One thing that I think you need to think through in terms of your "more parties" idea is the way that campaign finance regulation has really made it very, very difficult to start a new party (or transform an old minor party). Sure, some clever accounting and use of c4/SuperPACs could probably make some headway, but so long as Musk is prohibited from dumping a billion dollars into the "Colonize Mars Party" and the CMP is prohibited from running ads, it's not really a viable idea. If you want strong parties (and I think we agree there) then there's got to be some significant scaling-back of limits on giving to parties and what they can do with that money.
Proportional representation along with more representatives in the US House would be a better overall solution. Currently, each House member "represents" about 770K constituents. Even with technology that is almost an impossible task. The US House is currently capped at 435 members. The cap was put in place a hundred years ago when the US population was less than one third of what it is today. We probably need 3x the number of representatives that we have now, and the number should automatically be set by formula to allow growth when the population grows. Each rep would be more responsive to their smaller number of constituents, or will likely not be re-elected. This responsiveness will create issue by issue groupings that will help eliminate the extremes that we are all frustrated with. #UncapTheHouse
A modest improvement of this type would be the "Wyoming Plan" (so called because Wyoming has the smallest population). Let the smallest state have one Representative, and every other state a number equal to their multiple of that state's population, rounded off. It would make the House a little larger, make representation a little more fair, and automatically readjust with every census, without limitation to a fixed number of Reps.
Fusion voting? Do we still only have two major parties? Are they going to agree on the same candidate?. I don't really see that as likely and I don't see how fusion voting can do much good. It would not seem to do any harm, however.
Proportional voting? Many states have only two representatives and some have only one. It's an idea that would work in New York and California, but that leaves out a lot of the country. Of course with a boatload of constitutional amendments it sounds like a pretty good solution, one that seems to work well in Switzerland.
The problem of the two-party system does have a straightforward solution, however. It is outlined in a series of articles at OpEdNews. The series is called "Balanced Voting". It's not a quick fix, but it clearly is a solution to the problem.
You mentioned Joe Manchin potentially running as a third-party candidate last year, but to this day, I still think the most interesting counterfactual is him running for (and winning) the Democratic nomination. Harris couldn't quite beat Trump, but I truly think Manchin could have, and just imagine how much better we'd all be if he had.
I see Fusion voting as a valuable, perhaps even essential, complement to PR. But I don't see it having much effect by itself. Why would anyone organize or fund or support a third party, as long as its options remain only to be a spoiler, or to nominate a candidate acceptable to one of the major parties?
Yes… in most states a single third party can just be a spoiler.
But not in Alaska or Maine, where they have made changes that improves HOW they elect their representatives! It may not change who wins, but it is proving to change who runs, the way they campaign and more importantly how they govern once they are elected.
Changing the system changes the incentives!
Let’s keep using our states as laboratories and see which approach works best!
C’mon Elon let’s make it better! Help support these experiments!
One thing that I think you need to think through in terms of your "more parties" idea is the way that campaign finance regulation has really made it very, very difficult to start a new party (or transform an old minor party). Sure, some clever accounting and use of c4/SuperPACs could probably make some headway, but so long as Musk is prohibited from dumping a billion dollars into the "Colonize Mars Party" and the CMP is prohibited from running ads, it's not really a viable idea. If you want strong parties (and I think we agree there) then there's got to be some significant scaling-back of limits on giving to parties and what they can do with that money.
Proportional representation along with more representatives in the US House would be a better overall solution. Currently, each House member "represents" about 770K constituents. Even with technology that is almost an impossible task. The US House is currently capped at 435 members. The cap was put in place a hundred years ago when the US population was less than one third of what it is today. We probably need 3x the number of representatives that we have now, and the number should automatically be set by formula to allow growth when the population grows. Each rep would be more responsive to their smaller number of constituents, or will likely not be re-elected. This responsiveness will create issue by issue groupings that will help eliminate the extremes that we are all frustrated with. #UncapTheHouse
A modest improvement of this type would be the "Wyoming Plan" (so called because Wyoming has the smallest population). Let the smallest state have one Representative, and every other state a number equal to their multiple of that state's population, rounded off. It would make the House a little larger, make representation a little more fair, and automatically readjust with every census, without limitation to a fixed number of Reps.
Fusion voting? Do we still only have two major parties? Are they going to agree on the same candidate?. I don't really see that as likely and I don't see how fusion voting can do much good. It would not seem to do any harm, however.
Proportional voting? Many states have only two representatives and some have only one. It's an idea that would work in New York and California, but that leaves out a lot of the country. Of course with a boatload of constitutional amendments it sounds like a pretty good solution, one that seems to work well in Switzerland.
The problem of the two-party system does have a straightforward solution, however. It is outlined in a series of articles at OpEdNews. The series is called "Balanced Voting". It's not a quick fix, but it clearly is a solution to the problem.
The two party system can be represented like this:
Two people, each pointing a finger at the other.
The three party system:
Three people, each pointing a finger at the other two.
Why continue with machinery that works on the Crisis-Savior model?
https://open.substack.com/pub/asodhani/p/party-fail?r=clr9o&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
You mentioned Joe Manchin potentially running as a third-party candidate last year, but to this day, I still think the most interesting counterfactual is him running for (and winning) the Democratic nomination. Harris couldn't quite beat Trump, but I truly think Manchin could have, and just imagine how much better we'd all be if he had.
I see Fusion voting as a valuable, perhaps even essential, complement to PR. But I don't see it having much effect by itself. Why would anyone organize or fund or support a third party, as long as its options remain only to be a spoiler, or to nominate a candidate acceptable to one of the major parties?
Yes… it is a bit more complicated.
Yes… in most states a single third party can just be a spoiler.
But not in Alaska or Maine, where they have made changes that improves HOW they elect their representatives! It may not change who wins, but it is proving to change who runs, the way they campaign and more importantly how they govern once they are elected.
Changing the system changes the incentives!
Let’s keep using our states as laboratories and see which approach works best!
C’mon Elon let’s make it better! Help support these experiments!
Lee, right on; a wonderful article. On my Substack, I am doing a series on the federal debt. See https://open.substack.com/pub/tommast/p/congress-is-vital-3b6?r=b29s7&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
I will follow that with a longer one on electoral methods for Congress to get more competition for the Democrat and Republican parties. Tom Mast