Is it Time to Ditch the Two-Party System?

[Chip]

Several pieces I've read lately claim that a great many US voters don't feel that the chosen candidates of the Republican and Democratic parties represent their concerns. The dismay at Trump's takeover of the Republican party is strong among more moderate and practical members. While those under 30 who've voted Democratic are dubious about supporting Biden and other elderly leaders, who often have different priorities.

When we lived in New Zealand, I was impressed by their political system, which emphasizes fairness and broad representation, and allows more than two parties to compete for legislative seats. Having to form a governing coalition seems like a method of incorporating a wider spectrum of views and priorities. The two-party winner-take-all approach in the US by contrast seems to foster a nasty dichotomy, leading to conflict, and to demonize the opposition in the minds of voters.

Any thoughts on how to fix it, or what might be a better setup?

[TSherbs]

I don't have much of a clue on this one. My sense is that our Electoral College approach repeatedly takes a winner-take-all dynamic, and this, I suspect, means that parties that can't compete with the bigguys just die on the vine.

Also, we have, basically, an unlimited spending approach to elections and no coalition-making structure, so how does a smaller party actually have a chance?

But I dunno.

[Lloyd]

The quality of our pool of candidates isn't always very good. Adding more parties could lead to more extremes; a circle had infinitely many points on its edge - far from its center.
We elect based on a popularity contest with EVERYONE allowed to vote. Does everyone share the same ability to choose who's best when there is so much false information strewed in media and false promises by candidates to weed through? Perhaps we should vote on testing questions that the candidates must prove themselves worthy by answering without script writers.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Niner]

It's been a very long time, but in the past there have been more than two major national U.S. political parties at once. The 1860 presidential election is the most notable and possibly most momentous example.

1860 presidential electoral college results: https://cdn.britannica.com/15/73715-050-DBCA1C08/election-Results-American-Votes-Candidate-Sources-Abraham-1860.jpg

This is a fairly good article about the election https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1860, though it repeats the myth that Northern states were monotonically opposed to slavery. (New Jersey and New Hampshire were the last two states in which slavery was practiced, continuing even after the Confederacy was defeated. New Jersey had even ratified a constitutional amendment that would have made slavery a permanent institution. Illinois ("Land of Lincoln") may have been a third, records of the end of slavery in Illinois are unclear.)

Two of parties won by far the most electoral votes in the 1860 election, but the overall outcome was not considered a certainty ahead of time. I believe few would have been surprised to see another instance where the House of Representatives elected the president.

If this post has rambled a bit, it has rambled to this conclusion: We do have experience with more than two major parties. The Electoral College works against it to a degree regarding election of the president, but mustn't be tinkered with, as having it, along with the compromise of having both a House of Representatives and a Senate was the only way that the individual states consented to union.

[dneal]

There are already more than two parties. The Green Party and the Libertarian Party are two of the largest. If you're tired of D's and R's, stop voting for them and ignore the "you wasted your vote" argument.

Voters are clearly looking for something else, and have seen the problems with voting for a 3rd party candidate. Two populist movements attempted to nominate insurgent candidates - Bernie and Trump. The Democrat system is more corrupt due to superdelegates, which allowed Hillary to secure the nomination.

The electoral system doesn't inherently have a "winner take all" flaw. Maine and Nebraska allocate theirs. Other States could follow suit, and many (if not most) could circumvent the parties with constitutional amendments put on the ballot by petition and decided directly by the voters. It is perhaps flawed in requiring a majority (defined as more than 50% rather than simply the greater number) for the election of President.

[Niner]

The electoral system ... is perhaps flawed in requiring a majority (defined as more than 50% rather than simply the greater number) for the election of President.
But that is an argument in favor of democracy, which is one of the worst possible forms of government.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

The electoral system ... is perhaps flawed in requiring a majority (defined as more than 50% rather than simply the greater number) for the election of President.
But that is an argument in favor of democracy, which is one of the worst possible forms of government.

As you have made that statement perhaps you could illustrate examples of a better form of government (not a democracy) that works at all scales of population.

[Niner]

The electoral system ... is perhaps flawed in requiring a majority (defined as more than 50% rather than simply the greater number) for the election of President.
But that is an argument in favor of democracy, which is one of the worst possible forms of government.

As you have made that statement perhaps you could illustrate examples of a better form of government (not a democracy) that works at all scales of population.

You've cornered me with "all scales". Democracy sometimes works acceptably in tiny populations. At the level of a U.S. state or higher, a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives is the best form yet seen. In the U.S., at the county (or parish as it's called in Louisiana) level, state constitutions are in force, so I'll say that at the level of a U.S. county or higher a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives is the best known.

[dneal]

The electoral system ... is perhaps flawed in requiring a majority (defined as more than 50% rather than simply the greater number) for the election of President.
But that is an argument in favor of democracy, which is one of the worst possible forms of government.

No, because the electoral system only applies to the Presidency. There are 538 electoral votes distributed among 50 states. Currently a candidate has to get 270 (half plus one) or more to win a Presidential election. Hypothetically, a viable 3rd party candidate would just prevent anyone from gathering 270. Were majority defined as simply the greater number, it would be easier for a 3rd party to win, with say 40% of the electoral college (and 30% each hypothetically going to two other candidates).

Back to the OP, other parties are viable but they seem to want to start with the Presidency - which is essentially impossible. They need to begin at the State and local level and work their way to the national. Few of them have a platform. The problem with Libertarians, for example; is that they individually are absolutist on particular issues and can't build the consensus required for a platform. The successful ones get elected under the Republican umbrella (e.g.: Justin Amash, Thomas Massey, etc...). The same happens with Greens/progressives and the Democrat party, but they've been more successful in their party hijacking.

[Niner]

I misunderstood or perhaps misread your earlier post. It appears that we're in agreement about how the Electoral College functions at present, with the House of Representatives electing a president of none of the presidential candidates receives a majority of the electoral votes. I believe it would be a gross mistake to allow a candidate to win outright with a mere plurality, but I don't consider it to be a democracy versus constitutional republic issue.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

The electoral system ... is perhaps flawed in requiring a majority (defined as more than 50% rather than simply the greater number) for the election of President.
But that is an argument in favor of democracy, which is one of the worst possible forms of government.

As you have made that statement perhaps you could illustrate examples of a better form of government (not a democracy) that works at all scales of population.

You've cornered me with "all scales". Democracy sometimes works acceptably in tiny populations. At the level of a U.S. state or higher, a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives is the best form yet seen. In the U.S., at the county (or parish as it's called in Louisiana) level, state constitutions are in force, so I'll say that at the level of a U.S. county or higher a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives is the best known.

Isn't that what the US is, a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives?

No intention to corner you, but perhaps you could give some examples of government better than democracy at various population levels instead?

[Chip]

If I was a political strategist, I'd replicate the GOP process of electing local candidates and concentrating on state legislatures, courts, etc. There are states where Libertarian, Green, Progressive, and other minor party folks could win office.

The recent election in Australia shows how events (drought, bushfires, floods, meddling by China) can unseat a formerly dominant party: the Liberal/National coalition, despite the name, a conservative party in the grip of mining and other industries.

While the L/N Coalition was soundly defeated, the results did not translate to a landslide victory for Labour owing to successes by independent candidates and the Australian Greens. Six formerly safe Liberal seats in urban and suburban areas, most held by the L/N Coalition for decades, were won by TEAL independents, unseating Liberal incumbents including Treasurer and Deputy Liberal Leader Josh Frydenberg. The Greens increased their vote share and won four seats, gaining three seats in inner-city Brisbane, the first time in the party's history it won more than one seat in the lower house.

The combined major party vote for Labour and the Coalition was the lowest on record at 68.3%, while the minor party and independent vote was at its highest at 31.7%.

Most striking is the success of the loosely organized TEAL independents.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/23/teal-independents-who-are-they-how-did-they-upend-australia-election

[Niner]

[QUOTE=Niner;371620][QUOTE=Empty_of_Clouds;371617]
Isn't that what the US is, a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives?

No intention to corner you, but perhaps you could give some examples of government better than democracy at various population levels instead?

I'm very intentionally making a distinction between outright democracy versus the constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives. I'm considering that there is something of a spectrum with those being the two endpoints and I claim that things are best on the republic end.

About cornering, I didn't mean that I'd been somehow aggressively cornered. I meant that you had exposed a flaw in my blanket statement.

[welch]

The Founders and Framers did not make this sort of distinction between democracy and a republic. They aimed at a government where "the people" ruled, intending to eliminate any power of a hereditary aristocracy. They questioned how far the vote should be extended, but landed, at first, on property-holding. A voter should hold a certain amount of property. However, property in the American colonies, and then states, was so widely held that about 2/3 of people in Massachusetts could vote. About 50 years ago, there was a great debate among historians over whether "merely" 2/3 of Massachusetts white men could vote, or "fully" 2/3. Whether it was fully or merely 2/3, the vote was wider in the US than anywhere else.

Over the next three or four decades, the states extended the franchise, dropping the property qualification.

Lincoln summarized the American notion when he described the US government as "of the people, by the people, and for the people".

Time to ditch the two party system? Not so easy.

The "duopoly" is not obvious within the US Constitution or in the constitutions of the states, but it is there. The US, like the UK, has single-member districts settled by winner-take-all elections. If a protest party, a third party, gets 20% of the vote and the next party gets 30% and another party gets 50%, the protest party loses everything. A Green Party could get 20% of the vote in every state and still get no electoral votes. The same thing would happen in Senate and House elections, and in state elections.

A third party could not grow even to be a main opposition party unless it contested city, county, state, and federal elections all at once.

There are a couple of exceptions. In 1850, the Whig Party began to split over slavery. The Republicans came out of a group of Northern Whigs who refused to support slavery or to ignore it. So, a regional split around a political issue. In the UK, the labor unions backed a labor-based party, leaving the Liberals...who have never held power since. The Scottish National Party built itself around issues important to Scots, and, as best I can tell, took their votes and their parliamentary seats from Labor.

[dneal]

The Founders and Framers did not make this sort of distinction between democracy and a republic.

See Federalist 10. It's the main topic and specifically mentioned, and they designed a republic.

"The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic, are first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."

[Chip]

The Electoral College, which is an abomination, has given us two recent presidents who lost the popular vote: George W. Bush (with help from an activist Supreme Court) and Donald Trump.

Both did a lot of damage to the office and the country.

[Lloyd]

I wonder if Democrats won presidencies in years that they lost the popular vote by winning the electoral college if you'd still object.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

I wonder if Democrats won presidencies in years that they lost the popular vote by winning the electoral college if you'd still object.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]Maybe, maybe not. Depends on what they did with their leadership. Lie to a country as a pretext for war and state-sponsored killing of our own soldiers and those of another country? Maybe. Or lead a country out of a recession into an actual budget surplus? Maybe not.

By the way, the only reason that I rue HRC's loss is that it meant DJT won. I didn't like her as a candidate, and I don't spend much time defending her. But, below her in the barrel is the Donald. She is flotsam. He is bilge.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

I wonder if Democrats won presidencies in years that they lost the popular vote by winning the electoral college if you'd still object.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]Maybe, maybe not. Depends on what they did with their leadership. Lie to a country as a pretext for war and state-sponsored killing of our own soldiers and those of another country? Maybe. Or lead a country out of a recession into an actual budget surplus? Maybe not.

By the way, the only reason that I rue HRC's loss is that it meant DJT won. I didn't like her as a candidate, and I don't spend much time defending her. But, below her in the barrel is the Donald. She is flotsam. He is bilge.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
Maybe, but wouldn't the last 6 years have been much duller, even with COVID, had she won? 😆

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

Please let us have a dull presidency!

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

Dull is good.

[Chuck Naill]

Problem with Democrats is they are mostly all talk and no show. Just reading about Johnny Boy Kerry’s hey emissions. Lol!

[Chip]

I wonder if Democrats won presidencies in years that they lost the popular vote by winning the electoral college if you'd still object.

Give me an example, Mr. Genius.

I've just about concluded that you have no real core beliefs or self.

You just react in a way you think clever to whatever comes up.

Or try to assert control as a self-appointed peacemaker.

[Lloyd]

I wonder if Democrats won presidencies in years that they lost the popular vote by winning the electoral college if you'd still object.

Give me an example, Mr. Genius.

I've just about concluded that you have no real core beliefs or self.

You just react in a way you think clever to whatever comes up.

Or try to assert control as a self-appointed peacemaker.

I asked a hypothetical question. I didn't imply a democat won the electoral college but didn't win the popular. I wonder IF that happened, would those currently anti-E.College change their opinion.

I definitely have core values. I'm religiously agnostic, but lean towards atheism. Politically, I'm left of center. I'm a hippie at heart yet I worked most of my career for military contractors.
I can see that most here have no intention of changing their views, only screaming them. I see dneal as someone who, while of differing views than me, tries to show opposing views... all major issues have multiple reasonable justifications AND several conspiracies. I like to try to see both sides when making, and keeping, an opinion.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

Politically, I'm left of center. I'm a hippie at heart yet I worked most of my career for military contractors.

So, despite the disclaimers, your ruling value is money?

[Lloyd]

Politically, I'm left of center. I'm a hippie at heart yet I worked most of my career for military contractors.

So, despite the disclaimers, your ruling value is money?
Values... my family needs shelter, to eat, and to have healthcare. Without any military or with one lacking adequate algorithms to assist it (my field), a far worse regime could be occupying America and many Americans (and their allies) could die. I didn't chase the money, I followed interesting work in a field that was both essential and tainted.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

You don’t need to just your decisions to anyone here unless you want to, Lloyd. Nothing wrong with money and being financially secure. Getting out of debt has many benefits.

[Lloyd]

I'm don't feel a need to justify my choices, I just hoped to show that there's more than one singular RIGHT and the rest are WRONG. You'd think, in a community that revels in the tremendous range of ink colors, members would realize that the world isn't defined in black and white.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

I'm don't feel a need to justify my choices, I just hoped to show that there's more than one singular RIGHT and the rest are WRONG. You'd think, in a community that revels in the tremendous range of ink colors, members would realize that the world isn't defined in black and white.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

You, "Mr. Genius", are obviously a reactionary crank.

;)

[Lloyd]

A sarcastic "Mr. Genius" and a "reactionary crank". I must say, the level of the insults has advanced a grade. Bravo....

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

A sarcastic "Mr. Genius" and a "reactionary crank". I must say, the level of the insults has advanced a grade. Bravo....

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

My understanding is that those words are not snarky. I suppose it depends on who uses them.

[Lloyd]

A sarcastic "Mr. Genius" and a "reactionary crank". I must say, the level of the insults has advanced a grade. Bravo....

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

My understanding is that those words are not snarky. I suppose it depends on who uses them.
Do you mean that the same behavior can be defined as either GOOD or BAD, depending on who's beliefs it sides with? Astounding! A new form of Relativity. 🙄

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

Values... my family needs shelter, to eat, and to have healthcare. Without any military or with one lacking adequate algorithms to assist it (my field), a far worse regime could be occupying America and many Americans (and their allies) could die. I didn't chase the money, I followed interesting work in a field that was both essential and tainted.

Better to kill other families, far from your hallowed shores. And make good money doing it.

[Lloyd]

Values... my family needs shelter, to eat, and to have healthcare. Without any military or with one lacking adequate algorithms to assist it (my field), a far worse regime could be occupying America and many Americans (and their allies) could die. I didn't chase the money, I followed interesting work in a field that was both essential and tainted.

Better to kill other families, far from your hallowed shores. And make good money doing it.
I could have made more in other professions. I was in the defense. I worked on assisting taking out incoming weaponry before it impacted. However, whenever there's a battle, it always comes down to one side versus the other. In times of war, to act as a pacifist is to sacrifice your own. Would you prefer if the USA were currently under Russian/Chinese/German/Japanese/British/etc. rule? Should the Northern states have been peaceful during the Civil War?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Lloyd]

Please stop coming up with such black&white simpleton comments. I know you're smarter.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

Please stop mouthing the same self-justifying military pseudo-patriotic crap I've heard for decades.

I thought you were better than that.

Silly of me.

[Lloyd]

Please stop mouthing the same self-justifying military pseudo-patriotic crap I've heard for decades.

I thought you were better than that.

Silly of me.
So, you are anti Military defense, even for providing to smaller ally countries (the business I was in)? Should the US not provide support to Ukraine? I'm not strictly "America First". It sounds like you favor "America Last".

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TFarnon]

I wouldn't call it "good money", not at the end of the Cold War when I served, and not now. I didn't enlist for the money, and I didn't enlist for the Montgomery GI Bill (much less generous than the current one, and you had to pay into it). I enlisted initially because I drank the Ronnie Reagan Kool-Aid. Little did I, or anyone else, know that the former Soviet Union presented both more and less of a threat than we believed. And the actual fall of the Soviet Union was a huge surprise, at least on that day in late 1991. Nor did I expect Russian to suddenly be an in-demand language again, not that any men in dark suits have come calling.

Pretty much within the first 4 weeks of Basic Training I'd gone from earnest conservative Republican to someone who thinks that Bernie Sanders isn't Leftist enough. I'd always been a feminist, but by that point I'd also become a hardened radical feminist. Funny how when some blowhard tries to tell me how to think, vote, and comport myself I promptly do the exact opposite of what that blowhard demanded...Tell ME how to vote? I'll show you voting, bud!

It feels really strange to find all my old skills and training bubbling up now. Like Lloyd, I worked in an interesting field that was both essential and tainted. Nearly everything in the military during the Cold War was like that.

[TSherbs]

.... In times of war, to act as a pacifist is to sacrifice your own.

Lloyd, this statement is as "simplistic" as anything else written here.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

.... In times of war, to act as a pacifist is to sacrifice your own.

Lloyd, this statement is as "simplistic" as anything else written here.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
I suppose I should have written out this concept in more detail. But, it's just to give a glimpse of the other side of the coin.

Why not ask Andrew Lensky his thoughts on a country's, and their ally's, having a strong military defense?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

I support strong defense. I did not make a comment on that.

My point was to highlight the oversimplification, after you accused someone else of the same.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

I support strong defense. I did not make a comment on that.

My point was to highlight the oversimplification, after you accused someone else of the same.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
My oversimplification was intentional. It was to show how full color issues shouldn't be discussed in black and white.

I guess the approach failed....

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[welch]

The Founders and Framers did not make this sort of distinction between democracy and a republic.

See Federalist 10. It's the main topic and specifically mentioned, and they designed a republic.

"The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic, are first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."

The main topic of Federalist 10 was whether a confederation could work in a country as large as the US. Madison examined previous confederations in earlier numbers, discussing the Athenian-led (Delian?) confederation and the Swiss confederation. People had assumed that a confederation would break apart with many different governments inside it, and spread across long distances.

Madison's insight: a confederation across all the United States would survive because no one faction in any one or a few stets could never outweigh the whole.

At the time, political thinkers considered democracy only as direct democracy, only as it had been in Athens: limited to one city-state. Everyone read Aristotle's "Politics" as a basic text. (there were other texts, mainly from the 17th Century struggles against the absolutist Stuart monarchs, but everyone started with Aristotle)

"Republic" was the name they used for a rule of the people. Within the states, and then within the American republic, people increasingly demanded, and agreed to, increasing the suffrage as widely as possible. The High Federalists insisted on "rule by the best", meaning themselves, but they lost.

**

Back to the original question: third, fourth, and fifth parties do not work unless a constitution allows proportional representation. As long as a system has winner-take-all elections, it will have a majority party and a single opposition party. There is no room for a third party to grow unless one of the first two parties breaks apart.

[dneal]

The main topic of Federalist 10 was whether a confederation could work in a country as large as the US. Madison examined previous confederations in earlier numbers, discussing the Athenian-led (Delian?) confederation and the Swiss confederation. People had assumed that a confederation would break apart with many different governments inside it, and spread across long distances.


I literally quoted the portion of Federalist 10 that is in the middle of the republic/democracy portion of the document, and it specifically mentioning "...great points differing between a democracy and a republic..."

You said they didn't make that sort of distinction. Clearly they had, in Federalist 10.

[Chuck Naill]

I’m hearing folks argue the difference. Interesting Trumpian development.

[welch]

The main topic of Federalist 10 was whether a confederation could work in a country as large as the US. Madison examined previous confederations in earlier numbers, discussing the Athenian-led (Delian?) confederation and the Swiss confederation. People had assumed that a confederation would break apart with many different governments inside it, and spread across long distances.


I literally quoted the portion of Federalist 10 that is in the middle of the republic/democracy portion of the document, and it specifically mentioning "...great points differing between a democracy and a republic..."

You said they didn't make that sort of distinction. Clearly they had, in Federalist 10.

Madison and the others took a democracy to be a government in which every citizen gathered to decide every question. In Athens citizens drew lots and about one of every ten citizens met in the assembly and ruled. No one imagined this a practical for anything but a small city of a thousand or so. That's why Madison barely considers "democracy".

The issue for Madison was whether a large confederation could survive, or whether its size would inevitably grow factions that would tear it apart. Could such a confederation be a republic? As a government by the people? In Anglo-American history, parliament had overthrown the Stuart monarchy by had devolved into a one-man rule by Oliver Cromwell leading a parliament that threw out all but a few. Madison argued that our size and diversity would keep any one faction from gaining too much power.

[TFarnon]

I'm just kicking around ideas from previous experiences, notably while involved in groups of 30 to 100 people in the Society for Creative Anachronism and Renaissance Faire. Groups of that size can function remarkably well, accomplishing what they set out to do, remaining more or less peaceful in their interactions with other members, members taking responsibility for both their own actions and for the group as a whole, and members caring for a small number of individuals who aren't quite functional even as adults. However, when the numbers exceeded that magic 100, things started to unravel. It just wasn't possible to maintain the unique social and cultural bonds that allowed the group to be as cohesive and effective as it had been with smaller numbers. That cohesion extended all the way to near-anarchy by the way, with tremendous tolerance within the group for eccentricity and divergent opinions. But over that number, and things just devolved, or became much more authoritarian in order to keep the peace within the group. I would guess that these were my own real-life experiences with the modern equivalent of Athenian democracy.

I also suspect that in the modern world, particularly in the developed world, it's essential to have rules, regulations, governmental bodies and all the things libertarians are thought to decry, just in order to support the current population and to maintain some semblance of order. I suspect that we give up a lot of individual autonomy whether we realize it or not, and that we do so in order to live in the world we live in, with cars, and paved roads, and electricity and drinkable water and sewage systems and hospitals and pharmaceuticals and digital devices and supermarkets and big box stores and and and and...I don't think we can live lives of stereotypical rugged individualism unless we remove ourselves to remote areas and live much simpler (and perhaps dangerous)
lives. I think it is possible to have a governmental system with more than two parties without things devolving into chaos. We need only look to Europe, especially Northern Europe and Scandinavia, for examples of how that might work. It's possible that American culture and society simply couldn't adapt to this; countries like Norway have both similar cultures and extremely different cultures compared to ours. The differences might be what make a multiparty system possible, and those differences might be too drastic for us to adapt.

[dneal]

The main topic of Federalist 10 was whether a confederation could work in a country as large as the US. Madison examined previous confederations in earlier numbers, discussing the Athenian-led (Delian?) confederation and the Swiss confederation. People had assumed that a confederation would break apart with many different governments inside it, and spread across long distances.

I literally quoted the portion of Federalist 10 that is in the middle of the republic/democracy portion of the document, and it specifically mentioning "...great points differing between a democracy and a republic..."

You said they didn't make that sort of distinction. Clearly they had, in Federalist 10.

Madison and the others took a democracy to be a government in which every citizen gathered to decide every question. In Athens citizens drew lots and about one of every ten citizens met in the assembly and ruled. No one imagined this a practical for anything but a small city of a thousand or so. That's why Madison barely considers "democracy".

The issue for Madison was whether a large confederation could survive, or whether its size would inevitably grow factions that would tear it apart. Could such a confederation be a republic? As a government by the people? In Anglo-American history, parliament had overthrown the Stuart monarchy by had devolved into a one-man rule by Oliver Cromwell leading a parliament that threw out all but a few. Madison argued that our size and diversity would keep any one faction from gaining too much power.

Fine. They still made a distinction between a democracy and a republic, and wrote about it in Federalist 10.

[TSherbs]

I'm just kicking around ideas from previous experiences, notably while involved in groups of 30 to 100 people in the Society for Creative Anachronism and Renaissance Faire. Groups of that size can function remarkably well, accomplishing what they set out to do, remaining more or less peaceful in their interactions with other members, members taking responsibility for both their own actions and for the group as a whole, and members caring for a small number of individuals who aren't quite functional even as adults. However, when the numbers exceeded that magic 100, things started to unravel. It just wasn't possible to maintain the unique social and cultural bonds that allowed the group to be as cohesive and effective as it had been with smaller numbers. That cohesion extended all the way to near-anarchy by the way, with tremendous tolerance within the group for eccentricity and divergent opinions. But over that number, and things just devolved, or became much more authoritarian in order to keep the peace within the group. I would guess that these were my own real-life experiences with the modern equivalent of Athenian democracy.

I also suspect that in the modern world, particularly in the developed world, it's essential to have rules, regulations, governmental bodies and all the things libertarians are thought to decry, just in order to support the current population and to maintain some semblance of order. I suspect that we give up a lot of individual autonomy whether we realize it or not, and that we do so in order to live in the world we live in, with cars, and paved roads, and electricity and drinkable water and sewage systems and hospitals and pharmaceuticals and digital devices and supermarkets and big box stores and and and and...I don't think we can live lives of stereotypical rugged individualism unless we remove ourselves to remote areas and live much simpler (and perhaps dangerous)
lives. I think it is possible to have a governmental system with more than two parties without things devolving into chaos. We need only look to Europe, especially Northern Europe and Scandinavia, for examples of how that might work. It's possible that American culture and society simply couldn't adapt to this; countries like Norway have both similar cultures and extremely different cultures compared to ours. The differences might be what make a multiparty system possible, and those differences might be too drastic for us to adapt.I think that "tribalism" runs deep in human DNA.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chip]

Research suggests that when human groups exceed a certain size, they tend to fragment, owing to differences between members. Since the research is based on people who have actual contact (face-to-face, in person, kinship) it might break down given recent groupings via political parties, social media, etc. But I still think it has value.

"Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships—relationships in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person.[1][2] This number was first proposed in the 1990s by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who found a correlation between primate brain size and average social group size. . . .

Primatologists have noted that, owing to their highly social nature, primates must maintain personal contact with the other members of their social group, usually through social grooming. Such social groups function as protective cliques within the physical groups in which the primates live. The number of social group members a primate can track appears to be limited by the volume of the neocortex. This suggests that there is a species-specific index of the social group size, computable from the species' mean neocortical volume.[citation needed]

In 1992,[1] Dunbar used the correlation observed for non-human primates to predict a social group size for humans. Using a regression equation on data for 38 primate genera, Dunbar predicted a human "mean group size" of 148 (casually rounded to 150), a result he considered exploratory because of the large error measure (a 95% confidence interval of 100 to 230).[1]

Dunbar then compared this prediction with observable group sizes for humans. Beginning with the assumption that the current mean size of the human neocortex had developed about 250,000 years ago, during the Pleistocene, Dunbar searched the anthropological and ethnographical literature for census-like group size information for various hunter–gatherer societies, the closest existing approximations to how anthropology reconstructs the Pleistocene societies. Dunbar noted that the groups fell into three categories—small, medium and large, equivalent to bands, cultural lineage groups and tribes—with respective size ranges of 30–50, 100–200 and 500–2500 members each."

Dunbar's surveys of village and tribe sizes also appeared to approximate this predicted value, including 150 as the estimated size of a Neolithic farming village; 150 as the splitting point of Hutterite settlements; 200 as the upper bound on the number of academics in a discipline's sub-specialisation; 150 as the basic unit size of professional armies in Roman antiquity and in modern times since the 16th century; and notions of appropriate company size."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

[TSherbs]

Interesting! So, our brains need to get bigger. Or at least those in TFarnon's faire membership!

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Thought I might add to the discussion with regard to Dunbar (post #50). Whilst I don't disagree with Dunbar's findings, or the cognitive limit that is assumed to underpin them, it should be noted that in large modern societies there are layers both at the social level and within the administrative and legal structures. Small groups have local identity. Small collections of groups may have geographical identity (for example, all those groups living in a general area of a city), and in general all groups possess a city identity to one degree or another, i.e. when someone comes from Chinatown but also asserts that they are a Londoner. And no matter which group or groups one cleaves to, all are bound by the ordnance of city and state.

The point of course is that a city does not represent a social group in the sense that Dunbar describes. Further to this, there has been a trend over the last couple of hundred years or so, in Western societies, that encourages people to isolate themselves from their neighbours, to live independently with the doors shut. It's not universal, just a generalisation.

[Lloyd]

Further to this, there has been a trend over the last couple of hundred years or so, in Western societies, that encourages people to isolate themselves from their neighbours, to live independently with the doors shut. It's not universal, just a generalisation.

Recently expedited by web-based social networks.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

Recently expedited by web-based social networks[emoji769]

which turn our brains to mush


Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

Recently expedited by web-based social networks[emoji769]

which turned our brains to mush


Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk



Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

Sorry about your brain, mate.

[Lloyd]

Buy a mirror

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

Following the idea that our societies have gotten bigger than our thinking processes can encompass, there's a widespread yearning for membership in a group that's a good fit for our biological capacity. Hence the affiliation to subgroups such as sports fandoms, internet forums, evangelical congregations, militias, etc.

Besides the fragmentation that can occur within a group, there's a constant increase in fragmentation between groups, with a tendency to polarization.

The virtue of multi-party politics is to have divisions that reflect genuine differences in values and approaches in a rational manner.

[Chip]

Buy a mirror.

You can see your brain in a mirror?

Or is it just the hair?

[Lloyd]

Following the idea that our societies have gotten bigger than our thinking processes can encompass, there's a widespread yearning for membership in a group that's a good fit for our biological capacity. Hence the affiliation to subgroups such as sports fandoms, internet forums, evangelical congregations, militias, etc.

Besides the fragmentation that can occur within a group, there's a constant increase in fragmentation between groups, with a tendency to polarization.

The virtue of multi-party politics is to have divisions that reflect genuine differences in values and approaches in a rational manner.
With the internet, we can form much larger groups that are very specific to what we want to believe. You want to believe the Earth is flat, cats are created by the devil to spy on humans, and that lefties have all of their internal organs reversed, you can probably find a Facebook group.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Empty_of_Clouds]

The quality, complexity or depth of social interaction is in question.

[Chip]

For those of us whose social interaction lacks quality, complexity, or depth, there is a profound yearning that can be exploited by charlatans, mountebanks, false prophets, charismatic politicians, snake-oil sellers, Q-Anon geeks, and fraudsters, a prime example being Donald Trump.

Being "saved" bears an unfortunate resemblance to being Trumped.

[TSherbs]

word

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chip]

Centrists to launch Forward, new third US political party

Dozens of former Democrats and Republicans to form new party in bid to appeal to voters unhappy with America’s two-party system

Reuters
Wed 27 Jul 2022

Dozens of former Republican and Democratic officials will announce a new national political third party to appeal to millions of voters they say are dismayed with what they see as America’s dysfunctional two-party system. The new party, called Forward, will initially be co-chaired by former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang and Christine Todd Whitman, the former Republican governor of New Jersey. They hope the party will become a viable alternative to the Republican and Democratic parties that dominate US politics, founding members told Reuters.

Party leaders will hold a series of events in two dozen cities this autumn to roll out its platform and attract support. They will host an official launch in Houston on 24 September and the party’s first national convention in a major US city next summer.

The new party is being formed by a merger of three political groups that have emerged in recent years as a reaction to America’s increasingly polarized and gridlocked political system. The leaders cited a Gallup poll last year showing a record two-thirds of Americans believe a third party is needed.

The merger involves the Renew America Movement, formed in 2021 by dozens of former officials in the Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, George W Bush and Donald Trump; the Forward party, founded by Yang, who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020 but left the party in 2021 and became an independent; and the Serve America Movement, a group of Democrats, Republicans and independents founded by former Republican congressman David Jolly.

Two pillars of the new party’s platform are to “reinvigorate a fair, flourishing economy” and to “give Americans more choices in elections, more confidence in a government that works, and more say in our future”.

The party, which is centrist, has no specific policies yet. It will say at its Thursday launch: “How will we solve the big issues facing America? Not Left. Not Right. Forward.”

Historically, third parties have failed to thrive in America’s two-party system. Occasionally they can impact a presidential election. Analysts say the Green party’s Ralph Nader siphoned off enough votes from Al Gore in 2000 to help George W Bush win the White House.

It is unclear how the new Forward party might affect either party’s electoral prospects in such a deeply polarized country. Political analysts are skeptical it can succeed.

Forward aims to gain party registration and ballot access in 30 states by the end of 2023 and in all 50 states by late 2024, in time for the 2024 presidential and congressional elections.

It aims to field candidates for local races, such as school boards and city councils, in state houses, the US Congress and all the way up to the presidency.

In an interview, Yang said the party will start with a budget of about $5m. It has donors lined up and a grassroots membership between the three merged groups numbering in the hundreds of thousands.

“We are starting in a very strong financial position. Financial support will not be a problem,” Yang said.

Another person involved in the creation of Forward, Miles Taylor – a former Homeland Security official in the Trump administration – said the idea was to give voters “a viable, credible national third party”.

Taylor acknowledged that third parties had failed in the past, but said: “The fundamentals have changed. When other third party movements have emerged in the past it’s largely been inside a system where the American people aren’t asking for an alternative. The difference here is we are seeing an historic number of Americans saying they want one.”

Stu Rothenberg, a veteran non-partisan political analyst, said it was easy to talk about establishing a third party but almost impossible to do so.

“The two major political parties start out with huge advantages, including 50 state parties built over decades,” he said.

Rothenberg pointed out that third party presidential candidates like John Anderson in 1980 and Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 flamed out, failing to build a true third party that became a factor in national politics.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/27/forward-republicans-democrats-new-third-political-party?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[Lloyd]

They don't seem to be based on either a moral nor economic concept... they seem too ambivalent.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

They don't seem to be based on either a moral nor economic concept... they seem too ambivalent.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]Do you mean "ambiguous"?

This is the first I've heard of this. The article quotes only Yang. We don't hear from anyone else inside this new party. Where did all the info come from? A press release? The whole article felt weird to me. Does this mean that Yang and Whitman will be at the top of their ticket?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

This is Heather Cox Richardson's take on the political news from yesterday:

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/july-28-2022

She has a liberal, pro-Biden slant to her blog, but I am posting it here as an example of something else I would like to discuss (criticize) about US politics generally. Her description of the political maneuverings yesterday (and recently) over a few popular bills with the American people (the ideas of them are popular, anyway) paints a sad picture of the state of American politics. What we end up seeing is that power and control in Washington are more important than the content of the bills in front of them. The Democratic and Republican parties in Washington are these two giant, bloated armies with egotistical and petty agents at the top and then sprinkled down throughout. It's gross, distorted, and dysfunctional, and while they wrangle and posture and stall and block and manipulate and coerce and dodge, important legislation that reflects the will and needs of the country languishes simply because someone has the power to stall, table, or kill it...or talk it to death.

In the modern era of this 21st century, it is no longer the case that a government that governs least, governs best. That is an extreme, obstructionist position out of step with the needs of one of the most complicated nations on the planet (largest GNP, by far). The number of times that the bulk of informed people say, "Yeah, that needs fixing...but..." and then adds the caveat that it's not politically possible or feasible or doable is depressing and adds to our national political cynicism. Meanwhile, important concerns to American citizens get kicked around like political footballs in this disgusting power play.

I don't know if a third party (pipe dream, if you ask me) could fix this. It's as much a human problem as it is a structural one in our government. I suppose.

[Chuck Naill]

She mentioned the beneficial effects of the January 6 committee on getting cooperation across the aisles.

I really liked this, “Vox correspondent Ian Millhiser, who is a keen observer of American politics, commented tonight: “This was a good week for the United States of America and I may be coming down with a case of The Hope.”

[Chip]

Chile is updating its constitution for the 21st century. The US should follow its lead

David Adler
Thu 28 Jul 2022 06.22 EDT

“Every constitution,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in a 1789 letter to James Madison, “naturally expires at the end of 19 years.” Two centuries after its expiration date, citizens of the United States are suffering the consequences of a constitution drafted by 55 men who owned hundreds of human slaves, thousands of acres in landed estates, and millions of dollars in inherited wealth. Fundamental rights denied, foundational institutions paralyzed and existential crises ignored: these are side-effects of a legal framework that has not been meaningfully amended in over a half-century.

The US is not alone. Scores of constitutions around the world were written by dictators, colonizers and military occupiers to enshrine institutions that are undemocratic by design and unfit to cope with crises like a rapidly heating planet.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/28/chile-updating-constitution-us-should-follow?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[TSherbs]

Chile is updating its constitution for the 21st century. The US should follow its lead

David Adler
Thu 28 Jul 2022 06.22 EDT

“Every constitution,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in a 1789 letter to James Madison, “naturally expires at the end of 19 years.” Two centuries after its expiration date, citizens of the United States are suffering the consequences of a constitution drafted by 55 men who owned hundreds of human slaves, thousands of acres in landed estates, and millions of dollars in inherited wealth. Fundamental rights denied, foundational institutions paralyzed and existential crises ignored: these are side-effects of a legal framework that has not been meaningfully amended in over a half-century.

The US is not alone. Scores of constitutions around the world were written by dictators, colonizers and military occupiers to enshrine institutions that are undemocratic by design and unfit to cope with crises like a rapidly heating planet.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/28/chile-updating-constitution-us-should-follow?CMP=Share_iOSApp_OtherThat full piece is quite a manifesto.

That a national referendum could move something like this is impossible in the current structure of our government. There is no mechanism for it. Another thing I like about my state is our enlivened referendum process. We citizens can make law! We apportion our EC delegates and we have ranked choice voting. The rest of you states need to take an example from Maine's book. We actually do change some important things. If a governor or legislature tries to take away abortion (or gay marriage) in this state, we'll just vote it back in via referendum. Fuck the party power bullshit!

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chip]

Good analysis. I copied the first half. If you click the link, some history follows.

Why Andrew Yang’s New Third Party Is Bound to Fail

By Jamelle Bouie
July 29, 2022

Let’s not mince words. The new Forward Party announced by the former presidential candidate Andrew Yang, the former governor Christine Todd Whitman and the former congressman David Jolly is doomed to failure. The odds that it will attract any more than a token amount of support from the public, not to mention political elites, are slim to none. It will wither on the vine as the latest in a long history of vanity political parties.

Why am I so confident that the Forward Party will amount to nothing? Because there is a recipe for third-party success in the United States, but neither Yang nor his allies have the right ingredients.

First, let’s talk about the program of the Forward Party. Writing for The Washington Post, Yang, Whitman and Jolly say that their party is a response to “divisiveness” and “extremism.”

“In a system torn apart by two increasingly divided extremes,” they write, “you must reintroduce choice and competition.”

The Forward Party, they say, will “reflect the moderate, common-sense majority.” If, they argue, most third parties in U.S. history failed to take off because they were “ideologically too narrow,” then theirs is primed to reach deep into the disgruntled masses, especially since, they say, “voters are calling for a new party now more than ever.”

It is not clear that we can make a conclusion about the public’s appetite for a specific third party on the basis of people’s general appetite for a third party. But that’s a minor issue. The bigger problem for Yang, Whitman and Jolly is their assessment of the history of American third parties. It’s wrong.

The most successful third parties in American history have been precisely those that galvanized a narrow slice of the public over a specific set of issues. They further polarized the electorate, changed the political landscape and forced the established parties to reckon with their influence.

This also gets to the meaning of success in the American system. The two-party system in the United States is a natural result of the rules of the game. The combination of single-member districts and single-ballot, “first past the post” elections means that in any election with more than two candidates, there’s a chance the winner won’t have a majority. There might be four or five or six (or even nine) distinct factions in an electorate, but the drive to prevent a plurality winner will very likely lead to the creation of two parties that take the shape of loose coalitions, each capable of winning that majority outright.

To this dynamic add the fact of the presidency, which cannot be won without a majority of electoral votes. It’s this requirement of the Electoral College that puts additional pressure on political actors to form coalitions with each other in pursuit of the highest prize of American politics. In fact, for most of American history after the Civil War, the two parties were less coherent national organizations than clearinghouses for information and influence trading among state parties and urban machines.

This is all to say that in the United States, a successful third party isn’t necessarily one that wins national office. Instead, a successful third party is one that integrates itself or its program into one of the two major parties, either by forcing key issues onto the agenda or revealing the existence of a potent new electorate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/29/opinion/why-andrew-yangs-new-third-party-is-bound-to-fail.html?referringSource=articleShare

[TSherbs]

Makes sense.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

Spooky possibility!

Business Insider: Inside conservatives' next big dream: a constitutional convention.

https://www.businessinsider.com/constitutional-convention-conservatives-republicans-constitution-supreme-court-2022-7

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chip]

More fresh thinking on a difficult issue.


You Want to Clean Up the House? Same Here

By Jamelle Bouie
July 30, 2022

A lot of you responded quite strongly to last week’s newsletter on defanging the Senate of most of its power. Not a negative response, necessarily — you just had a lot of ideas! And as it happens, I agree with many of those ideas. Perhaps the most common one is related less to the Senate than to the House of Representatives. Many of you were adamant that if the goal is to bring the locus of policymaking back to the House, then the House, too, must be more democratic than it is, and that part of making the House more democratic is ending partisan gerrymandering.

I agree! But I think we should go further. Even if you end partisan gerrymandering for House (and just as crucially state legislative) elections, you’re still left with the real culprit for many of our political dysfunctions: single-member districts and “first past the post” voting. As long as you elect single members by individual district, there is a risk of malapportionment. And as long as you have “first past the post” voting — where candidates can win with a plurality of the vote — there’s little to no chance that a third party could succeed in an election (something I explore in my most recent column).

One solution is just to get rid of districts altogether. Or if you’d prefer to keep districts, divide each state into a number of multi-member districts, in which voters elect multiple candidates using a form of preference voting. Ranked-choice voting has made some inroads here in the United States, but I am a fan of approval voting, in which voters can cast a vote for as many candidates as they’d like that are on the ballot. Whoever gets the most votes — or in a multi-member district, the top vote getters — wins a seat in Congress.

Now, approval voting is a little more complicated than this — and there are different forms of approval voting that, for example, allow voters to mark the intensity of their preference — but these are the basics. One advantage of approval voting is that it is more likely to produce winners with broad support across the electorate. Another advantage is that it allows third parties to compete without “spoiling” the election in favor of a candidate who doesn’t have majority support. (Although, in some circumstances, approval voting can produce plurality winners.)

In any case, an expanded House (again, to at least 600 members) without gerrymandering and with a multitude of parties would be a great counterpart to a Senate that can amend legislation, but not veto it. Thank you, readers, for the feedback, which I found very helpful as I think through these ideas.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/30/opinion/senate-house-power.html?referringSource=articleShare

[TSherbs]

The probem with all these ideas is that it takes a supermajority (3/4) of the states to actually relinquish the entrenched power that they already have.

[Chip]

That shouldn't stop us from thinking about better ways to govern.

[Chuck Naill]

There is thinking and doing. Not the same.

[TSherbs]

That shouldn't stop us from thinking about better ways to govern.

I don't disagree.

[Chip]

Our present setup, no matter how long hallowed by the Federalist Papers or the Constitution, doesn't seem to be working in response to actual (as opposed to imaginary) threats and hazards. When a single corrupt lunkhead like Joe Manchin can shut down the process, we have a serious problem.

[TSherbs]

Pew Research piece on discontent with two-party system:

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/08/09/as-partisan-hostility-grows-signs-of-frustration-with-the-two-party-system/?utm_source=join1440&utm_medium=email

[Chuck Naill]

Cheney said she was considering the presidency. I suspect she would have to establish a new party.

[TSherbs]

An article about a Maine congressperson trying to buck the two-party polarity:

POLITICO: The Golden ticket to win a Trump district.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/18/jared-golden-election-maine-00052517

[Chip]

As a Wyoming resident, and given the stupid electoral college setup, my vote has not really mattered in either presidential or congressional races.

Given that my vote is symbolic, a gesture, I would be happy to cast it for some party that reflected my views: Greens.

That way it would at least register, rather than disappearing into the void.

[Chip]

A lengthy excerpt from a long opinion piece/book review, worthwhile reading I think. (Probably won't show up on YouTube.)

American Democracy Was Never Designed to Be Democratic

The partisan redistricting tactics of cracking and packing aren’t merely flaws in the system—they are the system.

By Louis Menand
August 15, 2022

The fundamental problem is that, as the law stands, even when the system is working the way it’s designed to work and everyone who is eligible to vote does vote, the government we get does not reflect the popular will. Michael Kinsley’s law of scandal applies. The scandal isn’t what’s illegal. The scandal is what’s legal.

It was not unreasonable for the Framers to be wary of direct democracy. You can’t govern a nation by plebiscite, and true representative democracy, in which everyone who might be affected by government policy has an equal say in choosing the people who make that policy, had never been tried. So they wrote a rule book, the Constitution, that places limits on what the government can do, regardless of what the majority wants. (They also countenanced slavery and the disenfranchisement of women, excluding from the electorate groups whose life chances certainly might be affected by government policy.) And they made it extremely difficult to tinker with those rules. In two hundred and thirty-three years, they have been changed by amendment only nine times. The last time was fifty-one years ago.

You might think that the further we get from 1789 the easier it would be to adjust the constitutional rule book, but the opposite appears to be true. We live in a country undergoing a severe case of ancestor worship (a symptom of insecurity and fear of the future), which is exacerbated by an absurdly unworkable and manipulable doctrine called originalism. Something that Alexander Hamilton wrote in a newspaper column—the Federalist Papers are basically a collection of op-eds—is treated like a passage in the Talmud. If we could unpack it correctly, it would show us the way.

The Bill of Rights, without which the Constitution would probably not have been ratified, is essentially a deck of counter-majoritarian trump cards, a list, directed at the federal government, of thou-shalt-nots. Americans argue about how far those commandments reach. Is nude dancing covered under the First Amendment’s guarantee of the freedom of expression? (It is.) Does the Second Amendment prohibit a ban on assault weapons? (Right now, it’s anyone’s guess.) But no one proposes doing away with the first ten amendments. They underwrite a deeply rooted feature of American life, the “I have a right” syndrome. They may also make many policies that a majority of Americans say they favor, such as a ban on assault weapons, virtually impossible to enact because of an ambiguous sentence written in an era in which pretty much the only assault weapon widely available was a musket.

Some checks on direct democracy in the United States are structural. They are built into the system of government the Framers devised. One, obviously, is the Electoral College, which in two of the past six elections has chosen a President who did not win the popular vote. Even in 2020, when Joe Biden got seven million more votes than his opponent, he carried three states that he needed in order to win the Electoral College—Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania—by a total of about a hundred thousand votes. Flip those states and we would have elected a man who lost the popular vote by 6.9 million. Is that what James Madison had in mind?

Another check on democracy is the Senate, an almost comically malapportioned body that gives Wyoming’s five hundred and eighty thousand residents the same voting power as California’s thirty-nine million. The District of Columbia, which has ninety thousand more residents than Wyoming and twenty-five thousand more than Vermont, has no senators. Until the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified, in 1913, senators were mostly not popularly elected. They were appointed by state legislatures. Republicans won a majority of votes statewide in Illinois in the 1858 midterms, but Abraham Lincoln did not become senator, because the state legislature was controlled by Democrats, and they reappointed Stephen A. Douglas.

Even though the Senate is split fifty-fifty, Democratic senators represent forty-two million more people than Republican senators do. As Eric Holder, the former Attorney General, points out in his book on the state of voting rights, “Our Unfinished March” (One World), the Senate is lopsided. Half the population today is represented by eighteen senators, the other half by eighty-two. The Senate also packs a parliamentary death ray, the filibuster, which would allow forty-one senators representing ten per cent of the public to block legislation supported by senators representing the other ninety per cent.

Many recent voting regulations, such as voter-I.D. laws, may require people to pay to obtain a credential needed to vote, like a driver’s license, and so Holder considers them a kind of poll tax—which is outlawed by the Twenty-fourth Amendment. (Lower courts so far have been hesitant to accept this argument.)

But the House of Representatives—that’s the people’s house, right? Not necessarily. In the 2012 Presidential election, Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney by five million votes, and Democrats running for the House got around a million more votes than Republicans, but the Republicans ended up with a thirty-three-seat advantage. Under current law, congressional districts within a state should be approximately equal in population. So how did the Republicans get fewer votes but more seats? It’s the same thing that let Stephen A. Douglas retain his Senate seat in 1858: partisan gerrymandering.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/08/22/american-democracy-was-never-designed-to-be-democratic-eric-holder-our-unfinished-march-nick-seabrook-one-person-one-vote-jacob-grumbach-laboratories-against-democracy

[TSherbs]

As a Wyoming resident, and given the stupid electoral college setup, my vote has not really mattered in either presidential or congressional races.

Given that my vote is symbolic, a gesture, I would be happy to cast it for some party that reflected my views: Greens.

That way it would at least register, rather than disappearing into the void.

How would your vote for a Green have any more impact?

[Chip]

How would your vote for a Green have any more impact?

An honest declaration of support rather than a lesser-of-two-evils vote? I'd feel better about it.

[TSherbs]

A lengthy excerpt from a long opinion piece/book review, worthwhile reading I think. (Probably won't show up on YouTube.)

American Democracy Was Never Designed to Be Democratic

The partisan redistricting tactics of cracking and packing aren’t merely flaws in the system—they are the system.

By Louis Menand
August 15, 2022

The fundamental problem is that, as the law stands, even when the system is working the way it’s designed to work and everyone who is eligible to vote does vote, the government we get does not reflect the popular will. Michael Kinsley’s law of scandal applies. The scandal isn’t what’s illegal. The scandal is what’s legal.

It was not unreasonable for the Framers to be wary of direct democracy. You can’t govern a nation by plebiscite, and true representative democracy, in which everyone who might be affected by government policy has an equal say in choosing the people who make that policy, had never been tried. So they wrote a rule book, the Constitution, that places limits on what the government can do, regardless of what the majority wants. (They also countenanced slavery and the disenfranchisement of women, excluding from the electorate groups whose life chances certainly might be affected by government policy.) And they made it extremely difficult to tinker with those rules. In two hundred and thirty-three years, they have been changed by amendment only nine times. The last time was fifty-one years ago.

You might think that the further we get from 1789 the easier it would be to adjust the constitutional rule book, but the opposite appears to be true. We live in a country undergoing a severe case of ancestor worship (a symptom of insecurity and fear of the future), which is exacerbated by an absurdly unworkable and manipulable doctrine called originalism. Something that Alexander Hamilton wrote in a newspaper column—the Federalist Papers are basically a collection of op-eds—is treated like a passage in the Talmud. If we could unpack it correctly, it would show us the way.

The Bill of Rights, without which the Constitution would probably not have been ratified, is essentially a deck of counter-majoritarian trump cards, a list, directed at the federal government, of thou-shalt-nots. Americans argue about how far those commandments reach. Is nude dancing covered under the First Amendment’s guarantee of the freedom of expression? (It is.) Does the Second Amendment prohibit a ban on assault weapons? (Right now, it’s anyone’s guess.) But no one proposes doing away with the first ten amendments. They underwrite a deeply rooted feature of American life, the “I have a right” syndrome. They may also make many policies that a majority of Americans say they favor, such as a ban on assault weapons, virtually impossible to enact because of an ambiguous sentence written in an era in which pretty much the only assault weapon widely available was a musket.

Some checks on direct democracy in the United States are structural. They are built into the system of government the Framers devised. One, obviously, is the Electoral College, which in two of the past six elections has chosen a President who did not win the popular vote. Even in 2020, when Joe Biden got seven million more votes than his opponent, he carried three states that he needed in order to win the Electoral College—Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania—by a total of about a hundred thousand votes. Flip those states and we would have elected a man who lost the popular vote by 6.9 million. Is that what James Madison had in mind?

Another check on democracy is the Senate, an almost comically malapportioned body that gives Wyoming’s five hundred and eighty thousand residents the same voting power as California’s thirty-nine million. The District of Columbia, which has ninety thousand more residents than Wyoming and twenty-five thousand more than Vermont, has no senators. Until the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified, in 1913, senators were mostly not popularly elected. They were appointed by state legislatures. Republicans won a majority of votes statewide in Illinois in the 1858 midterms, but Abraham Lincoln did not become senator, because the state legislature was controlled by Democrats, and they reappointed Stephen A. Douglas.

Even though the Senate is split fifty-fifty, Democratic senators represent forty-two million more people than Republican senators do. As Eric Holder, the former Attorney General, points out in his book on the state of voting rights, “Our Unfinished March” (One World), the Senate is lopsided. Half the population today is represented by eighteen senators, the other half by eighty-two. The Senate also packs a parliamentary death ray, the filibuster, which would allow forty-one senators representing ten per cent of the public to block legislation supported by senators representing the other ninety per cent.

Many recent voting regulations, such as voter-I.D. laws, may require people to pay to obtain a credential needed to vote, like a driver’s license, and so Holder considers them a kind of poll tax—which is outlawed by the Twenty-fourth Amendment. (Lower courts so far have been hesitant to accept this argument.)

But the House of Representatives—that’s the people’s house, right? Not necessarily. In the 2012 Presidential election, Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney by five million votes, and Democrats running for the House got around a million more votes than Republicans, but the Republicans ended up with a thirty-three-seat advantage. Under current law, congressional districts within a state should be approximately equal in population. So how did the Republicans get fewer votes but more seats? It’s the same thing that let Stephen A. Douglas retain his Senate seat in 1858: partisan gerrymandering.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/08/22/american-democracy-was-never-designed-to-be-democratic-eric-holder-our-unfinished-march-nick-seabrook-one-person-one-vote-jacob-grumbach-laboratories-against-democracy

Thanks for this. Excellent article. While bleak at the same time.

[TSherbs]

How would your vote for a Green have any more impact?

An honest declaration of support rather than a lesser-of-two-evils vote? I'd feel better about it.

oh, I see now. For sure.

[Lloyd]

I found this interview of Arizona's Rusty Bowers interesting but sad
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/20/rusty-bowers-interview-trump-arizona-republicans

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

Great article, Lloyd. Thanks for posting it.

MAGA: power before truth

[Chip]

The Republicans who resist the fascist lure of Trump are at this point, doomed to outer darkness.

Sad.

[Lloyd]

Sadder, and scarier, still is the risk of the Trump-backing Republicans winning the 2024 Presidential election.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[BoBo Olson]

The Americans have an oligarchy, where the lobbyist buy into both parties. If one could only give money to one party, 1/2 our problems would be solved.

Someone said, one needs at least three parties to have a democracy. I agree, but the two ruling parties make it almost impossible to let any other party get to the US pig troth.

In Germany we have, the tree huggers, the ex-commies, the once worker's party (don't have any workers in it anymore) ....the mainstream conservative small busnessman's party , the right wing national party, the righter wing Bavarian party and the Nazis. (Ie Trump Wing).
Being ruled by the so called socialists (were once....still quite a bit more left than the US Democrats (they are no longer as far left as Bernie Sanders(sort of middle of the road US Democrat level)), tree huggers and small business folks, right now.

They get as much done as the US Congress's two parties. In the peanut gallery there is the CDU/CSU and the Nazis. The CDU/CSU ruled in coalition (Mostly the SPD) for some 16 years until I think this year or late last year.

Over here, the political party is bribed by the lobbiest, not the individual's campaign warchest. And you can't vote the individual out, like you can in the States.

[Chip]

On my to-do list:

Ditch the Electoral College and elect national offices by popular vote.

Implement ranked-choice voting and in some places do away with party primaries.

Crack down on dark money corruption, phony front groups (We Build the Wall, Save America PAC), and similar shady practices.

[TSherbs]

Pretty good interview on the premise of the "myth" of a Left and a Right:

https://www.readtangle.com/the-myth-of-left-and-right/

[Chuck Naill]

I remember looking up the definition of liberal and thinking I agree.

[Chip]

Some parts I agree with and some are just blather.

This seems at least plausible, except for the "everybody knows it's true" gambit, which is both cynical and asinine:

". . .a few years back, [social scientist] John Bargh at Yale said, I've got it. I figured out what it is that divides liberals and conservatives. All conservative positions are about fear. If you're afraid, you're a conservative. See, that's why conservatives went to the war in Iraq, they were so scared of terrorists. That's why they created the Department of Homeland Security, they were scared, they were afraid. And they would say, giving up a little bit of our freedom is a small price to pay for security because we're scared. Ha! Got it, says John Bargh, I figured it out. That's what a conservative is. A fraidy cat. Scared.

Liberals, on the other hand, are more courageous. We shouldn't sacrifice our freedom. We're okay with a little more risk.

Then, of course, Covid-19 comes along, and it's exactly reversed. Why? It's tribal. It's completely tribal. If Donald Trump would have ordered lockdowns and said the entire country can't leave their homes, I guarantee you — and everybody knows it's true — that it would have been liberals, not conservatives, saying, "how dare he! Our reaction to the coronavirus is worse than the coronavirus itself!" So why was it otherwise? Because Trump took a more relaxed approach to Covid. So it's completely tribal."

I object to the idea that all threats and dangers are equal: fictional WMDs are not comparable to a genuine viral epidemic.

One part with which I strenuously disagree is the notion that voters can exercise choices outside tribal boundaries. In a state that's controlled by the energy and mining industries, and dominated by Republicans (ranging from honest reactionaries with bad policies such as Liz Cheney, through opportunistic liars such as Harriet Hageman, to spittle-spewing whackjobs like Jan 6 rioter Frank Eathorne) the only decent choice is to vote a straight Democratic ticket. In a few cases (local offices in my home county) my choice will win, but for the most part they'll lose.

Summed up, there are some good observations but quite a lot of inaccuracy and flawed reasoning.

[TSherbs]

Not exactly on the topic, but close enough: Sinema jumps to "Independent":

The Arizona Republic: Sen. Kyrsten Sinema: Why I'm registering as an independent.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2022/12/09/sen-kyrsten-sinema-of-arizona-why-im-registering-as-an-independent/69712395007/

[Chuck Naill]

Not exactly on the topic, but close enough: Sinema jumps to "Independent":

The Arizona Republic: Sen. Kyrsten Sinema: Why I'm registering as an independent.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2022/12/09/sen-kyrsten-sinema-of-arizona-why-im-registering-as-an-independent/69712395007/

If she had true courage, she would announce her independence and then run for public office. As it is, she benefitted from Democrats who voted for her and for whom she is now abandoning. If I remember, she and Manchin held up key legislation that would have benefitted her constituency.

[TSherbs]

Well, if she runs again in 2024, then she will have to run as an Independent then. It's coming soon enough. Angus King is an "Independent" in my state and he kicks butt in his elections. It can be done, but Arizona is different from Maine. Initially after switching to independent status, King won in a four-way race with less than 50% of the vote (he beat Collins then, too). Then he built his centrist reputation and has received over 50% of the vote despite running against both Republicans and Democrats each time. We'll see how Sinema does and what her opposition is (if she runs again for Senate).

[dneal]

Clearly Sinema has some integrity. That alone disqualifies her from being a Democrat.

[Chuck Naill]

How are Democrats lacking in integrity?

[TSherbs]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/12/kyrsten-sinema-myth-political-independence/672568/

Some interesting suggestions for changes to our system to break up the two-party malaise.

[Chuck Naill]

For me, being independent means being a free thinker. I've read the history of some political parties back in Lincoln's early political days and more than a few did exist, or new ones sprang up.

I would not want to deal with Israel has. Seems they can't ride themselves of a person. Can you imagine having to deal with Trump every other year?

[TSherbs]

Another call for ranked choice voting to curb the spread of extremism and limit the power that the present system gives to extremist political moves not reflective of the will of the majority of the voters:

More Ranked Choice Voting Please (https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3843792-ranked-choice-voting-may-be-the-ultimate-cure-for-extremist-politics/)

[Chuck Naill]

The cure for extremist politics is an educated and skilled electorate.

[TSherbs]

The cure for extremist politics is an educated and skilled electorate.

Sure, there's that too. Unfortunately, the citizenry of a state cannot initiate a ballot referendum to guarrantee the type of electorate that they want. But they can construct an election process that they want. Maine did it! (although only for federal offices; our state constitution allows "plurality" vistories, so we'll have to first amend the state constitution before then changing the state office election processes by statute. But stage one is complete!)

[Chuck Naill]

My HS chemistry instructor used to say, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me”.

[Kgbenson]

The cure for extremist politics is an educated and skilled electorate.

Yes it is, but it seems that now, one mans education is another mans indoctrination. And there is a famously anti-science and education movement here in the US.

[TSherbs]

The cure for extremist politics is an educated and skilled electorate.

Yes it is, but it seems that now, one mans education is another mans indoctrination. And there is a famously anti-science and education movement here in the US.

See the education thread for an example of this anti- science ignorance.

[TSherbs]

Say it ain't so, Joe!

Manchin considering a third party run for Pres?

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/09/democrats-third-party-candidate-biden-manchin-00105183

[dneal]

The cure for extremist politics is an educated and skilled electorate.

Yes it is, but it seems that now, one mans education is another mans indoctrination. And there is a famously anti-science and education movement here in the US.

See the education thread for an example of this anti- science ignorance.

And you wonder why you can’t have conversations here. That wasn’t me, Seney, kazoolaw, or anyone you argued with in the past.

Someone else posted something you didn’t agree with, and got a mocking response.

You are not in control of your emotions.

[724Seney]

The cure for extremist politics is an educated and skilled electorate.

Yes it is, but it seems that now, one mans education is another mans indoctrination. And there is a famously anti-science and education movement here in the US.

See the education thread for an example of this anti- science ignorance.

And you wonder why you can’t have conversations here. That wasn’t me, Seney, kazoolaw, or anyone you argued with in the past.

Someone else posted something you didn’t agree with, and got a mocking response.

You are not in control of your emotions.

The only person TSherbs is not actively fighting is Chip.
And Chip is dumber than a stick ......a happy little moron who supports anything the ever combative TSherbs profers.
But, somehow, our Choir Boy is oblivious to all this.

[TSherbs]

Say it ain't so, Joe!

Manchin considering a third party run for Pres?

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/09/democrats-third-party-candidate-biden-manchin-00105183

maybe it will help to post the article in its entirety:




www.politico.compolitico.com
Dems’ mission to stop a third-party presidential bid hits the Hill
Jul. 9th, 2023
By BURGESS EVERETT

07/09/2023 07:00 AM EDT

Democrats are mounting a coordinated mission to kill a third-party presidential bid — and it’s coming soon to Capitol Hill.

Officials from the progressive group MoveOn and centrist group Third Way are planning to brief Senate Democratic chiefs of staff on July 27, according to an invitation obtained by POLITICO. It’s part of an effort to educate Democrats about the risk that a third-party bid funded by the well-heeled group No Labels could pose to President Joe Biden — particularly if centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) runs for president rather than reelection.

Matt Bennett, executive vice president for public affairs at Third Way, and Rahna Epting, the executive director of MoveOn, will speak to Democratic senators’ top aides, according to the invitation. The invite tells chiefs of staff dryly that the two “want to share some information that they have on No Labels.”

No Labels declines to reveal just who is funding its third party bid.

Third Way has put together research showing that a third-party campaign would hurt Biden, an argument that No Labels has dismissed. Bennett declined to comment specifically on this month’s Capitol Hill meeting but confirmed that Third Way is working urgently to stop a third-party candidate.

“Very often there are differences of opinion or strategy when it comes to the Democratic coalition, because it’s very, very broad. But here, there’s unanimity, and everyone agrees that if they go forward this is going to hurt Joe Biden,” Bennett said in an interview. “We need to make clear to folks that what they are selling is an illusion, not a choice.”

The alliance between the party’s leading centrists and prominent liberals to publicly squash a third-party effort demonstrates how seriously Democrats fear that a spoiler candidate could tip the election to Donald Trump or another Republican candidate. If next year’s presidential ballot is as close as 2016 or 2020 were, Democrats worry that Trump-weary voters could defect from Biden to an alternative candidate — and just a few thousand of those defections could be decisive in the Electoral College.

Liz Cattaneo, a spokesperson for MoveOn, said that the group is “working with a broad range of Democratic organizations to stop No Labels from running a third-party presidential ticket.” She added that her organization is “committed to accountability for No Labels and to preventing right-wing extremists from winning back” the White House.

No Labels is unbowed. Ryan Clancy, the group’s chief strategist, said that “it shouldn’t surprise anyone … that voters are more open to an independent than ever before. It’s why our polling shows an independent ticket has a viable path” to winning.

Manchin has argued that there’s little harm in his entertaining a third-party bid, and he’s refused to rule one out even as his colleagues try to talk him out of it. Both Democrats and Republicans are “being driven by business extremes” and catering to the “far right and far left,” he said in an interview on the topic last month.

Briefing top Hill Democrats about No Labels is a clear move to get the party on the same page in opposition to the group’s work. And all these dynamics could make the difference between the Senate majority and minority come 2025: If Manchin runs for the White House instead of reelection in West Virginia, Democrats could end up losing both his Senate seat and the presidential race.

A Manchin aide said that if his schedule permits, the senator’s chief of staff will attend the July 27 meeting.

Manchin is the candidate most frequently mentioned as a potential recruit for No Labels, which is eyeing a budget as high as $70 million for its third-party initiative. But there’s also some private talk about former Maryland GOP Gov. Larry Hogan or even Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona leading an alternative slate, though Hogan says he won’t run for president and Sinema generally stays away from such speculation.

Any of those three candidates on a presidential ballot could influence a close contest for the Electoral College next fall. Dritan Nesho, No Labels’ chief pollster, said that polling “shows an overwhelming opening for a third-party ticket before names are even announced and any campaign communicating the vision and issue positions is run.”

Detractors counter that the group is wildly overstating its chances.

“What we are trying to make clear to the people around No Labels, especially people thinking about running on their ticket, is that that is a preposterous pipe dream. And they can have an impact, but it isn’t by winning,” Bennett said. “They can have an impact by spoiling.”

[dneal]

Waaaahhhhhhh!!!

TSherbs is baiting!!!!!

Waaaaahhhhhh!!!

lol

That’s baiting, for future reference.

[TSherbs]

Manchin and a third party?

[dneal]

You completely edited your post. I guess I'll have to start quoting you to prevent your copying of the EoC tactic.

Nice try though.

[TSherbs]

What the fuck are you talking about?

I keep asking if anyone has anything to say about Manchin and his third party run from the article I linked (and copied) above.

As with RFK, I'm not sure what this guy's endgame would be. But it's really mostly rumor at this point (Manchin would need to file for it to be real).

[Chip]

Manchin is a centrist?

Is that a synonym for corrupt coal whore and amoral power broker?

[TSherbs]

Manchin is a centrist?

Is that a synonym for corrupt coal whore and amoral power broker?

yeah, "centrist" isn't the best term....

I guess they mean how he has straddled the battle lines (at times) between GOP and DEM positions....Or simply voted against DEMS with the GOP....

[Chip]

Manchin is a centrist as the crack is central to me arse.

He's a loathsome self-serving power broker.