A mildly interesting article on what has happened to the never Trump movement of 2016. Turns out they're mostly backing Biden and opposing Bernie in hopes they can have a voice in the Democratic...
A mildly interesting article on what has happened to the never Trump movement of 2016. Turns out they're mostly backing Biden and opposing Bernie in hopes they can have a voice in the Democratic party.
...the Democratic party's tent is getting way too big.
It's almost as if having 2 large parties cannot effectively cover everyone's concerns and only leads to tribalism. Both GOP and Dems are never going to let go of the first-past-the-post system...
It's almost as if having 2 large parties cannot effectively cover everyone's concerns and only leads to tribalism. Both GOP and Dems are never going to let go of the first-past-the-post system because it would mean a loss of power.
I think this kind of thinking is both defeatist and counter-productive. The parties (as in the party leadership) are just trying to maximize their results in a two-party system -- which is to say...
I think this kind of thinking is both defeatist and counter-productive.
The parties (as in the party leadership) are just trying to maximize their results in a two-party system -- which is to say everything they are doing is to maximize their tent size. No one is going to voluntarily move to a system with better representation because it would mean widespread electoral loss.
Party behavior can be changed by changing the rules. You can't wait for the parties to do this at a national level -- it will never happen. This has to be a bottom-up approach: get it on your local ballot for your municipal and state elections. If you can get people to start buying-in, you can get critical mass.
But then you repat my statement in your first paragraph, so I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say. So how are you meant to change it then? Start a grassroots movement? Bernie Sanders...
I think this kind of thinking is both defeatist and counter-productive.
But then you repat my statement in your first paragraph, so I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say.
Party behavior can be changed by changing the rules. You can't wait for the parties to do this at a national level -- it will never happen.
So how are you meant to change it then? Start a grassroots movement? Bernie Sanders couldn't even get that to work and he was working with a hugely popular issue like healthcare, how would you even get people to care about something strange like first-past-the-post where you need at least 15 minutes to adequately explain it to someone?
And as described by @alphamule in their reply, most state governments are keen on keeping the status quo because it means power.
Bernie Sanders is a good example of what I'm talking about. You can't start a grassroots movement at a national level. Healthcare is something that affects people on a personal level and those...
Bernie Sanders is a good example of what I'm talking about. You can't start a grassroots movement at a national level. Healthcare is something that affects people on a personal level and those frustrations have bubbled up into the national conversation. FPTP is not in the national conversation so don't tackle it at a party level, start with your neighbor.
how would you even get people to care about something strange like first-past-the-post where you need at least 15 minutes to adequately explain it to someone?
That's exactly the problem but I don't think it's insurmountable.
By having constitutions that have at least somewhat reasonable requirements for how they can be changed. The US constitution is the oldest constitution still in effect. It's hugely inflexible and...
By having constitutions that have at least somewhat reasonable requirements for how they can be changed.
The US constitution is the oldest constitution still in effect. It's hugely inflexible and almost impossible to amend (which is why it's had so few amendments). A lot has changed since the late 18th century. The US constitution doesn't take any of that into account.
The second oldest written constitution still in use is from 1814 (Norway). It and almost all other constitutions can be changed and are changed readily.
Reasonable things like leveling seats used to combat the winner-takes-all first-past-the-post systems of voting would be unconstitutional in the US.
The same goes for almost all other electoral reform. Constitutional reform is required to fix the mess, but achieving those changes is almost impossible because changing the constitution is too hard and too small a number of states (representing too small a proportion of the population) can stall pretty much any meaningful change.
This leaves the US democratic process stuck in the 18th century. A large number of countries have had several meaningful constitutional changes so far in the 21st century alone. That seems impossible in today's political climate in the US.
Limiting the conversation to just President, the US Constitution says that each state gets to determine how it's electors to the electoral college are determined:...
Two states don't use FPTP to determine electors. Then, if those electors don't form a majority (not FPTP), then it goes 1 vote per state in the house amongst the top 3, one of which must win a majority (not FPTP) or else it re-votes same rules until they do.
So, I understand this as meaning that FPTP isn't really enshrined in the constitution, it's merely that each state two-party apparatus keeps it this way (for the most part). Presumably, these are the same people who keep it the same way for all other elected positions (governor, senators, reps, on down). It also seems like there's a spectrum of possibility between the status-quo and the popular vote amendment pact. An individual state could, in theory, on its own choose to use a more optimal voting mechanism.
You're absolutely right, and there is actually a movement centered around exploiting this to effectively turn the US presidential election into a majority election without overturning the...
You're absolutely right, and there is actually a movement centered around exploiting this to effectively turn the US presidential election into a majority election without overturning the electoral college. I present to you, the National Interstate Voting Compact.
Not just impossible, highly undesirable. If the US was more willing to empower fringe political ideas it, 100% would have fallen into fascism several times in the past and almost certainly would...
That seems impossible in today's political climate in the US.
Not just impossible, highly undesirable. If the US was more willing to empower fringe political ideas it, 100% would have fallen into fascism several times in the past and almost certainly would have by now.
In Australia they seem to have done it because the nationalist party (ruling party at the time) lost an election in what was a safe district for them because another right wing party ran against...
A mildly interesting article on what has happened to the never Trump movement of 2016. Turns out they're mostly backing Biden and opposing Bernie in hopes they can have a voice in the Democratic party.
...the Democratic party's tent is getting way too big.
It's almost as if having 2 large parties cannot effectively cover everyone's concerns and only leads to tribalism. Both GOP and Dems are never going to let go of the first-past-the-post system because it would mean a loss of power.
I think this kind of thinking is both defeatist and counter-productive.
The parties (as in the party leadership) are just trying to maximize their results in a two-party system -- which is to say everything they are doing is to maximize their tent size. No one is going to voluntarily move to a system with better representation because it would mean widespread electoral loss.
Party behavior can be changed by changing the rules. You can't wait for the parties to do this at a national level -- it will never happen. This has to be a bottom-up approach: get it on your local ballot for your municipal and state elections. If you can get people to start buying-in, you can get critical mass.
But then you repat my statement in your first paragraph, so I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say.
So how are you meant to change it then? Start a grassroots movement? Bernie Sanders couldn't even get that to work and he was working with a hugely popular issue like healthcare, how would you even get people to care about something strange like first-past-the-post where you need at least 15 minutes to adequately explain it to someone?
And as described by @alphamule in their reply, most state governments are keen on keeping the status quo because it means power.
Bernie Sanders is a good example of what I'm talking about. You can't start a grassroots movement at a national level. Healthcare is something that affects people on a personal level and those frustrations have bubbled up into the national conversation. FPTP is not in the national conversation so don't tackle it at a party level, start with your neighbor.
That's exactly the problem but I don't think it's insurmountable.
By having constitutions that have at least somewhat reasonable requirements for how they can be changed.
The US constitution is the oldest constitution still in effect. It's hugely inflexible and almost impossible to amend (which is why it's had so few amendments). A lot has changed since the late 18th century. The US constitution doesn't take any of that into account.
The second oldest written constitution still in use is from 1814 (Norway). It and almost all other constitutions can be changed and are changed readily.
Reasonable things like leveling seats used to combat the winner-takes-all first-past-the-post systems of voting would be unconstitutional in the US.
The same goes for almost all other electoral reform. Constitutional reform is required to fix the mess, but achieving those changes is almost impossible because changing the constitution is too hard and too small a number of states (representing too small a proportion of the population) can stall pretty much any meaningful change.
This leaves the US democratic process stuck in the 18th century. A large number of countries have had several meaningful constitutional changes so far in the 21st century alone. That seems impossible in today's political climate in the US.
Limiting the conversation to just President, the US Constitution says that each state gets to determine how it's electors to the electoral college are determined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_2:_Method_of_choosing_electors
Two states don't use FPTP to determine electors. Then, if those electors don't form a majority (not FPTP), then it goes 1 vote per state in the house amongst the top 3, one of which must win a majority (not FPTP) or else it re-votes same rules until they do.
So, I understand this as meaning that FPTP isn't really enshrined in the constitution, it's merely that each state two-party apparatus keeps it this way (for the most part). Presumably, these are the same people who keep it the same way for all other elected positions (governor, senators, reps, on down). It also seems like there's a spectrum of possibility between the status-quo and the popular vote amendment pact. An individual state could, in theory, on its own choose to use a more optimal voting mechanism.
You're absolutely right, and there is actually a movement centered around exploiting this to effectively turn the US presidential election into a majority election without overturning the electoral college. I present to you, the National Interstate Voting Compact.
Not just impossible, highly undesirable. If the US was more willing to empower fringe political ideas it, 100% would have fallen into fascism several times in the past and almost certainly would have by now.
In Australia they seem to have done it because the nationalist party (ruling party at the time) lost an election in what was a safe district for them because another right wing party ran against them and handed their district to the opposition, showing the spoiler effect in a nearly textbook way.
In New Zealand they did it with a referendum.
Neither of those seems very likely to occur.