SEATTLE -- An effort in Washington's largest city aimed at making elections better reflect the will of voters is getting some new funding.

The Center for Election Science is making a $70,000 grant to Seattle Approves, and four other groups around the country.

Seattle Approves wants to change the city's primary elections so that voters select all the candidates they support, rather than just one.

Logan Bowers, a former Seattle city council candidate, saw voters struggle with a crowded field of candidates, and thinks approval voting would make the process easier.

"If there's two candidates that have similar views, they don't have to worry that their vote is going to be split, and then both candidates will lose," Bowers explained. "And so, the net result of that is, the candidates who make it through tend to be favored or approved by more voters than the current system."

The grants are being made to groups to fund polling and legal services for potential campaigns. Voting reform groups were also chosen in the San Francisco Bay Area; Austin, Texas; Missouri and Utah.

Troy Davis, a volunteer for Seattle Approves, said the group will see if the City Council is willing to pass the reform. If not, they could gather signatures to put approval voting on the ballot next year.

Davis argued the change would make elections more democratic.

"It's the most effective, easiest to adopt, lowest-cost; really one of the only, few things we can do to make a huge impact for essentially no trade-offs," Davis contended. "If we were designing elections today, this would already be the case."

Debra Morrison, another volunteer for the group, said she doesn't like to choose favorites.

"For me as a voter, it's much easier for me to say, 'Well, I like these three people. I don't necessarily have a strong opinion about which one I like the best or the second-best,'" Morrison pointed out.

Seattle is ripe for election reform.

In 2015, it became the first city to create a "democracy voucher" program, which allots voters four $25 vouchers they can give to any eligible candidate in municipal elections.

HELENA, Mont. - Republican lawmakers in Montana want to investigate the 2020 election. Some are concerned this could weaken trust in voting.

In a letter to legislative leaders, 86 of 98 state Republican lawmakers called for a special committee to examine the security of last year's election. It comes amidst a wave of Republican lawmakers across the country calling for audits of elections, which former President Donald Trump lost.

Jim Elliott is a rancher and a former Democratic state representative and state senator. He said he believes the calls are undermining democracy.

"The detrimental effect of questioning the elections, I think, is to turn Republican voters off," said Elliott. "Stop saying that their vote doesn't count."

Montana Republicans' quest to investigate the 2020 election began with allegations of fraud in Democratic-leaning Missoula County.

None of the claims have been substantiated, but became part of a push to pass several laws that Republicans say tighten security around elections. The laws include an end to election-day voter registration and changes to voter ID requirements.

Susannah Goodman is director of election security with Common Cause. She said she's concerned partisan calls for investigating and auditing the 2020 results are undermining confidence in county election officials.

She called claims elections weren't secure very concerning.

"They're not being done by election administration experts and some of them are being done very badly," said Goodman. "And we need to continue to push back on that because it can do real damage going forward."

In Arizona, state Senate Republicans initiated an audit of results for the presidency in Maricopa County conducted by private firms, led by a company from Florida. A report from auditors found no evidence of fraud and actually increased the margin of victory by which Joe Biden won the county.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

ERIE, Pa. -- The Keystone State is seeing several barrier-breaking progressive candidates running for office in unexpected places: rural Pennsylvania.

The trend of progressive Democrats running for office is not unique to Pennsylvania. It has been increasing since the 2016 election, everywhere from Maine to Virginia to Iowa.

Tyler Titus is running for Erie County Executive. A victory would mean Titus would be the first openly transgender county executive in the country. Titus tells of experiencing rural generational poverty firsthand, growing up in a small-town southeast of Erie, and said poverty solutions need a holistic and progressive approach, whether in urban or rural America.

"When you talk on progressive values that center around people and not just profit, you can win in purple spaces, you can win in red spaces," Titus asserted. "And I think that we see a momentum shifting. And that's exciting, and it shows that I really think that the U.S. is at a time of reckoning."

Titus is running against Republican Brenton Davis, a small-business owner and military veteran, in the Nov. 2 election.

The small Rust Belt city of Beaver Falls, northwest of Pittsburgh, may elect its first Black woman mayor next week.

Kenya Johns is a lifelong resident of Beaver Falls who defeated Democrat incumbent George Quay in May and currently is unopposed in the November election. Johns said her success speaks to the importance of uplifting voices reflective of the communities they represent.

"It's going to show that although we talk about needing diversity, equity and inclusion, we're at a space now where we can't just talk about it," Johns contended. "We need to be able to put people in that can make sustainable change. That's what the future of America looks like. It looks like brothers helping brothers, sisters helping sisters, to make a better place, a better environment, for all of us."

Mayor Quay is attempting a write-in campaign to have his name on the ballot. Johns' running mates, Peggy Evans and Vanessa Taylor, who are both running for City Council, also won in the May primary.

SEATTLE - Constructive conversations online can seem few and far between. Research from the University of Washington explores how the design of social media sites affects disagreements.

Amanda Baughan, PhD Student in Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Washington, helped lead that research. The research showed that spending more time on a site did not correlate to more arguments.

But Baughan said arguments are common on sites like Facebook, where the goal can be to 'win' for whatever audience is reading the posts.

"There's not really a way to scale back what is happening between two people or a group of people in the comment section," said Baughan. "It can get very heated, very quickly."

Baughan analyzed what percentage of users of certain social media sites said they had arguments.

Seventy-percent of Facebook users said they had argued on the platform. Sites like Twitter and YouTube were considerably lower, with 30% and 6% of users, respectively, saying they'd argued on those platforms.

Baughan said the venue in which these disagreements took place also is important. More than three-quarters of people who used WhatsApp, a private messenger, said they got into arguments on the platform, but were less frustrated with their experiences.

Baughan said people reacted positively to the idea of bringing their arguments on sites like Facebook to a private space, where it can be easier to be vulnerable.

"I think that replicates a lot of how we have difficult conversations in real life as well," said Baughan. "Generally, I don't think we would choose to have it in a crowded room full of people. We would choose to find a time where it's just you and the person that you disagree with, to kind of hash things out."

Baughan said social media sites would need to present such an option sensitively - perhaps not introducing it for the first time while people are in the middle of a heated argument.

"That could seem very creepy because it's like, 'Oh, the social media company is monitoring what I say,'" said Baughan. "So, I think that how the option is presented is really important - probably having it be introduced when there's not an argument."

And Baughan said she would like to see social media companies think beyond individual users' experiences when designing their platforms.

"Especially in the past year with the pandemic, so many of our relationships were carried out online," said Baughan. "And making a bit of shift towards emphasizing the relationship, in addition to the user, could be really beneficial."