Tweet
Americans across all political ideologies agree on one thing: Our current two-party political system is broken. According to the new NBC/WSJ poll (PDF), only a tiny minority–15 percent–think our two-party system works fairly well. Fifty-two percent say it has real problems but can work with some improvement, and 31 percent think it is seriously broken and that we need a third party.
A full 83 percent of Americans say our political system needs significant improvements. The question is, what are the sources of the problem and how do we fix it? There are three core causes corroding our democracy: money, lack of accountability and zero-sum politics.
So much damn money
Money corrupts. It costs a lot of money to run for office and, more important, members of Congress have the ability to spread around huge amounts of money. This means a few hundred million dollars invested in campaign donations and lobbying can result in the return of billions in federal money, at the expense of taxpayers. The negative influence of so much money in politics is evident in almost every legislative battle and breaking news story. It’s no wonder the majority of people think both parties in Congress are more concerned about the interests of large corporations (PDF) than of regular Americans.
The solution: public financing
Attempts to keep money out of politics have failed and been ruled unconstitutional. The only solution is voluntary public financing of federal elections. In this system, honest politicians can get sufficient public funding to remain viable against candidates with big corporate backing. The proposed Proposition 15 will give California voters a chance to make a small step in the right direction. While not perfect, the proposed Fair Elections Now Act would help too.
It is not an issue of whether elections will soak up money. The choice is, do we want politicians to get their campaign money from a nonpartisan public system or by begging rich CEOs whose profits depend on politicians passing laws in their interest?
Lack of accountability
Our system of single-member districts with plurality winners creates many problems. It inherently drives us to a two-party system by suppressing third parties and independent candidates due to fear of the spoiler effect. This creates the problem of super-safe districts and gerrymandering, drawing district lines to reduce competitive races. We are one of the few nations foolish enough to let politicians draw their own districts. The result is that in 2008, more than one third of Congressional districts had zero competitiveness. These safe seats destroy accountability by making it almost impossible to dislodge incumbents.
The solution: independent redistricting
Giving the responsibility of redistricting to nonpartisan boards should be the first step. It would reduce but not eliminate safe seats.
Zero-sum politics
The problem with a two-party system is that it produces zero-sum politics. Both parties spend their time tearing each other down, with the goal being to look slightly less terrible than the other party. Our system prevents other viable, third-party candidates from emerging to capitalize when Republicans and Democrats have equally turned off voters. That creates an incentive not to be the better party–just the less-hated one.
Solution: election-law reform
The only way to deal with safe seats and zero-sum politics is to allow for victories by more than the two major political parties. Multi-member districts with proportional representational would deal with both issues but can’t be used for Senate races. Instant runoff voting, or even quick runoff elections, would increase viable third-party and independent candidates by eliminating the fear of the spoiler effect. It should also help reduce the safe-seat problem by enabling challengers in areas that are too overwhelmingly conservative or liberal for the other major party to compete.
The problems persist for a reason
Most Americans know our political system is broken and needs reform. There might not be broad support for some of these solutions. But there should be significant support for the less-controversial ones, like taking away from politicians the ability to redraw their own districts and reducing the influence of corporate money in elections.
The biggest hindrance to reform is members of Congress, who have the greatest power to change the system yet benefit from its dysfunction. The odds against reform are long—but they get even longer if we don’t demand it.
69 Comments
IRV would not solve the problem – it would in fact make the casting of votes by voters much more confusing and make the counting of those ballots more complex and unverifiable.
I believe that 100% public financing of campaigns would do more to clean up what’s wrong with our political system than anything else. And it would put the party activists back in control of their political parties, not the money launderers who are there now. Once the activists are controlling things, the party can focus on getting candidates and elected officials to stick with their platform and use the platform to craft public policy.
Right now, the elected officials pay lip service to the platforms of both parties to con the activists into supporting them (canvassing, poll greeting and making smaller donations). They show up to conventions and ask for help, then turn around and treat the platform like toilet paper (Obama does this also) as a way to convince the big money donors that they can be trusted to deliver on the big money contributions. Take those away, and make it so that the candidates have to deliver on the promises to the voters (who are paying their salaries AND their campaign finance money).
IRV won’t do anything to fix that problem. If anything, third parties will be just as likely to be suborned by big money interests (like the Tea Party has been) so they won’t really be taken seriously – they’ll just be a way to divide and conquer.
Besides, I keep hearing all this garbage about how IRV helps third-party candidates. Can the author of this blog please show us a few examples of where IRV has helped 3rd party candidates win elections in the US? Oh – Burlington VT doesn’t count – the Progressives had already been winning elections without IRV for years. And Burlington was one of several places that are ditching IRV because of the complexity, confusion, and higher costs.
IRV hurts third parties far more than helps.
Don’t believe me? Then look at San Francisco California.
San Francisco doesn’t have any elected officials from third parties.
San Francisco has had IRV since 2003.
The last time a third party candidate had a big showing in
San Francisco was BEFORE they adopted IRV.
In the UK the largest of the third parties is currently fighting for IRV and in fact made getting a referendum on it the top requirement before forming a coalition
I don’t dislike or dismiss the idea of a third party but there’s nothing that says those politicians would not be as corruptible as the one we have now. It also would take tons of money which would be almost impossible to get. Public financing (with no loopholes) is about the only way to go.
Personally I prefer proportional systems. I like what is called AV+ which has single member districts and than seats giving out proportional based on voting for what party vote for on a separate line.
Giving the recent citizens united and past history I can’t see another path besides public financing of elections.
The good thing is that there is a diminishing returns point. You don’t get much bang for your buck after you spend more than 4 dollars per voter.
When Obama decided to reject public financing and raise $800 or so million, to saturate and overwhelm when it was not necessary, it kind of threw public finance out the window.
Do you think he will go back now?
Sure wish we had IRV here, would give us the people’s choice.
Term limits. We limit the President. Limit them all. We don’t need professional for life Reps. It’s bad enough we have a permanent bureaucracy that soaks up billions and then has the nerve to hire contractors to do most of the heavy lifting anyway. I know this for a fact since I worked for Federal contractors for yrs. and watched what on inside these agencies. Then when these royal bureaucrats retired the same contractors they did business with hired them. The old revolving door.
I think that place you least need public financing is presidential elections. People know who you are. It is easy to get your message out. You get all sorts of free press.
More importantly I think if Obama just had the public financing money and McCain spend way more I still think Obama would have won. It seems much more important in congressional district elections. Congressmen need to scramble for money. They spend like 20% of their day fund raising. Not only does it give too much power to donors but I reduce the quality of the members of Congress because they are not doing their real job when spending all that time fund raising.
Of course the only problem with the presidential public financing system was the amount was set too low. Simply raising it hire would probably encourage the next campaign to be run with public financing.
your vote is a term limit, why have control further obscured behind the curtain.
Agree. But to push the matter it will require a leader and Obama, like on many matters these days, does not have the moral credibility because he raised too much and tarnished the public finance system.
I think Obama advertised on every web site in the blogosphere when he could have beat McCain with a slingshot based on what was going on in the country, particularly after the meltdown.
First and foremost, TAKE THE MONEY OUT OF THE SYSTEM. Only public financing of campaigns is any way to offer real hope for our political system. As long as the two major parties have a stranglehold on the purse strings and as long as the corporate interests have a stranglehold on the two major parties, we are as screwed as it’s possible to be.
The so-called “instant runoff voting” or “ranking voting” has several major problems. First, it is so complicated, that to complete the election vote counting in a timely manner, electronic computers would have to be used. This means having Republican-controlled voting machine corporations, such as Diebold and ES&S in charge of “counting the votes.” No thank you. We need to return to hand-counted paper ballots in all American elections.
We need publicly-funded elections, with no outside monies involved.
Free and equal television, shorter campaign seasons, no electronic voting, voting over a weekend with no “results” until 12 hours past last poling place closed, as many parties as the public demands, open primaries, no corporate funds, no donations from outside the candidate’s state are just a few of the improvementzs I would like.
All great ideas. I’m for a voter holiday myself. You get the day off to vote and it’s paid as long as you can produce the receipt that you get for voting. Encourages participation that way too.
EDIT: Maybe even two days for voting so businesses don’t have to shut down altogether. Half of the people get the first day off and half get the second day off. It can be worked out.
I, for one, am sick and tired of the “term limit” calls. As you say the vote is the veto. I dislike the limit of President even though we may well have ended up with Reagan 3.
Absolutely. We could do with more holidays. How about a mandatory 6 weeks a la (some parts of) Europe. Seriously, yes, I am in favour of inducements.
Agreed but I don’t think Reagan was competent by the end of his second term, much less giving him a third. On the other hand, it’s axiomatic that Reagan was more lucid on January 19, 1991 than Bush was on his best day in office.
I’m for more holidays too. Look around next Labor Day. You’ll see the bankers, lawyers, judges, politicians, etc, all off work. In fact the only people working will be the working men and women, the very group of people that the holiday was made for!
Sorry. That’s a pet peeve of mine. ;-)
Dear fellow pups. Do any of you really think that the wealthy in this country are going to ‘allow’ any system but the one which benefits them the most? They bought the system and pay the politicians, all of the politicians, to keep it just the way it is: abjectly and completely corrupted. So let’s get serious and realistic: nothing is going to change the present system but a new system-a brand new system. What that would look like is the real question. And regarding a third party: lots of ruck-it will never happen, never, never, never, never, never!
Let’s not over-emphasize the importance of redistricting. Over the past several decades, people have self-segregated into their own clusters, minimizing the impact of gerrymandering. Every simply seat in the 9 counties representing the Bay Area has a Democrat, at the Congressional and state legislative level. You simply can’t make that area competitive. And this is more and more a rule and not an exception. I don’t deny that there are isolated instances of gerrymandering that makes a difference, but statistical analysis has shown this to be overblown.
But to your list of reforms I would add universal, same-day voter registration.
I agree that’s fairly difficult to be a Republican here in the Bay Area. :)
You can’t “fix” it. Our way of life is dying, as well it should. Politics aren’t to blame. No one should even be thinking about politics. We’ve already killed the world… Sadly noted here is that the spiritual dimension is utterly lacking at all these websites.
Time for inner work. One person’s focus on that, just ONE, could change everything.
Public financing is not the answer, because it does not put effective limits on private financing. We saw that in the last two election cycles, when Presidential candidates (other than McCain, who didn’t have any choice) opted out of the system. The fundamental problem is that the Supreme Court in its current manifestation has decreed that any limitation on campaign contributions is an affront to ‘free speech.’
If we are going to have free and fair elections, there has to be binding constraints on how much candidates and interest groups related to them can spend. This is what most other democratic countries have imposed in the public interest. The constraints are not perfect,and just as in banking, politicians will always try to find ways around them. The answer to that is a regulator with teeth. Where I live, violation of the election laws automatically disallows a candidate from running for office for five years. That’s teeth.
I don’t see any short-term solution to the American problem, except the passing of the generation that gets its news and opinion from television advertising, which is where the money mostly goes.
I’ve told you people what the solution is but you won’t listen: Term limits.
Where was it the other day that someone at FDL posted about the wealthy individuals who were demanding public financing b/c individuals, no matter how much they contribute, just don’t get the bang for their buck any more with corporations now counted as “persons?” Even the rich have given up on this system.
Public financing would go a very long way towards leveling the playing field.
Info that would be interesting is how much of the money goes for different media? TV is very expensive, but knocking on doors is THE most effective method of turning out voters. Printed stuff is a terrible waste of all kinds of resources as it is so ineffective. However, I think printed materials are potentially the best use of dollars in terms of how the money may go back to the community, if the printed stuff is made locally (which it may not be.)
All that money goes somewhere, but most goes right back into the corporate media pockets.
I agree with you. The life as we have known it is dying.
You could have ended with your first solution: public financing of elections. That change dwarfs all others in importance. If we can remove the need to solicit funds by elected officials, we will in a stroke transform electoral politics.
The next most-important change: criminalize bribery of officials. Oh, we already do so? Not really. Make it a presumption that benefits showered upon elected officials or their immediate families are for the purpose of influencing their voting. Just do not allow it. Criminalize it.
How would you like it if you had a really good rep in Congress and s/he got termed out? All term limits will do is get rid of some that we like and make room for bad ones.
One thing Californians have to do is STOP PROP 14. This anti-democratic proposition aims to make sure that no third party candidate is ever on the ballot again, other than in the primaries where far fewer people vote. Not to mention how it increases the power of party bosses and the “money men”, who will place pressure on their party’s potential candidates not to be the party with two candidates in the primary when the other party only has one. STOP PROP 14!
Arizona has had a form of public campaign financing since 2000. Worked great, didn’t it? (& I used to think this was the answer…) Term limits basically hands gummint to lobbyists & bureaucrats, by the time a legislator is up to speed their limits have expired. I dunno what would work but I’d like a lifetime ban of legislators & military working as lobbyists – get elected or high military office? No fat consulting contracts for you, ever!
With all due respect, I will offer a description of spirituality: it’s rectangular and flat and has pictures of dead people on it. Any time in recorded history where there has been a confluence of rulers and spirituality has also been a time of misery for the people-no exceptions. To paraphrase another, ‘Never has so much blood flowed since the reign of Christ.’ Again, with due respect.
Well, excuse “(we) people” for being so obtuse!
I would make a distinction between religion, which is what you describe, and spirituality, which is another thing entirely. TJ is talking about the latter.
Don’t confuse spirituality with Christianity. I’m anti theist but I know that the current manifestation of Christianity seems to be probably one of the LEAST “Spiritual” belief structures there is.
Term limits don’t work: revolving doors. Gotta slam that door shut.
Public financing of elections don’t work: It’s not mandatory. -Plus corp. are people too, ya know.
Third party doesn’t work: splits the voter block and allows a spoiler win.
So, what is the solution to the sElection process?
1. Corporations are not people. Ban corporations from the election process.
2. Limit candidate donations to $1,000 per American citizen.
3. Ban political parties.
4. Candidate must run without declaring a political party affiliation. Run on the issues, stupid.
5. Limit all elected officials to 2 terms with no retirement or other other residual compensation. It’s not a career, it’s called public service for a reason.
6. Ban all external income except public office salary from elected officials while in office.
7. Ban all lobbying and influence peddling.
8. Ban all private or secret organizations. All organizations must be have full and complete public disclosure of funds, profits, costs, expenses, and members.
That should get things rolling in the right direction. At least it would be a start.
P.S. – I suspect a prerequisite to these changes would be a little revolution.
Absolutely! We need TERM LIMITS which will never be passed by our “career” politicians for the obvious reason.
the spoiler effect is a myth. It matters not at all when a Democrat loses, it is a waste of a vote that should have gone to someone who won’t work against our interests in DC.
Point well taken. While off point and thread, I would offer the suggestion that to the herd, spirituality is but a faint concept and invariably is smothered beneath the stampede of snake oil salesmen eager to fleece the flocks. But don’t get me wrong,to be spiritual is to be connected to all of the universe and care for all creatures great and small. Simply put, to be spiritual is to be a mensch.
I couldn’t agree more! Well except when you go inland to Walnut Creek area…
They get a bit wingnutery over there..
Just want to throw my hat in for range voting instead of IRV: http://rangevoting.org/
Easy to use, better than IRV.
Interesting and informative discussion. But it strikes me most take for granted the system actually is not seriously broken and only needs some tweaking. The assumption is that candidates will choose to run regardless and be pliant to the notions suggested.
I have just come from a discussion of this with some well positioned folks and it centered around not being able to find any progressive liberals willing to risk having their house fire-bombed. There is a huge ideologically based rage among people with guns. Of course corporate money is involved but it is not play fair and be good sports. It is in practice a criminal conspiracy that will not easily give up its wealth and the power to more. And they have a party of rageful paranoid people who have been carefully groomed for 30 years.
Bottom line many intelligent and civilized people are intimidated. Howard Fineman on MSNBC last evening made the startling comment that Obama was playing cool with the mid term elections because the Democrats don’t want to arouse the GOP base. Whatever happened to arousing your own base as a strategy?
That said a stealth strategy in the long run may be the only non-violent alternative left to us.
After voters realize that they just elected a group who have bankrupted the country, then some serious change might come. Teachers have been supporting that same group for decades, so that should be a clue why America’s educational system is in the toilet. Another big union looking for a bailout, in the teachers case, they’re looking for their 2nd bailout…a “$26 billion emergency supplemental” bailout this time. Of course, like the auto unions, the teachers expect the bailouts because they did vote for Obama and the Democrats. While the private sector has lost jobs that will never come back, the public sector just keeps growing. Instead of trying to stop all this insane spending of printed or borrowed money, the Democrats are trying to get Americans to accept a 23-25% VAT. The “Rich” (includes couples making about $30-K a year) are no longer a reliable source, so an additional tax is needed…one that will include the 50% of wage-earners who have only been covering 3% of the tax revenue. The morons actually believe they can keep spending with a 23-25% VAT on everything purchased by anyone! Heck, even Bill Clinton has been called in to support the pending VAT, which shows how desperate the economy actually is.
Think the World Trade Towers…
Um, err, wrong. The spirituality you think is missing is buried, because the guys that run it would be out of a job should folks get on to the likes of St Catherine of Sienna.
Maybe mystical rather than spirituality would be the proper term. If the Catholic Church let the teachings of the mystics out of the bag, the Church would wither, whilst the church would rise. Can’t have that!
I was raised Catholic and left it in just such a fashion.
So far as the other branches of Christianity, they have to speak for themselves. I don’t follow them.
Yesterday, my SO and I went out on the banks of the Columbia River east of Portland, on the north side of the river. We found a large spot which, considering the glorious day, was bereft of anyone else. It became obvious that, except for the sounds of I-84 on the south side, this place felt like we were thrown back into the early 1880′s and the overwhelming feelings we both experienced is “This is enough. Nothing else matters” Now, many people have this experience from time to time, smile at themselves and gently chide themselves for too much indulgence in the “unreal”. This time , I didn’t go for it and now, if I want to cast off the fetters of 20th century reality, I have no excuse.
Will I do it? It’s a strong pull, yet here I am at the computer….!
Although I agree with many ideas above and uncertain about others (IRV), I think ultimately we’re thinking too small.
Our goals should be to put more power back into the hands of the people and to transform the decision making process from authoritarian top-down to democratic bottom-up (or no “up”). Moving away from winner takes all to consensus, but to build productive consensus we must have honest and well informed citizens.
Tweaking our authoritarian system will buy us small improvements but still give us many of the same problems. Other countries with better voting systems (Northern Europe) still have issues with 1 or 2 parties dominating all elections and those parties drift towards a safe status quo that happens to benefit the wealthy or does little to transform living for the people (perhaps just continuing welfare programs but not solving the cause of poverty, unemployment, etc). One party takes a little here, the other party returns and gives it back, and vice versa. Voters in those countries likewise go back and forth between the 2 “centrist” (status quo) parties as neither satisfy the people, but they’re wary of the “outsider” 3rd parties just as people are in the US.
I agree we can’t spend our way out of our problems but why didn’t you mention the $700 billion we wasted invading Iraq?
This problem isn’t nearly as complicated as it’s painted to be. The problems are rooted in the firmly anti-democratic construction of our political institutions. The less you rely on proxies, the less pertinent their ineptitude, capture, and malfeasance becomes.
A national initiative system would resolve huge swaths of problems by allowing the citizens an opportunity to be their own legislative branch.
Cynthia Kouril is upstairs!
Foreclosure Law News: Terminate with Extreme Prejudice
None of this will happen if Obama keeps moving the Supreme Court to the right. They will strike down all of these ideas so what’s the point of even discussing this?
Where is the progressive outrage at Kagan? Are any Democrats opposing her for any reason? The Democrats have become under Obama what the Republicans were under Bush. We’re in for 8 more years of shredding the constitution with Democratic approval and by that time, it should be a rotting heap of lost idealism and we can finally admit that American exceptionalism is a bunch of crap.
The only solution I see is one where progressives band together and work to defeat the Democrats–all of them. Once we show them we have power, they will kowtow to us like the Repubs do with their base. Primarying the Blue dogs is fun but we need to target the entire party structure if we want to make a difference.
Progressives are too pragmatic–god I hate that word–to take such a stand. Part of that is fear of Republican rule and it is that fear that keeps the system in place. If we are not bold enough to ensure that someone like career politician Barbara Boxer is defeated, even if the result is some nutjob Republican taking her place for six years, then we have to accept it when Boxer screws women and their reproductive rights and votes to allow Health insurers to own the system. I have a hard time believing a Republican in her seat could be much worse. As long as she holds that seat, real progressive governance will not be possible.
Progressives need to develop a backbone and stop this pragmatic hand-wringing. Vote Republican this November–show the Dems they can’t take you for granted. And after your vote, hold your head high and speak out while the pundits try to paint you as fucking retarded. Stand up for yourselves!
Again. A lot of good thinking and discussion but to miss the cultural aspect is to miss the solution. Authoritarianism has become deeply imbued in the prevailing culture. Most obvious and extreme among the Republicans but much of it accepted by Democrats almost unconsciously. There is a lot of fear out there that is discouraging those who know better ways to attempt to assert themselves. Obama nourishing those feelings among the Democrats is not helping.
Progressives are scared to death to run and have no support among the power structures.
Progressives have no support because they all cave at the drop of a hat. Who would support that? You can’t put the cart before the horse and you can’t wait for power structures to magically appear before you stand up for your core beliefs. The power structures will come streaming into the Democratic party if they knew the base wouldn’t put up with this current corporate structure.
We, the base, have all the power on this issue but you would think by these comments that we are powerless and abused. And Firedoglake is the left of the left. If the left can’t even muster anything better than campaign finance reform then we will never get out of this battered wife syndrome. We can change the system in one election cycle if we decide that this relationship with the Democratic party is unhealthy and decide to get out. Where’s the outrage? I only see handwringing.
I’m not willing to get punched in the face any more by this abusive party. Why are so many progressives letting fear dictate the outcome of elections? Why are so many willing to support Obama’s policies when they are the antithesis of Democratic ideals? Home of the free and the brave my ass.
100% Correct Figs. You support the Dems you get nothing, you oppose the Dems you get nothing. So at the very least stop voting for the assholes. I think the Greens are far from perfect but at least they are’nt the dems. If he steps up again I will vote for Nader or whoever he suggests.
I agree some progressives have folded to minor intimidation. But I think you are ignoring that much of the intimidation is not minor with really vicious verbal attacks and guns everywhere. Then there is the history of Liberal leaders and activists being assassinated.
I realize that areas of the country vary but increasingly less so. The pervasive culture now is one of threats of violence to those who hold liberal ideas. And it is not accidental that corporate money supports the party that makes most of the threats and the politicians that fold to them.
Will you run for office under the threat of your home being firebombed?
The simple way is to ban Political Parties.
If every Politician had to run on his or Her own, and had no one other than their constituents to answer to, or be in cahoots with it would solve many problems.
They should not be allowed to except money from anyone outside their districts.
They should not be allowed to run for any office, “including their own,” while in office. Their name would automatically be on the ballot allowing them to be re-elected if the people wanted, but any attempt to run, sell themselves for re-election, or have anyone else speak for them should automatically take their name off the ballot.
Once elected these people work for us, but to them they think we are their servants and that needs to change.
From our Town Counsels, State Houses, to our Federal Congress the Parties have acted like two gangs fighting each other, and we always lose.
All these building and halls are ours and we have every right to tell them what they can do in our houses, but now we can hardly influence them, let alone tell them what to do.
Any mention of a Political Party, right or left, majority or Minority, or anything dividing them into groups should be prohibited from our Government.
We send them their to act in our best interest, not what their leaders want, what the party wants, or what some group wants.
In all the great Democracies of the world Parties make people think they can’t govern with out coalitions in their governments. When they all would be better off with all independant represenatives, independant votes, and to have to convince a majority of independants to vote for what they want.
Good question. Lots of good comments so far, especially on campaign finance reform. Public campaign funding etc…
One problem, the existing D&R parties will both block reform.
I think a huge populist movement needs to be constructed. One that is capable of including our left right and center. Focus entirely on 2 points: full employment and campaign finance reform… two core things required to rebuild this nation.
Take a play out of FDR’s book, he held his nose and accepted Dixiecrats in order to save the nation. Of course that doesn’t mean dixicratizing the nation, it just means a temporary truce in the culture war while we snatch the nation back from the banksters and multinational corporatocracy.
Now this is really great. So now it is simply a question of sitting in our homes terrified and doing nothing because of the gun totting mobs of the common folk, you know the morons. As Jack lemon said in the ‘Great Race’ when the water gets above my upper lip I am going to do something. Well folks the water is at our necks and rising. Perhaps it is time to give the other side a reason to stay in their homes and be terrified. But them again we are liberals and don’t do that type of thing. Remember, the water is still rising and ain’t going down until we pull the plug. Cheers.
I’ve been suggesting the same as your last paragraph above for a couple of months here and at least several others seem to feel similarly (I think at least BigJess, GDC707, and razorbrain, though I won’t presume to put words into their mouths). But I’ve twice asked where might be a good place to congregate and discuss such strategy further (since Jane seems to have indicated that any actual coordinated effort here is not her cup of tea) and gotten no takers (save for Adam503, who whipped up a group at http://pinkhouse.groupsite.com which so far no one but me has joined).
I’ve also been moderately visible at HuffPo in putting forth the “vote Republican” idea and, somewhat to my surprise, haven’t received the intense and blanket condemnation that I had sort of expected. There’s certainly a lot of initial opposition from almost each new person who’s exposed to it, but just holding my ground (which is easy for me, not being particularly thin-skinned) and explaining the rationale has made most of them at worst agree to disagree and may have actually made a few consider it more seriously.
Since real change hinges on getting our lawmakers to support it, I don’t see an alternative to getting them on our side. Since neither party is currently on our side, I see no alternative but to try to force one to change or destroy it in the hope that the resulting vacuum will allow something better to take its place. Since I see no hope of changing the Republican party by force (what leverage do we have there?), that leaves the Dems. And since so many Democratic voters have been manipulated into believing that they MUST vote Democratic to avoid the awful alternative (not that that alternative is all that much more awful than what we’ve got now), I see no way for a relatively small percentage of us to force the Dems to change except to use the Republican party as our big stick (by voting for it in the relatively small numbers necessary to tip the balance and kick the Democratic establishment out).
Of course, if someone has a less unpalatable solution that’s at all believable I’m all ears. Otherwise, I’ll ask again: where should those of us who think this should at least be explored congregate to do so?
Quote: “San Francisco doesn’t have any elected officials from third parties.” This is true, now. But also misleading if intended to bolster the claim that IRV hurts third party candidates. Two months ago, the statement would have been false. Ross Mirkarimi, co-founder of the California Green Party, was elected under IRV to the city’s Board of Supervisors as a Green. In March, he became a Democrat, a smart thing for an ambitious politician to do in a city owned by the Dems and with a 3 percent Green party registration. But that’s not the point. He got elected as a member of a third party under IRV….Readers who are actually interested in learning the facts about how IRV has worked in San Francisco in six IRV elections since the first one in 2004 should read the reports posted on the fairvote.org website or coverage on sfusualsupects.com or detailed reports on two excellent exit polls focusing on IRV following the 2004 and 2005 city elections conducted by the Public Research Institute of San Francisco State University. Both exit polls, by the way, showed that large majorities of San Francisco voters across all major demographic groups think IRV is easy to understand and use, that it’s better than the city’s old two election run-off system, that they’re more able to vote for their preferred candidates under IRV, that their votes are less likely to be wasted under IRV, among other findings. Other cities are following San Francisco’s lead, including Berkeley, Oakland, San Leandro, and Minneapolis, with IRV now being given serious consideration in Los Angles, San Jose, and many other cities and states.
No I don’t think that cowering is an effective response. But I also don’t think ignoring the reality and bitching about those who are in that pressure and doing minor fixes to election laws or, Criminently! voting for Ralph Nader is effective either. For a liberal to run, much less win he/she must feel he/she has powerful grass roots support. A grass roots who will call out the GOP for what they are.
Turn your anger and rhetoric where it belongs — the GOP not those closest to you. The reason for having parties is ideology and support. No voter can know everything about every candidate or every issue. One looks to party affiliation for some guide. The failure of the Democrats to hold to their historical ideology has been a betrayal for many of us. And maybe another party is the solution but I have not despaired that swallowing our anger and working within the party saying things candidates cannot say etc is the way to go. No one is going to run without believing they have a constituency..
I think you fundamentally misapprehend what “Political Parties” are, and subsequently suggest a remedy that’s not only impossible to enforce, but also extremely ham-handed.
There’s entirely too much emphasis here on reconstructing the games of politics to be slightly less egregiously against the will of the people. If you want to govern by the will of the people, then let the will of the people be your government; it’s not that complicated.
TS, you are absolutely correct about the intimidation factor arising from the implied threat of violence. That tactic will continue to be effective until the bullied refuse to be bullied any further.
I am amazed that the commenters have read the numbers cited by Jon, and continue to miss the obvious, which is that the stage is better set right now for a populist third party takeover than at any other time in modern history.
Open your eyes, folks.
Indeed. This is exactly what I have been arguing for months now. It’s very dispiriting that yours is the first comment, following these amazing poll resultts, to even bring the topic up as a serious idea. Bravo.
Mustn’t do or say anything that would scare the right wing fascists. The Mods would be upset.
I checked out that site adam503 recommended, there’s noone there lol. I would use an alternate site to push the ideas we agree on that are counter to basic FDL poliy focus, but would like a better platforms to do it. Did a little search, and found no others. But I favor the idea. Meantime, keep the discussions alive here, Jane seems to have relented a bit. To her credit.
Amen. I don’t know which is more difficult to implement, populist third party or national initiative/referendum system, but I could live with either idea. Whichever gets us away from the status quo the fastest would be my guiding criterion.
To the Moderator: Two hours later, and my last 5 comments are still marked, “awaiting moderator approval.”
What is it that y’all find so threatening that you have me on an apparently permanent watchlist?