidence interval is +/- 6.0%, and the maximum weight is 5.1.
The national survey was fielded February 11-26, 2026 with 2,509 adults. The response rate was 7.6%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 2.5.
Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.
The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, region, marital status, and home ownership to match the respective adult population. The national sample was also weighted by Census region and partisan affiliation. In the state and district samples, the distribution of partisan affiliation were within expectations, based on voter registration for non-leaners and/or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index for leaners, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.
About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Project
The Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? project will conduct and release a survey series in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts that will be released on a rolling basis between now and the mid-term elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions. The goal of this effort is to determine where there is bipartisan common ground in competitive states and districts across the nation. Additionally, the project seeks to educate the public, policymakers and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.
In addition to PPC, project partners include the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP), a national nonpartisan organization seeking to give the public a greater voice in government. None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.
Program for Public Consultation
The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, develops and conducts public consultation surveys, in which respondents are informed about and deliberate on policy solutions being proposed by elected officials, and give their recommendations. It seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting representative samples of citizens on key public policy proposals, and sharing its findings with officials in government, the media, other academics, and the general public.
Civic Innovation Center
The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.
Voice of the People
Voice Of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.
