upworthy

voting

Democracy

Sophie Grégoire Trudeau shares the big understanding that can make democracies healthy again

In an Upworthy excusive, Canada's "unofficial" first lady shares the root of political dysfunction.

via Pete Souza/Wikimedia Commons

Sophie Grégoire Trudeau at the White House.

Going through a divorce is one of the most psychologically stressful things someone can experience, right after the death of a spouse (and divorce is a sort of death of its own). But for mother of three Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, her split with Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been even more devastating because it happened on the world’s stage.

The 2023 breakup resulted in Grégoire Trudeau experiencing chronic stress, so she turned to the yoga mat and self-regulation to find strength through the painful transition. "I have never been more attuned and caring of my mental health than through this whole process," she told Yahoo Canada. "I have been pushed to dig into my authenticity and to put my attachment issues aside.”

Grégoire Trudeau documented her struggles and triumphs in a recent memoir, Closer Together: Knowing Ourselves, Loving Each Other, where she discusses living with an eating disorder, confronting difficult truths, and finding a deeper connection to herself. Ultimately, it’s a story about overcoming adversity to live a more authentic and fulfilling life.

Sophie Grégoire Trudeau and Justin Trudeau

 Sophie Gr\u00e9goire Trudeau, Justin Trudeau, Canada, Prime Minister, Hamburg Justin und Sophie Trudeau at the Global Citizen Festival in Hamburg. via Frank Schwichtenberg/Wikimedia Commons

On June 24, 2025, she shared her journey at Aspen Ideas: Health during a discussion called “Sophie Grégoire Trudeau: A Personal Wellness Journey.” After the talk, she sat down with Upworthy to share a fascinating connection she made between mental health and politics: healthy democracies require citizens who feel safe in their bodies.

How to create healthy democracies

“Feeling safe in our bodies is a primal need. We all want to feel safe in our bodies. So, if you look at Abraham Maslow's pyramid, safety and having food on your table, a roof over your head—if safety is not there, it's game over for everything else. So, physical safety and emotional safety allows for better human connection. Better human connection means healthier democracies,” she told Upworthy.

She adds that when we are in survival mode, we don’t have time for our deeper needs and lack the bandwidth to develop or practice tolerance and empathy towards others. “You will not be thriving, but you'll be in more of a survival state, and when you're in that mode, your body is doing what it needs to save you. So you don't have much more energy and acceptance or tolerance to give to anyone.”

 Sophie Gr\u00e9goire Trudeau, White House, Melania Trump, Washington DC, first lady Sophie Grégoire Trudeau and Melania Trump.The White House/Wikimedia Commons

When we lack the space for empathy, it becomes harder to understand others, which can throw us into an unending loop of negativity. This can lead to constant rumination about how others are making your life miserable. “It goes on and on and on and on, and it never stops, and then you go and consume something on TikTok or on social media that is about how it's others' fault all the time. 'Well, of course you're miserable, it's their fault,' so that reinforces your rumination process.”

Once people stop showing compassion and empathy for one another, the entire democratic process, from how we discuss issues and culture—whether at our kitchen tables or on social media—is affected. The good news, according to Grégoire Trudeau, is that just like negativity can spiral out of control, positivity can do the same. “A negative loop will reinforce a negative loop, but a positive loop will reinforce a positive loop," she told Upworthy. “So, from a psychological perspective, we can help the brain do that by watching what we consume to stop the negative rumination process.”

The connection Grégoire Trudeau makes between politics and safety is a valuable reminder to all of us who wish to engage in the democratic process while promoting healthy discourse. How we engage with the other side in a debate reveals a great deal more about us than it does about them. When we find ourselves engaging in negativity or refusing to listen to another person’s needs, it may be a clear sign that there’s a significant problem we need to address within ourselves.

  - YouTube  www.youtube.com  

From Your Site Articles
sophie grégoire trudeau
Democracy

No, Abraham Lincoln was not 'barred from the ballot' in Southern states in 1860

The Colorado Supreme Court's ruling on Trump has triggered a wave of false claims about Lincoln's election. Here's what actually happened.

Simon Abeta/X, Public Domain

People are claiming Lincoln was taken off the ballot in the slaveholding states, but that's not what happened.

In a ruling on December 19, 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court declared former president Donald Trump ineligible to be included on the state's primary ballot, citing the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause. The ruling prompted a wave of responses, some of which claim that Abraham Lincoln had been "barred from the ballot" or "taken off the ballot" by Democrats in 10 Southern slaveholding states in the 1860 election, which preceded the Civil War.

Unfortunately, thousands of people have "liked" and shared claims like this one:

It's unfortunate because it's false. While it's true that no ballots were distributed or cast for Lincoln in those states, it wasn't because he was barred, banned or taken off the ballot.

Here's why this claim is inaccurate:

First of all, there was no such thing as "the ballot" in 1860.

Generally speaking, a ballot today is an official piece of paper that lists candidates running for a public office and a place to mark which candidate you are voting for. We also say "the ballot" to refer to the list of candidates on that official piece of paper.

That's not at all what a ballot was in 1860. And there was no "the ballot" the way we think of it today at all.

In Lincoln's time, a ballot was either 1) a blank paper on which you wrote in the name(s) of who you were voting for or 2) a preprinted piece of paper with the name(s) a specific candidate or candidates handed out by a specific party. There was no ballot that had a list of candidates to choose from like we have today. That kind of "blanket ballot" wasn't used in U.S. elections until after 1888, when it gradually became adopted.

Lincoln couldn't be barred or taken off a ballot when there was no list of candidates on a ballot to begin with.

Secondly, state authorities didn't issue printed ballots. Political parties did.

old piece of paper labeled Republican ticket with a list of names

A Republican party ticket (i.e., ballot) from Ohio, 1860

Library of Congress

Today, ballots are non-partisan documents issued by state or local governments. That was not the case in 1860. According to the Smithsonian National Museum of American History, the only things state election laws in the 19th century typically specified about ballots were the paper size and thickness a ballot should be and the size of type to be used on it. The rest was left to candidates, parties and party operatives to decide.

And they did. Political parties and newspapers that supported specific parties printed and issued ballots with their all of their candidates' names on them to make partisan voting super simple. As the History Channel reports, "By the mid-19th century, state Republican or Democratic party officials would distribute pre-printed fliers to voters listing only their party’s candidates for office. They were called Republican and Democratic 'tickets' because the small rectangles of paper resembled 19th-century train tickets."

If you wanted to vote for a party's candidates, all you had to do was take the ticket they gave you to the ballot box and drop it in. Otherwise, you used a blank ballot and wrote in who you wanted to vote for.

Third, voting in the mid-19th century wasn't exactly safe, and it also wasn't secret.

Voting wasn't a confidential thing at this point in history. Preprinted party ballots had distinguishing marks, party symbols and candidate portraits on them and they were often printed on colored paper, making who you were voting for quite conspicuous. (For example, Virginia's Union party ballots in 1860 were pink, so if you dropped off a pink ballot, everyone at the polling place knew who you voted for.)

Elections in the mid-19th century were particularly contentious among the voting populace as well. Election day rioting and violence was common, claiming the lives of 89 Americans in the mid-1800s. The slaveholding South was already a tinderbox and tensions between the North and South were high—imagine trying to print and issue ballots for the anti-slavery-expansion Republican party when both election violence and violence against abolitionists was commonplace. What newspaper or printer in those Southern states would take that risk?

Fourth, issuing ballots in those states would have been a waste of resources for Lincoln and the Republicans, and they knew it.

Let's remember that the Republican party—Lincoln's party—was literally founded to combat the spread of slavery, the institution for which the antebellum South was willing to split the country in two. The official party was only a few years old when Lincoln was nominated. There was no support for Republican politics in the South, much less any party infrastructure in place there.

Since writing on a blank ballot or submitting a preprinted party ballot was how people voted in 1860, there would have been no point for the Republicans to print and issue ballots in the southern slaveholding strongholds. Lincoln knew he was considered persona non grata in those states and had no hope of winning Electoral College votes there against the three other candidates running, so he focused his campaign on the north and west. It simply would have been a huge waste of resources to issue ballots in states he couldn't possibly win. (As it turned out, Lincoln received no votes in any of the states that would soon form the Confederacy, with the exception of Virginia, where he received a whopping 1% of the vote.)

So to sum up, while it's true that ballots were not distributed for Lincoln in the 10 slaveholding states mentioned and he didn't receive any votes there, it's not true that those states barred or removed Lincoln from the ballot. In 1860, there was no such thing as a ballot with multiple candidates to choose from, candidate-specific ballots were issued by political parties and not state governmental authorities, and Lincoln and the Republicans simply didn't bother to try to distribute ballots in the states where they knew he didn't stand a chance.

From Your Site Articles
history
Elections

Midterms are some of the most important elections in our democracy. Here's why it matters.

Every vote counts, so make your voice heard.

Photo by Elliott Stallion on Unsplash

Midterms are some of the most important elections in our country.

The 2022 midterm elections are here and while it may seem hard to escape the seemingly endless advertisements of candidates and ballot initiatives, some people don't understand the importance of voting. In America, we have three branches of government, designed to perform checks and balances. One branch can't work properly without the others.

No matter who is in the White House, they can't move things through without Congress.

But when it comes to policies, the heavy weight falls on Congress. A presidential hopeful can promise everyone a pony and a million dollar stable, but if Congress says no, then no ponies for the American people. When you vote in the midterms, you're helping to handpick who is more likely to not only listen to your needs as a voter, but work with the president and members of Congress to pass policies that you find helpful. Let's help you get your vote counted.

Black and white picture of someone putting a ballot in a box.Photo by Element5 Digital on Unsplash
1. Where's my polling place?

So where do you vote? That's a good question. You can type in your address here and it will tell you where your polling place is. Remember if you haven't updated your address on your voter registration then you'll need to use that address to find your polling place.

2. I forgot to register, oops!

Yikes! Election Day is like right now and you forgot to register to vote. No worries, there are 22 states that allow same-day registration. See if your state is on the list here. Go through the list carefully though because some states only allow same-day registration for presidential elections. You'll want to be sure your state allows it for midterms.

Close up picture of a red circular sticker with white writing that says "I voted" stuck to a finger.Photo by Parker Johnson on Unsplash
3. How do I check my registration?

Pretty sure you've already registered to vote but your state's website is confusing or directing you to an in-person location to ask. Check your voter registration here and ease your mind before you get to the polls.

4. I have no idea who to vote for.

Now that you understand why midterm elections are important, you've checked your registration and found your polling place, the rest is up to you. Use the few hours or minutes you have free to research candidates and their positions to see how they align with your own.

Some candidates are not as vocal about their stances and don't have information readily available. Don't stress. If the candidate is attempting to get re-elected you can check out your state government site for their voting record and if it's a federal candidate, you can check here.

No matter who you vote for, get out there and vote. Your voice matters.

From Your Site Articles
midterms
Democracy

Rumors vs. reality: 6 facts about voting by mail for folks worried about election integrity

Worried about mail-in voting? Don't be.

Photo by Tiffany Tertipes on Unsplash, @Mynorthwest/Twitter

Myths and facts about voting by mail.

As we head toward midterm elections in early November, there's a lot of misinformation floating around about how voting is conducted and how votes are processed. Sadly, we're reaping what widespread misinformation has sown in the form of continued election result denial, legislation that makes it harder to vote and even vigilante voter intimidation at ballot drop boxes.

Convincing someone their preferred candidate didn't win because the other side cheated is an easy political win, especially in a hyperpartisan atmosphere. But the reality is that the vast majority of Americans want elections to be as fair and accurate as possible, so sorting out truth from fiction and understanding how our election processes actually work—as opposed to how partisan sources tell us they work—is important.

Voting by mail comes up a lot in discussions of election integrity, so let's take a look at how mail-in ballots work and clear up some misunderstandings that might cause people concern.

Frequently, people will share things they've heard from a friend or a cable news host or a social media post without verifying whether those things are true. Every state handles mail-in ballots a little differently in terms of how people receive ballots and when they get counted, but the safeguards to prevent fraud and ensure eligible votes are counted are fairly standard.

Rumor: Mail-in voting is too new to be safe and secure.

Reality: Americans have been voting by mail since the 19th century. Those early mail-in votes came from soldiers in the Civil War and since then, members of the military who are deployed outside of their home states have long been voting by mail.

Widespread mail-in voting for civilians is newer, but not new. Oregon has been conducting all mail-in elections since 2000, so has had more than two decades to perfect its system. Washington state has done the same since 2012 and Colorado since 2014. In the past three years, Utah, Hawaii, Vermont and California have gone to all-mail-in voting. (Incidentally, Vermont and Washington took the No. 1 and No. 2 spots for electoral integrity in the 2018 midterm rankings in Harvard's Electoral Integrity Project, and all of the other states named here ranked in the top 20.)

Rumor: Mail-in voting gives Democrats an unfair advantage.

Reality: Studies have shown that there appears to be no statistically significant advantage for either party when mail-in voting is implemented. So there's that.

But as an anecdotal example as well, Washington state (where I live) elected a Republican secretary of state—the person in charge of elections at the state level—multiple times with our mail-in voting system until she resigned last year to work on election security at the federal level. And that's in a Democratic-leaning state overall. And the district I live in has elected a Republican representative to the House for years with all mail-in voting. Mail-in ballots are equally available to everyone and make voting very simple, so it doesn't make sense that it would give either party an advantage.

Rumor: Mail-in voting makes it easier to commit voter fraud.

Reality: The Brookings Institution shared data from the conservative Heritage Foundation that analyzed voter fraud over many years in different states. Here are the number of voter fraud cases Heritage found for states that had mail-in voting during most of the time period they analyzed and the total number of ballots cast during that time.

Colorado: 14 cases over 13 years out of 15,955,704 votes cast.

Oregon: 15 cases over 19 years out of 15,476,519 votes cast

Washington: 12 cases over 6 years out of 10,605,749 votes cast

This is what people mean when they say voter fraud isn't a concern. It's not that it never ever happens. It's just that it doesn't even come close to being anywhere near significant enough to approach making a dent in election results.

And false fraud allegations can have tragic real-world results. Everyone needs to make sure they triple-fact-check fraud claims before passing them along.

Rumor: I know of people who received more than one ballot in the mail, which means they'll be able to vote twice.

Reality: Nope, they can't vote twice even if they have two ballots. It doesn't really matter how many ballots a person receives since only one can be submitted and processed for each voter. Election officials try to avoid voters receiving more than one ballot since it causes confusion, but if it happens, it's not an indication that anything fishy is going on. Once one ballot is processed, another ballot for the same voter can't be. Multiple safeguards are in place to ensure that only one ballot is processed for each registered voter and to ensure that the person's signature on the ballot envelope is legitimate.

Rumor: Mail-in voting opens up the possibility of voter coercion.

Reality: This could be true. At a polling place, each individual votes privately so no one else can see who they vote for. People can still feel coerced into voting a certain way, but there's no way for anyone else to really know how they voted. When ballots are mailed to homes, it is possible for one person in the home to force another person to vote a certain way, but: 1) If there are really enough controlling and abusive households that coercion could sway an election, we have bigger problems on our hands than mail-in voting, and 2) Voter intimidation and coercion is a crime, whether it's someone sitting next to a drop box with a gun or someone sitting next to their spouse with a threat.

Rumor: Mail-in voting offers more opportunities for mistakes in the election process.

Reality: There's no evidence for a claim like this. Every voting system can run into problems. Polling places have power outages and voting machines break. Tens of thousands of voters in Virginia were recently given the wrong information about which polling place they are supposed to go to to vote in person. Mail-in voting systems aren't any more prone to things going wrong than any other voting system.

The full reality is that mail-in voting is a convenient, secure way to run an election, which has been proven by bipartisan and nonpartisan sources over and over again. Claims to the contrary are simply political games designed to sow fear and distrust, which is unfortunately an easy way to sway voters.

However you decide to vote, just vote. Democracy only works as intended if we all participate.

From Your Site Articles
Trending Stories