I'm all for fusion voting, but I (still) don't see how it makes a significant difference. So I can vote for Nora Nominee on the Party B line, or the Party D line. Either way, it's one vote for Nora, which she was going to get anyway. The election result doesn't change at all. What am I missing?
I'm also a little confused -- if fusion voting is just value identification but does not create real opportunity for new parties C and D to nominate their more moderate counterparts its just a virtue signaling game of chicken to see who is or isnt willing to play spoiler and let "the opposition" win. It's certainly zero sum thinking but also highlights what is observable in current GOP politics -- a refusal to moderate or capitulate in the face of opposition. LM and Bill Terrell redirect the solution towards answering a different, potentially more apt/deeper question. Still as always, appreciate your work Lee!
Look, the two party system has offered two choices the past ten years—incompetent fascism or semi competent party politics. This is as plain as day. The “system” may be flawed, but with such a stark and obvious choice, the problem is that we have a substantial subset of Americans who think incompetent fascism is the better choice.
People have agency. The GOP doesn’t force its voters to absorb its fascist propaganda or to have their precious feelings constantly hurt by liberals. Nor does it cause “conservatives” to be so ideologically blinded that they consider anything liberal a socialist enterprise.
There are lots of potential solutions to voters choosing fascism. Yours may be one, but it’s certainly not obvious. Parliamentary democracy in Israel has resulted in a perhaps even more insidious form of fascism than our two party system has, and it’s still possible European democracies tilt this way, too, just like Hungary, Poland, and Czechia have. So if you want to claim you have the solution to what ails our democracy, you need to address the fascist elephant in the room.
What you're pointing out is a vulnerability that is independent of voting systems, namely democracy's susceptibility to Trump-style populism. If a Trump can arouse substantial popular support, it doesn't much matter exactly how their votes are counted.
It may be that the effective antidote is a national culture with a high regard for social harmony and for the importance of good governance. But that's a high bar to clear.
Which is kind of my point. Our problems aren’t necessarily voting system and/or non-proportional representation problems. Our problem is a substantial proportion of our population prefers incompetent fascism. That’s more a social problem than a political problem.
We've had a two party system since forever. We won two world wars and the Cold War, got thru the Great Depression, went to the Moon, ended Jim Crow, all under a two-party system. So how can you claim that it's the root of our problems?
In 1860 there were four major presidential candidates, twice as many as usual, and yet, next up, the Civil War.
Sorry, but I'm afraid your analysis of our problem is quite insufficient
Read Lee's book :) we've really only had 2 parties since civil rights in the 60s, since the northern Republicans were quite liberal and the southern Democrats were quite conservative and so there was lots of compromise and "coalition" going on under the hood. That's all gone now from decades of sorting, hence the doom loop.
"A recent NBC News poll found that 56 percent of registered Republicans consider themselves more MAGA supporters than Republicans. "
This would imply that when Trump is gone, then the Republican party would be in crisis, no? They seem to underperform whenever he's not on the ticket. Even his endorsements frequently go nowhere.
Defenders of the two-party system don’t understand how it’s changed over the years. At one time the parties themselves functioned as ideological and policy proving grounds. Compromise was required within the parties to even choose candidates and publish a platform. Now, two-parties + single-member districts + unregulated spending result in increasingly volatile policy oscillations or de facto 1-party rule that can inflict its will on the entire polity with fewer checks and balances.
The most extreme parties don’t really get a turn at the wheel under a mature proportional system. They might get a few seats at the table, and they might negotiate their way to a few policy wins, but they can’t govern in the minority. Under our system minority rule is the norm with diminishingly small percentages of the people being needed to put increasingly radical candidates into power or you get a single dominant party that can’t be dislodged.
Excellent read .. with so much spam being flung at my by the algorithms, its rare to find a "long" posting like this that is worth the time to study slowly & not just skim. This fusion voting might be enough for me to finally remove my "Divided We Fall" bumper sticker off the car. Maybe.
I'm all for fusion voting, but I (still) don't see how it makes a significant difference. So I can vote for Nora Nominee on the Party B line, or the Party D line. Either way, it's one vote for Nora, which she was going to get anyway. The election result doesn't change at all. What am I missing?
I'm also a little confused -- if fusion voting is just value identification but does not create real opportunity for new parties C and D to nominate their more moderate counterparts its just a virtue signaling game of chicken to see who is or isnt willing to play spoiler and let "the opposition" win. It's certainly zero sum thinking but also highlights what is observable in current GOP politics -- a refusal to moderate or capitulate in the face of opposition. LM and Bill Terrell redirect the solution towards answering a different, potentially more apt/deeper question. Still as always, appreciate your work Lee!
Look, the two party system has offered two choices the past ten years—incompetent fascism or semi competent party politics. This is as plain as day. The “system” may be flawed, but with such a stark and obvious choice, the problem is that we have a substantial subset of Americans who think incompetent fascism is the better choice.
People have agency. The GOP doesn’t force its voters to absorb its fascist propaganda or to have their precious feelings constantly hurt by liberals. Nor does it cause “conservatives” to be so ideologically blinded that they consider anything liberal a socialist enterprise.
There are lots of potential solutions to voters choosing fascism. Yours may be one, but it’s certainly not obvious. Parliamentary democracy in Israel has resulted in a perhaps even more insidious form of fascism than our two party system has, and it’s still possible European democracies tilt this way, too, just like Hungary, Poland, and Czechia have. So if you want to claim you have the solution to what ails our democracy, you need to address the fascist elephant in the room.
What you're pointing out is a vulnerability that is independent of voting systems, namely democracy's susceptibility to Trump-style populism. If a Trump can arouse substantial popular support, it doesn't much matter exactly how their votes are counted.
It may be that the effective antidote is a national culture with a high regard for social harmony and for the importance of good governance. But that's a high bar to clear.
Which is kind of my point. Our problems aren’t necessarily voting system and/or non-proportional representation problems. Our problem is a substantial proportion of our population prefers incompetent fascism. That’s more a social problem than a political problem.
We've had a two party system since forever. We won two world wars and the Cold War, got thru the Great Depression, went to the Moon, ended Jim Crow, all under a two-party system. So how can you claim that it's the root of our problems?
In 1860 there were four major presidential candidates, twice as many as usual, and yet, next up, the Civil War.
Sorry, but I'm afraid your analysis of our problem is quite insufficient
Read Lee's book :) we've really only had 2 parties since civil rights in the 60s, since the northern Republicans were quite liberal and the southern Democrats were quite conservative and so there was lots of compromise and "coalition" going on under the hood. That's all gone now from decades of sorting, hence the doom loop.
"A recent NBC News poll found that 56 percent of registered Republicans consider themselves more MAGA supporters than Republicans. "
This would imply that when Trump is gone, then the Republican party would be in crisis, no? They seem to underperform whenever he's not on the ticket. Even his endorsements frequently go nowhere.
Defenders of the two-party system don’t understand how it’s changed over the years. At one time the parties themselves functioned as ideological and policy proving grounds. Compromise was required within the parties to even choose candidates and publish a platform. Now, two-parties + single-member districts + unregulated spending result in increasingly volatile policy oscillations or de facto 1-party rule that can inflict its will on the entire polity with fewer checks and balances.
The most extreme parties don’t really get a turn at the wheel under a mature proportional system. They might get a few seats at the table, and they might negotiate their way to a few policy wins, but they can’t govern in the minority. Under our system minority rule is the norm with diminishingly small percentages of the people being needed to put increasingly radical candidates into power or you get a single dominant party that can’t be dislodged.
Excellent read .. with so much spam being flung at my by the algorithms, its rare to find a "long" posting like this that is worth the time to study slowly & not just skim. This fusion voting might be enough for me to finally remove my "Divided We Fall" bumper sticker off the car. Maybe.
Great article! Looking forward to this catching on.
There is a cure for the two-party system. It is not ranked-choice voting. It is called Balanced Approval Voting.
https://www.opednews.com/populum/seriespage.php?r=326&s=time_sorting