ASHEVILLE, N.C. — In the basement of retired journalist Sally Kestin’s house, lies a collection of just about every industry accolade you can think of.

It's not a museum of a past career but the hub of a new project, a fortress of solitude if you will, where she and others like her are fighting to protect democracy the best way they know how.

"Somebody called us the Gray Hair Justice League," she laughed.

The town where she's settled is no Gotham, but it happened to be the place of retirement of a handful of other well-decorated journalists.

Being natural observers, they noticed that the local news media outlets have suffered the fate of so many smaller operations across the country – budget cuts and slimmed-down newsrooms.

"They cut expenses and one of the first places they do that is the newsroom. The paper here had gone from a staff of about roughly 70 editorial employees down to about a dozen," said Kestin.

"I think they all do a wonderful job with the resources that they have, but we were all concerned. We know what happens when there is not a strong, robust local press," she continued.

According to research done by the University of North Carolina, 1,800 newspapers have shuttered since 2004, creating what has been dubbed “news deserts," or communities left without any local journalism.

Despite being bombarded with local and international news constantly on social media, the concern with news deserts is that people in these areas are being left in the dark when it comes to local issues that impact their day to day – budgets, school board decisions, politics, etc.

During the pandemic, according to Poynter, at least 100 local newspapers, some of which were more than a century old, folded, accelerating the trend.

"Having retired here, the choice was, what's more important? Playing golf and pickleball or, or actually pitching in to do something to support the local infrastructure?" said Peter Lewis, a fellow retired journalist and managing editor of The Asheville Watchdog.

Co-founded by Kestin, the Asheville Watchdog is a non-profit news website dedicated to in-depth, investigative journalism.

"I think people recognize that the kind of watchdog journalism that we do is critical to have a functioning democracy," said Lewis.

The team takes no paycheck from the work at the Watchdog, relying on donations from the community.

While they realize that not every community will have a group with the resources to start their own news organizations, they hope to inspire not only others to think about how to revive journalism in their own backyards, but to reinforce how important keeping tabs on local government and holding the powerful accountable is.

They say it's important for informing the public as well as reducing division.

"By providing that kind of coverage, we can do our little part to try and lessen this polarization that is sort of tearing communities apart, all across the country," said Lewis.

It’s not easy and they’re hoping to garner more donations to make the operation bigger, possibly hire some full-time reporters, but to them, this kind of challenge is all in a day’s work.

"We're able to do what we do best and do it in our beloved community and, and make a difference," said Kestin.

MEMPHIS, Ten. — Ranked choice voting gives voters the chance to vote for more than one candidate in an election. This system is becoming more popular for many elections.

“I think a lot of voters realize that they have limited choices, that sometimes it's a Coke versus Pepsi kind of thing, and they like more choice,” said Steven Mulroy, a professor of law at the University of Memphis.

Mulroy has studied ranked choice voting for decades and said more people are supporting this system because it’s more representative of who voters want to elect.

“Ranked choice voting is a voting system where rather than just voting for one person only, the voter is given the option if they want, to rank their preferences,” said Mulroy.

This may sound confusing, but here’s how it works: You rank candidates in order of preference. If a candidate receives more than half of the first choices, that candidate wins, just like in any other election.

If there is no majority winner after counting first choices, the race is decided by an "instant runoff."

The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and voters who picked that candidate as number 1 will have their votes count for their next choice.

This process continues until two candidates remain, and the majority candidate wins.

Voters do not have to rank candidates if they don’t want to; they have the choice to vote for one person.

This system is being more widely used across the country. Maine and Alaska used it in the last presidential election, and nearly two dozen other states use ranked choice voting in local elections.

“It's used in both red states and blue states,” said Mulroy. “They don't tend to favor Democrats or Republicans. They tend to favor who has majority support. So, in a Democratic majority district, it'll tend to favor Democrats, and in a republican majority district. It'll tend to favor Republicans.

It also eliminates runoff elections—which usually have low voter turnout and cost counties more money

“You're one and done. You make sure you have a majority winner, but you do it all at once without the trouble and the expense of a separate runoff election,” said Mulroy.

From what he’s seen, it’s helped make the campaign season less negative. “It tends to elect candidates with consensus candidates with broad based support. It has not depressed minority representation. In fact, minority representation has increased where it has been used. Another thing is that ranked choice voting tends to result in more women being elected,” said Mulroy.

In Mulroy’s hometown of Memphis, the community voted to enact ranked choice voting three separate times. But, state and local election officials pushed back…and the system has never been implemented, now, in Tennessee, the state legislature is working to ban ranked choice voting altogether.

“A lot of times the opposition that you hear comes from incumbents. Because ranked choice voting makes elections more competitive. It levels the playing field between incumbents and challengers, and incumbents don't like that,” said Mulroy.

Memphis teacher Erika Sugarmon tried to challenge the incumbent party in her local city council election. “They call me the crusader, you know, because I'm always fighting for teachers, students and parents,” said Erika.

Voters in her district had approved ranked choice voting, but the system was never implemented.

She said, if it had been, the election would’ve gone differently. “Looking at the figures and looking at our backgrounds and looking at the way the voters voted, I would have won,” said Sugarmon.

She’s now part of a lawsuit to get ranked choice voting into her district, a move she says will make elections more representative of the community.

“It's not a Democratic issue or Republican issue. It's an issue about the voting system and working for all people, and we all want the same thing. We all want fair elections,” said Sugarmon.

Not everyone is in support of ranked choice voting. Opponents of this voting method say it can be confusing to voters, it can give too much power to smaller parties, and changing voting systems could be expensive. But, both sides hope voters educate themselves, no matter their view.

A proposed compromise on voting rights now has the support of a key advocate.

Stacey Abrams says she "absolutely could" support Senator Joe Manchin's proposed changes to the Democrats' elections package and that she'll look to Senate Democratic leaders to build on it to protect voters and reverse state-level restrictions.

"Basic building blocks that we need to ensure that democracy is accessible no matter your geography. Those provisions that he is setting forth are strong ones that will create a level playing field, will create standards that do not vary from state to state and, I think, will ensure that every American has improved access to the right to vote despite the onslaught of state legislations seeking to restrict access to the right to vote," Abrams said.

But the top Republican in the Senate calls Manchin's changes unacceptable and says the legislation isn't necessary at all.

"I've taken a look at all these new state laws, none of them are designed to suppress the vote. There is no rational basis for the federal government trying to take over all of American elections," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

McConnell doesn't expect the bill to get support from Republicans, which would be necessary to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. 

This story originally reported by Kamil Zawadzki on Newsy.com.