As we were heading towards the 2022 midterms, I wrote to my friends and sent exhortations to at least sixty democratic leaning newspapers that were all left unpublished. The refrain was the same. If the red wave materialized what we know of governing in this country ceases.
A note I posted to Robert Reich's Common Good series is relevant to what you have written here, so I am re-posting it:
As long as we are condemned to the plurality, single choice voting system, independent or third-party candidates are toxic because they create a spoiler effect. The voter must decide: Will I "throw away" my vote on someone who can't win, and may cost what I would consider the lesser-of-two-evil duopoly candidates a vote, or should I just vote for the lesser of two evils? Unfortunately, the latter is the reasonable choice, UNTIL we adopt Ranked Choice Voting. Ranked Choice Voting DESTROYS the spoiler effect, by letting voters express their 2nd, 3rd, etc. choices. (It enables instant run-offs, if no one achieves an absolute majority, by eliminating the candidate with least votes, adjusting the ballots appropriately, and recounting. Iterate until you are left with the winner of an absolute majority.) The spoiler effect maintains the duopoly: when it is destroyed the duopoly loses its survival mechanism. Non-duopoly choices become non-toxic. Ranked choices lead to moderation as candidates need to consider who will give them their 2nd, 3rd, etc. choice votes to construct a majority position in the election; and over time non-duopoly candidates may actually win elections. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution would enable Congress to mandate the Ranked Choice Voting system in all Federal elections: the process does not have to follow the interminably slow state-by-state path. When the Democrats are in the position to pass this legislation, we may need grass-root campaigns to "encourage" them to pass it, since the current system gives incumbents an electoral advantage. We will need statesmen--not just politicians--to pass this.
Another I might throw out. To be elected to office one has to win at least 75% . So multiple rounds of voting might need to occur. And the winning candidate in every district might be a candidate who was not on the initial ballot. That probably wouldn't work well beyond the congressional level.
Ranked choice will work only if candidates are not tied to parties, or it will at least work better. When people vote for a party, that carries greater significance than the candidate and prevents consensual government. No majority-minority divides in congress but all independent of parties seeking to find working governance. As long ago as 1797 in his farewell address Washington said the government would not succeed if it became ruled by parties. Who wrote that address? Madison and Hamilton, the perceived party leaders because people began to coalesce in alliance around their ideas. The coalitions were fine, what wasn't fine, in both men's view was if the parties themselves became what people voted for,instead of voting for people to coalesce into coalitons on particular issues. There is a difference most don't quite grasp. Since you mention, Dr. Reich, I think he was a valuable part of Clinton's government, because he opposed much of its globalistic policies. They were both democrats but not in favor of the same economic programs, and together they could formulate coalitions that might have led to better policies. Unfortunately the coalitions didn't form because the deck was sort of stacked to lessen Dr. Reich's influence that limited his opportunity to have a viable coalition. I think he has written that himself.
And worst of all is the two party system remains a tyranny of the one over the other (how they can portray themselves to voters). That couldn't happen with eight, twelve parties or with unaligned affiliations. The two party-system is not a healthy-functioning democracy, but its downfall because one can portray itself as what most people want (majority) and the other can portray itself as being tyrannized. Parties are very unhealthy. It is not that the republican party has become non-functioning, but voters who felt the government was non-functioning began voting more and more for candidates who didn't want it to function, fulfilling the voters' own perspective, and creating more voters who see the government not functioning and (depending somewhat on who is publishing the info) nearly half, or minimally more than half see both parties---not just republicans-as not functioning well.
I suppose I am somewhat well served, because the ballot where I reside does not list any candidate affiliation for local officials. It does of course list party affiliation for statewide and national offices. But locally we end up selecting unaffiliated candidates who did not need to appeal to an allegiance to a party and are able to present their ideas independently to voters , who unless they just select the top name have to actually seek out the candidates proposals when casting their ballots. From this local experience I have seen non-affiliated ballots work quite well.
When you have eliminated all lower placed candidates except the remaining two, using the instant runoffs enabled by Ranked Choice Voting, you have a candidate with an absolute majority . If you then eliminate the second place candidate to harvest the second choices on HIS ballots, you MAY NOT have enough to bring the majority candidate to 75%. By the 75% requirement there would then be NO winner: everyone would be eliminated.
Incidentally, the rules for Ranked Choice Voting can be generalized to races with multiple winners. This could be used to provide a superior solution to filibustered districts. Making districts as compact as possible to combat the gamesmanship of "packing and cracking" districts (done to give various demographic groups differing voting power per capita) does not necessarily give different groups equal voting power per capita. One could attempt unusually shaped "anti-filibustered" districts to make all votes closer to equal-- that seems unworkable. But you could make a voting system with larger districts and multiple winners. It has been suggested that in states with six or less Representatives the entire state be a single multi-winner district; states with more representatives would be divided into two or more mega-districts with multiple winners.
There is currently a Federal law against this, because with our defective plurality voting system multi-candidate districts would be even less representative: the smaller voting blocs could be shut out of any representation at all. Ranked Choice Voting makes the possibility of equitable multi-candidate districts workable. So legislation mandating use of Ranked Choice Voting in all Federal elections could also terminate this prohibition and set up multi-candidate districts in all states. (I suppose in states with more than six Representatives and two or more mega-districts, the states could have non-partisan boards to draw their boundaries.)
For multi-candidate districts the rules for Ranked Choice Voting tabulation and winning are generalized. In a district with n winning candidates, winning requires acquiring a (1/(n+1))+1 fraction of the vote. So for the standard single winner case, n=1, and the winning fraction is (1/(1+1))+1 or (1/2)+1 to make a simple majority. With two winners, n=2, and a winning fraction is (1/(2+1))+1 or (1/3)+1: a third plus 1. With three winners, n=3, and a winning fraction is (1/(3+1))+1 or (1/4)+1: a quarter plus 1. A winning candidate with 4, 5, or 6 winners needs to acquire a fifth plus 1, a sixth plus 1, or a seventh plus 1 respectively. Another complication in the tallying to make it work is that once a winning candidate has accumulated his (1/(n+1))+1 votes, his surplus is carried over and divided proportionally among the second choices on his ballots. But for the voter there is no greater complication: he or she just ranks choices as in a single winner race. (I learned about this multi-winner generalization on FairVote.org.)
I recognize your impatient to destroy political parties and all the corruption inherent in them, and I thoroughly sympathize with you. But I believe that once Ranked Choice Voting destroys the spoiler effect the stability of political parties as coercive entities is also destroyed, and they will wither. Speaking of corruption, of course we need federal legislation to restore and improve upon earlier laws crippled by the moral abomination called Citizens United. Corporations are NOT people. Money is NOT free speech. Implicit (smart) quid-pro-quo is just as criminal as explicit (stupid) quid-pro-quo. Congress should include a clause in such legislation citing the Constitution's Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2: "...the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." Use this power to tell the Supreme Court: Hands off this legislation. It is outside of your jurisdiction.
I agree the danger of fascism is real, and those of us capable of thinking must be prepared to block it with all our effort. But I don't think America is in quite as much danger as Germany was in the 1920's and 1930's. The Germans had lost WW1; the Great Depression which began in the United States, encompassed Europe also and people were struggling just to live. While we are struggling to live and the Oligarchs have taken over our economy, we still have the ability to fight back and regain our position without succumbing to the tyranny of fascism
We have the ability. But the crisis is not new. The Democratic-Republican clubs nearly overthrew the new government in 1800. Jefferson did change his tone and stopped calling for an overthrow of the constitution after he became president. American (and the teaching of American history) has so focused on slavery it has missed all of the multitudinous conflicts that are not about slavery, and the worker riots in the north and the farming opposition in the west that resulted in nearly one hundred mini civil wars. The coal wars in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, Colorado and Nevada. I'm speaking of armed conflicts between govt. and citizens. Where is that in the history we teach?
But the point of the article is to defend ourselves, to have the ability to fight back, you cannot believe that's enough. It is a false optimism based on it can't happen because it hasn't happened, therefore it won't happen.
The truth is it has happened, it did happen here in the 1860's and it would have happened in the 1930's but for a foiled plot similar to Trump's plot---but that plot was from outside my businessmen and was exposed before it happened.
The truth is all democracies have failed and will fail. Our non-parliamentarian system only means it more than likely will happen extra-electorally and that is what no one here seems to focus on--we somehow fail to grasp that the electoral "vote" is somehow the cure. It is actually the opposite. The voting patterns throughout American history show the opposite. Farm failures in multitudinous eras of American history that cause tensions by farmers create elections favoring anti-farm policies. Worker conflicts that result in violence favor voting against the violence and voting for the policies that caused the tension.
It is a weird anomaly. Many today want gun control, but look what happened in Texas, Uvalde didn't create a vote for gun control but a vote against it. It's a continuous pattern in voting against violence and in favor of suppressing violence that was created by the party that ends up being the cause of the violence.
Every election cycle people predict the end of democracy. Trump was President once and we still have democracy.
One thing I cannot tolerate is the secret state which is operating as a shadow government. They have been outed as supporting censorship of information which contradicts the leftist narrative. Now we have a leading candidate being prosecuted by the current administration. We have descended into third world tactics and rigged elections.
Hopefully this election will swing the pendulum back to sanity. I expect violent upheaval from the left when that happens.
Vivec's car was rammed yesterday by a pair of Democrats who were not satisfied with civil debate. It's a perfect example that the left will stop at nothing, and why I want the right to defend myself and family with the best technology available, not a musket.
Joe Biden now agrees we need a wall at the border. 3 years too late.
A note I posted to Robert Reich's Common Good series is relevant to what you have written here, so I am re-posting it:
As long as we are condemned to the plurality, single choice voting system, independent or third-party candidates are toxic because they create a spoiler effect. The voter must decide: Will I "throw away" my vote on someone who can't win, and may cost what I would consider the lesser-of-two-evil duopoly candidates a vote, or should I just vote for the lesser of two evils? Unfortunately, the latter is the reasonable choice, UNTIL we adopt Ranked Choice Voting. Ranked Choice Voting DESTROYS the spoiler effect, by letting voters express their 2nd, 3rd, etc. choices. (It enables instant run-offs, if no one achieves an absolute majority, by eliminating the candidate with least votes, adjusting the ballots appropriately, and recounting. Iterate until you are left with the winner of an absolute majority.) The spoiler effect maintains the duopoly: when it is destroyed the duopoly loses its survival mechanism. Non-duopoly choices become non-toxic. Ranked choices lead to moderation as candidates need to consider who will give them their 2nd, 3rd, etc. choice votes to construct a majority position in the election; and over time non-duopoly candidates may actually win elections. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution would enable Congress to mandate the Ranked Choice Voting system in all Federal elections: the process does not have to follow the interminably slow state-by-state path. When the Democrats are in the position to pass this legislation, we may need grass-root campaigns to "encourage" them to pass it, since the current system gives incumbents an electoral advantage. We will need statesmen--not just politicians--to pass this.
Another I might throw out. To be elected to office one has to win at least 75% . So multiple rounds of voting might need to occur. And the winning candidate in every district might be a candidate who was not on the initial ballot. That probably wouldn't work well beyond the congressional level.
Ranked choice will work only if candidates are not tied to parties, or it will at least work better. When people vote for a party, that carries greater significance than the candidate and prevents consensual government. No majority-minority divides in congress but all independent of parties seeking to find working governance. As long ago as 1797 in his farewell address Washington said the government would not succeed if it became ruled by parties. Who wrote that address? Madison and Hamilton, the perceived party leaders because people began to coalesce in alliance around their ideas. The coalitions were fine, what wasn't fine, in both men's view was if the parties themselves became what people voted for,instead of voting for people to coalesce into coalitons on particular issues. There is a difference most don't quite grasp. Since you mention, Dr. Reich, I think he was a valuable part of Clinton's government, because he opposed much of its globalistic policies. They were both democrats but not in favor of the same economic programs, and together they could formulate coalitions that might have led to better policies. Unfortunately the coalitions didn't form because the deck was sort of stacked to lessen Dr. Reich's influence that limited his opportunity to have a viable coalition. I think he has written that himself.
And worst of all is the two party system remains a tyranny of the one over the other (how they can portray themselves to voters). That couldn't happen with eight, twelve parties or with unaligned affiliations. The two party-system is not a healthy-functioning democracy, but its downfall because one can portray itself as what most people want (majority) and the other can portray itself as being tyrannized. Parties are very unhealthy. It is not that the republican party has become non-functioning, but voters who felt the government was non-functioning began voting more and more for candidates who didn't want it to function, fulfilling the voters' own perspective, and creating more voters who see the government not functioning and (depending somewhat on who is publishing the info) nearly half, or minimally more than half see both parties---not just republicans-as not functioning well.
I suppose I am somewhat well served, because the ballot where I reside does not list any candidate affiliation for local officials. It does of course list party affiliation for statewide and national offices. But locally we end up selecting unaffiliated candidates who did not need to appeal to an allegiance to a party and are able to present their ideas independently to voters , who unless they just select the top name have to actually seek out the candidates proposals when casting their ballots. From this local experience I have seen non-affiliated ballots work quite well.
When you have eliminated all lower placed candidates except the remaining two, using the instant runoffs enabled by Ranked Choice Voting, you have a candidate with an absolute majority . If you then eliminate the second place candidate to harvest the second choices on HIS ballots, you MAY NOT have enough to bring the majority candidate to 75%. By the 75% requirement there would then be NO winner: everyone would be eliminated.
Incidentally, the rules for Ranked Choice Voting can be generalized to races with multiple winners. This could be used to provide a superior solution to filibustered districts. Making districts as compact as possible to combat the gamesmanship of "packing and cracking" districts (done to give various demographic groups differing voting power per capita) does not necessarily give different groups equal voting power per capita. One could attempt unusually shaped "anti-filibustered" districts to make all votes closer to equal-- that seems unworkable. But you could make a voting system with larger districts and multiple winners. It has been suggested that in states with six or less Representatives the entire state be a single multi-winner district; states with more representatives would be divided into two or more mega-districts with multiple winners.
There is currently a Federal law against this, because with our defective plurality voting system multi-candidate districts would be even less representative: the smaller voting blocs could be shut out of any representation at all. Ranked Choice Voting makes the possibility of equitable multi-candidate districts workable. So legislation mandating use of Ranked Choice Voting in all Federal elections could also terminate this prohibition and set up multi-candidate districts in all states. (I suppose in states with more than six Representatives and two or more mega-districts, the states could have non-partisan boards to draw their boundaries.)
For multi-candidate districts the rules for Ranked Choice Voting tabulation and winning are generalized. In a district with n winning candidates, winning requires acquiring a (1/(n+1))+1 fraction of the vote. So for the standard single winner case, n=1, and the winning fraction is (1/(1+1))+1 or (1/2)+1 to make a simple majority. With two winners, n=2, and a winning fraction is (1/(2+1))+1 or (1/3)+1: a third plus 1. With three winners, n=3, and a winning fraction is (1/(3+1))+1 or (1/4)+1: a quarter plus 1. A winning candidate with 4, 5, or 6 winners needs to acquire a fifth plus 1, a sixth plus 1, or a seventh plus 1 respectively. Another complication in the tallying to make it work is that once a winning candidate has accumulated his (1/(n+1))+1 votes, his surplus is carried over and divided proportionally among the second choices on his ballots. But for the voter there is no greater complication: he or she just ranks choices as in a single winner race. (I learned about this multi-winner generalization on FairVote.org.)
I recognize your impatient to destroy political parties and all the corruption inherent in them, and I thoroughly sympathize with you. But I believe that once Ranked Choice Voting destroys the spoiler effect the stability of political parties as coercive entities is also destroyed, and they will wither. Speaking of corruption, of course we need federal legislation to restore and improve upon earlier laws crippled by the moral abomination called Citizens United. Corporations are NOT people. Money is NOT free speech. Implicit (smart) quid-pro-quo is just as criminal as explicit (stupid) quid-pro-quo. Congress should include a clause in such legislation citing the Constitution's Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2: "...the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." Use this power to tell the Supreme Court: Hands off this legislation. It is outside of your jurisdiction.
I agree the danger of fascism is real, and those of us capable of thinking must be prepared to block it with all our effort. But I don't think America is in quite as much danger as Germany was in the 1920's and 1930's. The Germans had lost WW1; the Great Depression which began in the United States, encompassed Europe also and people were struggling just to live. While we are struggling to live and the Oligarchs have taken over our economy, we still have the ability to fight back and regain our position without succumbing to the tyranny of fascism
We have the ability. But the crisis is not new. The Democratic-Republican clubs nearly overthrew the new government in 1800. Jefferson did change his tone and stopped calling for an overthrow of the constitution after he became president. American (and the teaching of American history) has so focused on slavery it has missed all of the multitudinous conflicts that are not about slavery, and the worker riots in the north and the farming opposition in the west that resulted in nearly one hundred mini civil wars. The coal wars in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, Colorado and Nevada. I'm speaking of armed conflicts between govt. and citizens. Where is that in the history we teach?
But the point of the article is to defend ourselves, to have the ability to fight back, you cannot believe that's enough. It is a false optimism based on it can't happen because it hasn't happened, therefore it won't happen.
The truth is it has happened, it did happen here in the 1860's and it would have happened in the 1930's but for a foiled plot similar to Trump's plot---but that plot was from outside my businessmen and was exposed before it happened.
The truth is all democracies have failed and will fail. Our non-parliamentarian system only means it more than likely will happen extra-electorally and that is what no one here seems to focus on--we somehow fail to grasp that the electoral "vote" is somehow the cure. It is actually the opposite. The voting patterns throughout American history show the opposite. Farm failures in multitudinous eras of American history that cause tensions by farmers create elections favoring anti-farm policies. Worker conflicts that result in violence favor voting against the violence and voting for the policies that caused the tension.
It is a weird anomaly. Many today want gun control, but look what happened in Texas, Uvalde didn't create a vote for gun control but a vote against it. It's a continuous pattern in voting against violence and in favor of suppressing violence that was created by the party that ends up being the cause of the violence.
Every election cycle people predict the end of democracy. Trump was President once and we still have democracy.
One thing I cannot tolerate is the secret state which is operating as a shadow government. They have been outed as supporting censorship of information which contradicts the leftist narrative. Now we have a leading candidate being prosecuted by the current administration. We have descended into third world tactics and rigged elections.
Hopefully this election will swing the pendulum back to sanity. I expect violent upheaval from the left when that happens.
Vivec's car was rammed yesterday by a pair of Democrats who were not satisfied with civil debate. It's a perfect example that the left will stop at nothing, and why I want the right to defend myself and family with the best technology available, not a musket.
Joe Biden now agrees we need a wall at the border. 3 years too late.