I failed government in high school and didn't graduate. worked in foundries and road construction and finally earned a degree 12 years later in theology. Moved to Washington and lobbied and joined a group of young (22 yrs. olds fresh from college) and tried to lobby until we bankrupted for lack of support. We were lobbying for utility reform, small local energy companies in each community. Other than that small active participation I just read a lot and analyze through everything through the lens of medieval philosophy and personal feelings.
I have one caveat, however. A third party candidate has only won the White House one time in our history. In 1860 the Democratic Party had broken in two over slavery. In that specific (freak) environment, Lincoln was able to win over the two pieces of the Democratic Party. (And change the duopoly: Whigs out; Republican in.) Had they been united behind one candidate Lincoln would have lost. The stronger the showing of the third party candidate, in the context of our fatally flawed balloting system, the stronger the spoiler effect is. Jill Stein put Trump in office in 2016. Ralph Nader put George W. Bush in office in 2000. Ross Perot put Bill Clinton in office in 1992. Theodore Roosevelt, as Bull Moose candidate, put Woodrow Wilson in office in 1912.
To abolish the toxic nuisance of the spoiler effect, we need to adopt a ranked-choice ballot, where voters can convey ALL their preferences: first choice, but also second, third, etc. This enables an instant run-off if the leading candidate does not achieve an absolute majority on the first count. If the instant runoff is required, the lowest-count candidate is dropped, and the second choices on his ballots are elevated to first choice, and they are redistributed among the remaining candidates. This process iterates until some candidate has accumulated an absolute majority. This balloting system destroys the spoiler effect. The spoiler effect is the principal mechanism maintaining the ruling duopoly. When it has been destroyed, the way is open for healthy multiple choices.
The advocates of the ranked-choice ballot have been pursuing what I would call the low-road approach to the ranked-choice ballot: one state at a time--a painfully slow process. This is an emergency. We need to take the high road: Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to make changes in our electoral process. When the Democrats regain the votes to accomplish this (the Republicans are currently hopeless), we need a law enacted that says that henceforth, all Federal elections will use the ranked-choice ballot. The current ballot, featuring the spoiler effect, strongly favors the incumbent in either branch of the duopoly, so enacting this will require nobility on the part of the Democrats. When they regain the votes to enact this, I hope that a public campaign will be mounted urging them to take this patriotic step. For the individual citizen, passionately supporting this campaign may be the most important political act they ever have the opportunity to accomplish.
I agree that ranked choice is a very viable option, but I think ranked choice needs to be accompanied with no candidates affiliated with specific parties so that the option becomes centered on candidates and not on party affiliations.
Your last paragraph on the ability to make ranked choice a federal option is amazing and I have not seen suggested elsewhere. This could even overcome many of the problems of the electoral college w/out needing a constitutional amendment. Absolutely brilliant. But would congress ever do it, or would they see federal ranked choice as a threat to the two-party system of power.
On the issue of third party candidates, especially at the presidential level, that is the very way they are able to force independent voters to choose a major party selection. In 1980, not knowing what I have retrospectively learned about Carter, and feeling an economic pinch the same away from everywhere, but definitely inclined to not vote for Reagan, voted for Anderson, hoping to throw the election to Carter without having to actually vote for him. Unfortunately I think the votes for Anderson took away more votes from Carter than it did from Reagan. They say now that Reagan had over 50% of the popular vote. I have a clipping (still) from the Washington Post that I believe is around a week after the election (Nov 9) with final vote tallies that say Reagan only got 48.9% of the vote. I think that was long held to be true by most of my associates and that our vote for Anderson, had we not done so would not have pushed Reagan to victory. Nevertheless, even if Reagan did win the popular vote by a majority as Wiki now claims, I think if we had not voted for Anderson it could have made the electoral college balance very different in several states that were otherwise very tight. And yes I'm sure some Republicans did vote for Anderson, but most of those I believe would not have voted for Reagan and would have voted for Carter if Anderson had not been on the ballot.
I share your aspiration that "...ranked choice needs to be accompanied with no candidates affiliated with specific parties so that the option becomes centered on candidates and not on party affiliations." I think the long-term, natural evolution of ranked-choice voting, by destroying the spoiler effect--the enforcement mechanism of the duopoly, will be to weaken party unity and encourage moderation and conciliation, as multiple candidates (n >> 2) vie for election not expecting an immediate majority--instant runoffs will be the rule, not the exception--they will depend on gaining second or third rank votes to build a winning consensus. I think your aspiration would have been shared by the Constitutional Founding Fathers at Independence Hall in 1787. If ranked-choice voting had existed then, I think they would have made it part of the original text. Unfortunately, it had not yet been conceived of.
I think Congress Men and Women are quite well aware of the duopoly's vulnerability to ranked choice voting, and the selfish advantage the spoiler effect gives to them as incumbents. That was the thinking behind my remark that the vote would "require nobility" on their part, and the unique value of a public campaign encouraging them to take the momentous (and righteous) step.
I think you may well be right about how the constitutional founders might have viewed ranked choice. While it was not actually a vote of the people, the original method of the electors casting two votes each, but not one for pres and one for v-p, actually shows they were aware of some of the dangers. But then parties immediately emerged and pres and v.p.'s were generally on oppositional lines and the 12th amendment more or less solidified parties' domination of the college. Thanks once again for your very thoughtful reply.
Something else came to mind. The primary election has become an instrument of extremism. The "true believers" seem to be more motivated than others to go to the primary election to make sure the candidate is one of their own. The party bosses, in turn, make use of this to discipline their members with the threat of being primaried if they don't toe the line. Lynn Cheney's being primaried out of office for her integrity regarding Trump's behavior is an example. They're not concerned about the primaried candidate's response to being rejected, because they and the primaried candidates know that becoming an independent or third party candidate is essentially a dead end. The spoiler effect strikes again, and shows another way that it maintains the duopoly.
I would think primary elections are beyond the scope of federal mandate because they are not technically federal elections. They are party elections. However, by destroying the spoiler effect the Federal mandate enforcing ranked-choice ballots in Federal elections changes the future prospects for the primaried candidate. Independent or third party candidacies are no longer dead ends. The party bosses lose their power to use primaries to coerce members, because the cost of dropping the hammer is too high. The effect of the primaries becomes a toxic liability instead of being a means of control. Consequently, after Federal elections have been mandated to use the ranked-choice ballot, I think the parties will be forced adopt the same ballot in primary elections to remove the new toxic liability.
Originally primaries were conceived as a way to open the presidential nomination to more transparency and remove it from the old closed door conventions , California, I believe was the first state to introduce primaries, I believe, but you can fact check me on that.. Primaries, initially were tied closely with the direct election of senators movement and not focused as much on presidential elections. And of course after the horrendous debacle at the dem. convention in '68, they were the first party to move towards "letting people vote'" for the candidate" movement. By '76 it was nearly complete in dem. and then by '80 in rep. An "unknown" Jimmy Carter though saw a way to make a name by bypassing the primary system and going to the caucus in Iowa. Caucuses go way back and were an outgrowth of city block and precinct organizational groups upon the state level. Iowa was having a great deal of difficulty in implementing the new primary because while the state power brokers wanted to go along with it, the political "clubs" in the rural areas that had been among the first to start expanding the same political block org. to rural townships and that movement goes back to the farm co-op movements in the 1880's. Because the state legislature had not yet worked out its plan for the implementation of the primary, because of the internal movement of these rural townships to defeat the primary system and lose their own voice to the urban populace that a primary might produce they decided to move the caucus before the nationally known and long-established first primary in New Hampshire. When little known Jimmy Carter won that primary and then became a known entity in the New Hampshire primary the dynamic shifted and the Iowa caucus became a central focus of the media in future political campaigns. After that--no more unknowns. Yes there have been a few surprises in Iowa, but after that and New Hampshire, money centralizes around the known candidates that the party itself prefers. Bill Clinton had become well-known nationally for a very longtime, since he first election to governor and one of the first to begin adopting Kristol's neo-liberal policies. Obama became "known" at the '08 convention with his speech and became a national figure at least amongst the dem. powerbrokers. It was pretty well assumed even before the primaries began he would be the nominee though H. Clinton tried to gum up the works and make it a choice between the first black and the first woman. And despite the talk of the party not wanting Trump, Trump was probably better known across the populace than any of the political knowns. Trump's crude attacks on his opponents, familiar I guess to viewers of his show (I never watched it) who had already made such behavior appear "good" only centralized his popularity,and so while he was an outlier only in that he didn't initially have the power of the party, those same brokers soon realized he would give them a better chance and they coalesced behind him.
But the problem I have with primaries extends to the complete delusion that has been cast upon voters' eyes that the reason is to give the opportunity to voters to choose their nominee, the real reason was to end the long contentious convention battles that had always prevented the favored candidates from being nominated and the ultimate selection of weary candidates to one who had no strong org. before the convention. Of course we can debate whether these candidates were "strong" presidents or not, nothing terribly momentous happened until Lincoln, who was himself a compromise. The groundswell to nominate Grant was similar to the republicans choice of Eisenhower in '52. They saw their best opportunity in nominating a popular hero to retain (or regain political power. Grant's first election wasn't easy. He lost the north (union) states overall, but won all the southern states (I think four were not yet readmitted). The rep. maintained their majority in the house---but only because of victories, once again,in the south, and of course, the unelected senate, got several new senators, all rep. , from southern states. But the only exception in this long era was the very well known James Buchanan long a favorite of many for the presidency but always denied. Of course his presidency was to prevent southern secession, he was never the do-nothing president to prevent the growing tensions everyone assumed. He was nominated to get the southern vote, because though from Pa. he had always been a strong supporter of the south's right to maintain slavery. Of course that didn't work again in '60 with Douglas because the south saw during Buchanan's term a growing intensity of pressure to simply outlaw slavery, they bolted, as you know, appointed their own candidate whom they couldn't win and began to prepare for secession and I'm quite sure they would have even if Douglas had won. The question of course remains, would Douglas have let them secede. The south, I think, were banking that he would, or that the rep. wouldn't have enough strength to prevent them from doing so.
But this long era of compromised candidates was actually beneficial I think to maintaining the nation. When one party did nominate a well known candidate, they could not win (Clay, Bryan)etc they had too much baggage to win. In other words, people would vote against the candidate they knew they didn't like rather than for the candidate they did, often one they didn't know anything about. And of course in the post Reagan era we have seen a strong emphasis on how that toxicity plays out when such candidates are elected.
Of course even before the move to give voter choice through primaries, the strength of national media networking, first with radio, and then especially with television and beyond, this dynamic had been shifting. As local media influence lessened the nation became more and more influenced to move towards the candidate's who achieved the most media attention (again Fox not liking Trump initially gave him more coverage, and thus more impetus).
So ranked choice has already shown us how Mary Petola could win over the likes of Palin and Begich. No focus was on her nationally until she came in second in the first round. If every federal election was done by ranked choice and we limited the campaign season to six weeks before the initial election then local selection would be much more focused on local needs. I think in addition to ranked voting we have to eliminate the "political announcement" of one's candidacy, they gather the signatures to qualify, but no one knows who has qualified until the six week campaign system begins---I don't think the "secret" ballot is as necessary on vote day as it is prior to the candidates eligibility for the ballot is announced at the beginning of the campaigning system. I also favor automatic registration as the new voting rights legislation instead of the need to register. One hundred and twenty-two nations (I'm not sure how many actually "have" elections) use automatic registration. And I think we should consider lowering the voter age to possibly 15 or 16.
I think you say in your bio that you are self-taught in politics. This strikes me as something that could have been creditably composed by a Professor of American Political History at some prestigious university.
I failed government in high school and didn't graduate. worked in foundries and road construction and finally earned a degree 12 years later in theology. Moved to Washington and lobbied and joined a group of young (22 yrs. olds fresh from college) and tried to lobby until we bankrupted for lack of support. We were lobbying for utility reform, small local energy companies in each community. Other than that small active participation I just read a lot and analyze through everything through the lens of medieval philosophy and personal feelings.
Wonderful, inspiring article.
I have one caveat, however. A third party candidate has only won the White House one time in our history. In 1860 the Democratic Party had broken in two over slavery. In that specific (freak) environment, Lincoln was able to win over the two pieces of the Democratic Party. (And change the duopoly: Whigs out; Republican in.) Had they been united behind one candidate Lincoln would have lost. The stronger the showing of the third party candidate, in the context of our fatally flawed balloting system, the stronger the spoiler effect is. Jill Stein put Trump in office in 2016. Ralph Nader put George W. Bush in office in 2000. Ross Perot put Bill Clinton in office in 1992. Theodore Roosevelt, as Bull Moose candidate, put Woodrow Wilson in office in 1912.
To abolish the toxic nuisance of the spoiler effect, we need to adopt a ranked-choice ballot, where voters can convey ALL their preferences: first choice, but also second, third, etc. This enables an instant run-off if the leading candidate does not achieve an absolute majority on the first count. If the instant runoff is required, the lowest-count candidate is dropped, and the second choices on his ballots are elevated to first choice, and they are redistributed among the remaining candidates. This process iterates until some candidate has accumulated an absolute majority. This balloting system destroys the spoiler effect. The spoiler effect is the principal mechanism maintaining the ruling duopoly. When it has been destroyed, the way is open for healthy multiple choices.
The advocates of the ranked-choice ballot have been pursuing what I would call the low-road approach to the ranked-choice ballot: one state at a time--a painfully slow process. This is an emergency. We need to take the high road: Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to make changes in our electoral process. When the Democrats regain the votes to accomplish this (the Republicans are currently hopeless), we need a law enacted that says that henceforth, all Federal elections will use the ranked-choice ballot. The current ballot, featuring the spoiler effect, strongly favors the incumbent in either branch of the duopoly, so enacting this will require nobility on the part of the Democrats. When they regain the votes to enact this, I hope that a public campaign will be mounted urging them to take this patriotic step. For the individual citizen, passionately supporting this campaign may be the most important political act they ever have the opportunity to accomplish.
I agree that ranked choice is a very viable option, but I think ranked choice needs to be accompanied with no candidates affiliated with specific parties so that the option becomes centered on candidates and not on party affiliations.
Your last paragraph on the ability to make ranked choice a federal option is amazing and I have not seen suggested elsewhere. This could even overcome many of the problems of the electoral college w/out needing a constitutional amendment. Absolutely brilliant. But would congress ever do it, or would they see federal ranked choice as a threat to the two-party system of power.
On the issue of third party candidates, especially at the presidential level, that is the very way they are able to force independent voters to choose a major party selection. In 1980, not knowing what I have retrospectively learned about Carter, and feeling an economic pinch the same away from everywhere, but definitely inclined to not vote for Reagan, voted for Anderson, hoping to throw the election to Carter without having to actually vote for him. Unfortunately I think the votes for Anderson took away more votes from Carter than it did from Reagan. They say now that Reagan had over 50% of the popular vote. I have a clipping (still) from the Washington Post that I believe is around a week after the election (Nov 9) with final vote tallies that say Reagan only got 48.9% of the vote. I think that was long held to be true by most of my associates and that our vote for Anderson, had we not done so would not have pushed Reagan to victory. Nevertheless, even if Reagan did win the popular vote by a majority as Wiki now claims, I think if we had not voted for Anderson it could have made the electoral college balance very different in several states that were otherwise very tight. And yes I'm sure some Republicans did vote for Anderson, but most of those I believe would not have voted for Reagan and would have voted for Carter if Anderson had not been on the ballot.
I share your aspiration that "...ranked choice needs to be accompanied with no candidates affiliated with specific parties so that the option becomes centered on candidates and not on party affiliations." I think the long-term, natural evolution of ranked-choice voting, by destroying the spoiler effect--the enforcement mechanism of the duopoly, will be to weaken party unity and encourage moderation and conciliation, as multiple candidates (n >> 2) vie for election not expecting an immediate majority--instant runoffs will be the rule, not the exception--they will depend on gaining second or third rank votes to build a winning consensus. I think your aspiration would have been shared by the Constitutional Founding Fathers at Independence Hall in 1787. If ranked-choice voting had existed then, I think they would have made it part of the original text. Unfortunately, it had not yet been conceived of.
I think Congress Men and Women are quite well aware of the duopoly's vulnerability to ranked choice voting, and the selfish advantage the spoiler effect gives to them as incumbents. That was the thinking behind my remark that the vote would "require nobility" on their part, and the unique value of a public campaign encouraging them to take the momentous (and righteous) step.
I think you may well be right about how the constitutional founders might have viewed ranked choice. While it was not actually a vote of the people, the original method of the electors casting two votes each, but not one for pres and one for v-p, actually shows they were aware of some of the dangers. But then parties immediately emerged and pres and v.p.'s were generally on oppositional lines and the 12th amendment more or less solidified parties' domination of the college. Thanks once again for your very thoughtful reply.
Ken,
Something else came to mind. The primary election has become an instrument of extremism. The "true believers" seem to be more motivated than others to go to the primary election to make sure the candidate is one of their own. The party bosses, in turn, make use of this to discipline their members with the threat of being primaried if they don't toe the line. Lynn Cheney's being primaried out of office for her integrity regarding Trump's behavior is an example. They're not concerned about the primaried candidate's response to being rejected, because they and the primaried candidates know that becoming an independent or third party candidate is essentially a dead end. The spoiler effect strikes again, and shows another way that it maintains the duopoly.
I would think primary elections are beyond the scope of federal mandate because they are not technically federal elections. They are party elections. However, by destroying the spoiler effect the Federal mandate enforcing ranked-choice ballots in Federal elections changes the future prospects for the primaried candidate. Independent or third party candidacies are no longer dead ends. The party bosses lose their power to use primaries to coerce members, because the cost of dropping the hammer is too high. The effect of the primaries becomes a toxic liability instead of being a means of control. Consequently, after Federal elections have been mandated to use the ranked-choice ballot, I think the parties will be forced adopt the same ballot in primary elections to remove the new toxic liability.
Originally primaries were conceived as a way to open the presidential nomination to more transparency and remove it from the old closed door conventions , California, I believe was the first state to introduce primaries, I believe, but you can fact check me on that.. Primaries, initially were tied closely with the direct election of senators movement and not focused as much on presidential elections. And of course after the horrendous debacle at the dem. convention in '68, they were the first party to move towards "letting people vote'" for the candidate" movement. By '76 it was nearly complete in dem. and then by '80 in rep. An "unknown" Jimmy Carter though saw a way to make a name by bypassing the primary system and going to the caucus in Iowa. Caucuses go way back and were an outgrowth of city block and precinct organizational groups upon the state level. Iowa was having a great deal of difficulty in implementing the new primary because while the state power brokers wanted to go along with it, the political "clubs" in the rural areas that had been among the first to start expanding the same political block org. to rural townships and that movement goes back to the farm co-op movements in the 1880's. Because the state legislature had not yet worked out its plan for the implementation of the primary, because of the internal movement of these rural townships to defeat the primary system and lose their own voice to the urban populace that a primary might produce they decided to move the caucus before the nationally known and long-established first primary in New Hampshire. When little known Jimmy Carter won that primary and then became a known entity in the New Hampshire primary the dynamic shifted and the Iowa caucus became a central focus of the media in future political campaigns. After that--no more unknowns. Yes there have been a few surprises in Iowa, but after that and New Hampshire, money centralizes around the known candidates that the party itself prefers. Bill Clinton had become well-known nationally for a very longtime, since he first election to governor and one of the first to begin adopting Kristol's neo-liberal policies. Obama became "known" at the '08 convention with his speech and became a national figure at least amongst the dem. powerbrokers. It was pretty well assumed even before the primaries began he would be the nominee though H. Clinton tried to gum up the works and make it a choice between the first black and the first woman. And despite the talk of the party not wanting Trump, Trump was probably better known across the populace than any of the political knowns. Trump's crude attacks on his opponents, familiar I guess to viewers of his show (I never watched it) who had already made such behavior appear "good" only centralized his popularity,and so while he was an outlier only in that he didn't initially have the power of the party, those same brokers soon realized he would give them a better chance and they coalesced behind him.
But the problem I have with primaries extends to the complete delusion that has been cast upon voters' eyes that the reason is to give the opportunity to voters to choose their nominee, the real reason was to end the long contentious convention battles that had always prevented the favored candidates from being nominated and the ultimate selection of weary candidates to one who had no strong org. before the convention. Of course we can debate whether these candidates were "strong" presidents or not, nothing terribly momentous happened until Lincoln, who was himself a compromise. The groundswell to nominate Grant was similar to the republicans choice of Eisenhower in '52. They saw their best opportunity in nominating a popular hero to retain (or regain political power. Grant's first election wasn't easy. He lost the north (union) states overall, but won all the southern states (I think four were not yet readmitted). The rep. maintained their majority in the house---but only because of victories, once again,in the south, and of course, the unelected senate, got several new senators, all rep. , from southern states. But the only exception in this long era was the very well known James Buchanan long a favorite of many for the presidency but always denied. Of course his presidency was to prevent southern secession, he was never the do-nothing president to prevent the growing tensions everyone assumed. He was nominated to get the southern vote, because though from Pa. he had always been a strong supporter of the south's right to maintain slavery. Of course that didn't work again in '60 with Douglas because the south saw during Buchanan's term a growing intensity of pressure to simply outlaw slavery, they bolted, as you know, appointed their own candidate whom they couldn't win and began to prepare for secession and I'm quite sure they would have even if Douglas had won. The question of course remains, would Douglas have let them secede. The south, I think, were banking that he would, or that the rep. wouldn't have enough strength to prevent them from doing so.
But this long era of compromised candidates was actually beneficial I think to maintaining the nation. When one party did nominate a well known candidate, they could not win (Clay, Bryan)etc they had too much baggage to win. In other words, people would vote against the candidate they knew they didn't like rather than for the candidate they did, often one they didn't know anything about. And of course in the post Reagan era we have seen a strong emphasis on how that toxicity plays out when such candidates are elected.
Of course even before the move to give voter choice through primaries, the strength of national media networking, first with radio, and then especially with television and beyond, this dynamic had been shifting. As local media influence lessened the nation became more and more influenced to move towards the candidate's who achieved the most media attention (again Fox not liking Trump initially gave him more coverage, and thus more impetus).
So ranked choice has already shown us how Mary Petola could win over the likes of Palin and Begich. No focus was on her nationally until she came in second in the first round. If every federal election was done by ranked choice and we limited the campaign season to six weeks before the initial election then local selection would be much more focused on local needs. I think in addition to ranked voting we have to eliminate the "political announcement" of one's candidacy, they gather the signatures to qualify, but no one knows who has qualified until the six week campaign system begins---I don't think the "secret" ballot is as necessary on vote day as it is prior to the candidates eligibility for the ballot is announced at the beginning of the campaigning system. I also favor automatic registration as the new voting rights legislation instead of the need to register. One hundred and twenty-two nations (I'm not sure how many actually "have" elections) use automatic registration. And I think we should consider lowering the voter age to possibly 15 or 16.
I think you say in your bio that you are self-taught in politics. This strikes me as something that could have been creditably composed by a Professor of American Political History at some prestigious university.