The Commission on Presidential Debates, or CPD, has been under fire for its policies for several years now. For the past 24 years, the CPD has excluded anyone but the Republican and Democratic nominees from participating in the three presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate in September and October before the election.

In the wake of a undergraduate shortage in STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics), degrees in the liberal arts and humanities have come under fire, often deemed frivolous and unsuitable for a competitive and technologically inclined U.S. job market.

I know what you are thinking. How could the democratic process have possibly won in 2016? If anything, the 2016 elections showed just how much control two private political corporations -- the Republican and Democratic Parties -- have over elections. And you are right. It did.

However, 2016 proved something else: Voters, fed up with the status quo, can make a difference.

This week on IVN's podcast we discuss how the president-elects use of twitter and how it could impact businesses with Dr. Wendy Patrick. We also chat with Katy Grimes, journalist with FlashReport.org on how California readies for battle against the new administration in Washington D.C.

You might have heard about the “Dreamers,” young people with no legal immigrant status who, because of an executive order issued by President Obama, were allowed to come out of the shadows and join the student population and workforce in the United States. However, their dream may soon turn into a nightmare.

By now it’s clear that Donald Trump has been among the most divisive figures in the history of the Republican Party. Critics cite his cultural insensitivities and ideological inconsistencies as clear evidence of his inability to lead. Hardline supporters are attracted to his general disregard for political correctness and his apparent media invincibility, and none of his shortcomings made him as unattractive to them as a liberal alternative or a third party.

Ever since Donald Trump won the presidential election, the Democratic Party and its allies have had a renewed appreciation for the “one person, one vote” principle established in the landmark 1964 Supreme Court case, Reynolds v. Sims.

Even notable political scholars like Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig, who is not really a friend of the DNC, is wondering out loud why the Democratic Party doesn’t just file a lawsuit against the Electoral College for violating this clear constitutional standard.

If you listened to the mainstream media the past two weeks, you would have thought that there was the possibility of an electoral revolt of "faithless electors" who were going to ditch President-elect Donald Trump. But just as all media outlets were wrong about the outcome of the election, they missed the mark once again.

Since November 8, I have refused to watch any cable news. I was so shocked by the outcome of the presidential race that I just couldn't believe anything I heard on CNN or MSNBC.

Since then, I've tried to find media sources I can trust and while I haven't watched cable news, I've seen the endless headlines about why Trump won and why Hillary lost and what the Democratic Party should do to rebuild. As I've thought about this from somewhat of a distance, I've come to see a larger truth that I think is the main driver of what happened.

We have our presidential election data! We’re going to be publishing multiple articles because there is just SO MUCH data.