I usually make fun of this stuff, but for once I’ll dispense with the snark.
This is actually an interesting idea! Supporters of multiparty reform don’t have many options, because it takes the two major parties to agree to a reform before it’s realistically viable — either that, or the nascent but still one-off state- and local-level ballot movements we’ve seen in places like NYC, STL, Maine, and Alaska.
But this flips the script: Americans have a fundamental right to free association guaranteed by the First Amendment. This includes the freedom to found parties, and ought to include the freedom of parties to associate with one another on the ballot as they see fit (within reason).
Let’s watch where this one goes!
PS: Yes, I know it’s been a while. Sorry guys, but work’s been crazy lately, and this ain’t my day job. If you REALLY want the Epic Content to keep coming, the best you can do is to upvote and engage — otherwise, I have no way of knowing whether any of this is worth my time. Thanks for your patience and understanding!
One of the hardest parts about this whole discussion is what to do and how hard to push it. This is when the POLITICAL discussion becomes more important than the POLICY discussion. Its similar to to the recent debate on the left about the gun control law passed.
If we do "too little" does it give the right a pass on further policies? they can look back and say 'hey we did a thing on voting reform, we don't have to do anything else for 50 years', or would a Ranked Choice or fusion reform at some level mark a true beginning of voting and representation reform?
To be honest i feel like you would have a better chance getting a chance through state or federal legislatures that didn't impact the power of the party system, at least at first. Voting and representation, despite the fact that those elements of our polity are what allow everything else to exist, are often the wonkiest parts of political discourse. That being said, they are often the purview of the party man (or person or woman) and not necessarily your run of the mill average joe (or jo or joanne) voter. So if we come in with a reform that immediate attacks the power of parties (fusion) maybe we get an automatic recoil at the idea and there's push back.
But at the same time maybe we need that sort of reform to get the average voter interested? This is my issue. We can talk about these types of reforms, and many much more involved and well read on the topics have, and here we sit. Am I just to pessimistic?
It is interesting. However, "...so long as that nominee promised to respect the Constitution and to govern from the center." Which center exactly? The Republican Party has moved to the right and a good portion are so far out in right field that they are camping in the parking lot.
Too many voters will eschew the Moderate Party if the "center" is halfway to the parking lot. It is fine to demand respect of the Constitution but this center business will not work; the center is no more always right than either the Democrats or Republicans. If they want to succeed, they need a decent platform and to not worry about trying to be in the middle.
One of the hardest parts about this whole discussion is what to do and how hard to push it. This is when the POLITICAL discussion becomes more important than the POLICY discussion. Its similar to to the recent debate on the left about the gun control law passed.
If we do "too little" does it give the right a pass on further policies? they can look back and say 'hey we did a thing on voting reform, we don't have to do anything else for 50 years', or would a Ranked Choice or fusion reform at some level mark a true beginning of voting and representation reform?
To be honest i feel like you would have a better chance getting a chance through state or federal legislatures that didn't impact the power of the party system, at least at first. Voting and representation, despite the fact that those elements of our polity are what allow everything else to exist, are often the wonkiest parts of political discourse. That being said, they are often the purview of the party man (or person or woman) and not necessarily your run of the mill average joe (or jo or joanne) voter. So if we come in with a reform that immediate attacks the power of parties (fusion) maybe we get an automatic recoil at the idea and there's push back.
But at the same time maybe we need that sort of reform to get the average voter interested? This is my issue. We can talk about these types of reforms, and many much more involved and well read on the topics have, and here we sit. Am I just to pessimistic?
It is interesting. However, "...so long as that nominee promised to respect the Constitution and to govern from the center." Which center exactly? The Republican Party has moved to the right and a good portion are so far out in right field that they are camping in the parking lot.
Too many voters will eschew the Moderate Party if the "center" is halfway to the parking lot. It is fine to demand respect of the Constitution but this center business will not work; the center is no more always right than either the Democrats or Republicans. If they want to succeed, they need a decent platform and to not worry about trying to be in the middle.
So what would be an example of how this would work in the real world?