Hi Lee, big fan of your work! But if RCV is too confusing for voters, then why wouldn't "combining fusion voting for single-winner elections with party-list proportional representation for multi-winner elections" also be too confusing for workers?
No, given the current debates in the Dem reform space, fusion voting / proportional voting is what I’d call more visionary and more transformative than anything being discussed.
I wonder if part of the failure of ranked-choice voting ballot measures has to do with—as you’ve mentioned in your research—the fact that it is increasingly being seen as a partisan reform and is widely opposed by Republicans.
You mentioned near the beginning how the parties are becoming more polarized, but in that narrow respect, last night's results actually showed depolarization, certainly with respect to race. If the Republican Party moved away from authoritarianism after Trump and retained its growing levels of minority support, that would be a positive development. The two parties have the potential to become saner versions of themselves, even in the absence of major reform.
I think he's talking about political polarization, not racial polarization. Though yes, Trump does seems to be causing a bit of a racial realignment in US politics.
My read on the need for transformation is for the Democratic Party to basically reboot. This entire party establishment has presided over squandering Obama's majority, failing to deal with the rise of first the Tea Party and then its conversion into Trumpism, and then handing over power to an authoritarian while making the entire country hate us, and only embracing a more open, optimistic style WAY too late in the game.
They all need to go. And we need to rebuild. The solutions they offer are consistently wildly disproportionate to the actual needs and challenges we face. The activist class does the craziest shit, and the nonprofits leech on government with their overpriced consulting while undermining the very "state capacity" they purport to be a part of.
This party needs to start contesting every single office. No more purity tests. No more robots. No more "allyship"; hell, the Republicans practice the allyship we preach better than we ever could.
I've always argued that RCV is ideologically neutral, except that it disfavors extremism of any kind, by favoring candidates who can appeal to a broad range of voters. But this appears to be not quite the case any more, because the definition of 'neutral' has shifted.
The above tendency implies that RCV favors democracy, or rule by those with broad popular support—“of the people, by the people, for the people”—as opposed to aristocratic rule by a small self-appointed class, who think they have a superior understanding of what is best for the people than the people themselves do. But it seems that we can no longer take support for democracy as a given.
The Royalists among us, ideological descendants of Tories and of the Cavaliers who founded southern plantations, those who like to call democracy "mob rule," have been brought out of hiding by Trumpism. They are, I think, a large part of the motivation behind recent voter-suppression efforts, and ultimately the strategy of fomenting distrust of elections themselves, calling democracy itself into question.
I suspect that the realization, conscious or not, of RCV's support for democracy is what makes democrats (Democrats) inclined to support it, and anti-democrats (uniformly Republicans) instinctively oppose it.
Lee's worry: "Democrats will" "exonerate current leadership". Yes, they completely blew it.
They explicitly didn't recognize just how hurting the lower income 80% are. Or that those left-behind blame the Democrats (the incumbents) for their hurting.
They are blinded by their single-minded pursuit of campaign donors. If a policy did not resonate with wealthy donors it was ignored.
Fundamental changes we need:
1. They have the startling vision of Seattle's successful campaign finance voucher program before them and never pursued it, essentially ignoring its presence in 2022's HR1. Resuscitate John Sarbanes' creation and make full-throated advocacy for it while openly acknowledging the futility of advertising overkill. The "we didn't see any other way to win" excuse may have had some validity for Clinton and Obama, but it holds no water now. Take a chance: turn down the big money donations from banks and special interests and make a big show of doing so while asking for small donations. Be open and truthful about the topic. The public already knows there is no free lunch and no free elections either.
2. To be credible, truth, the whole truth is needed. The leadership needs to acknowledge their own culpability in their choice of policies NOT to pursue. Not fixing a retirement system that only helps the 20%. Abandoning AFDC cash welfare, thus leaving kids to go hungry and leading fathers to abandon their children to grow up with gangs and street crime. Not picking up on rural area distress in the face of the dual employment attacks from technology and trade. Unleashing the Wolfs of Wall Street to bring on 2008 and accomplishing essentially nothing to prevent another collapse, one worse than 2008 (given a huge public debt threatening the viability of our "reserve currency" dollar-printing system).
Yes, Fusion voting and other voting reforms to build a network of strong parties are critical. But we need a spark. A simple starting point that will get the public's attention.
Trump won with a simple argument: You are hurting and it's because immigrants and foreign countries took your jobs. The first part rang true. The second part is false but appeals to basic human nature: when hurting, find a target to blame and lash out at.
Until the first part is addressed, the second part will resonate.
I have no idea how this will play out, but truth is a essential part of any recovery.
Hi Lee, big fan of your work! But if RCV is too confusing for voters, then why wouldn't "combining fusion voting for single-winner elections with party-list proportional representation for multi-winner elections" also be too confusing for workers?
Interesting read. Specifically, what would be “something more visionary and more transformative”?
Did you miss, “Combining fusion voting for single-winner elections with party-list proportional representation for multi-winner elections.”?
Think you didn’t finish your comment. Regardless, it’s still not clear what Drutman was referring to.
No, given the current debates in the Dem reform space, fusion voting / proportional voting is what I’d call more visionary and more transformative than anything being discussed.
I wonder if part of the failure of ranked-choice voting ballot measures has to do with—as you’ve mentioned in your research—the fact that it is increasingly being seen as a partisan reform and is widely opposed by Republicans.
You mentioned near the beginning how the parties are becoming more polarized, but in that narrow respect, last night's results actually showed depolarization, certainly with respect to race. If the Republican Party moved away from authoritarianism after Trump and retained its growing levels of minority support, that would be a positive development. The two parties have the potential to become saner versions of themselves, even in the absence of major reform.
I think he's talking about political polarization, not racial polarization. Though yes, Trump does seems to be causing a bit of a racial realignment in US politics.
My read on the need for transformation is for the Democratic Party to basically reboot. This entire party establishment has presided over squandering Obama's majority, failing to deal with the rise of first the Tea Party and then its conversion into Trumpism, and then handing over power to an authoritarian while making the entire country hate us, and only embracing a more open, optimistic style WAY too late in the game.
They all need to go. And we need to rebuild. The solutions they offer are consistently wildly disproportionate to the actual needs and challenges we face. The activist class does the craziest shit, and the nonprofits leech on government with their overpriced consulting while undermining the very "state capacity" they purport to be a part of.
This party needs to start contesting every single office. No more purity tests. No more robots. No more "allyship"; hell, the Republicans practice the allyship we preach better than we ever could.
I've always argued that RCV is ideologically neutral, except that it disfavors extremism of any kind, by favoring candidates who can appeal to a broad range of voters. But this appears to be not quite the case any more, because the definition of 'neutral' has shifted.
The above tendency implies that RCV favors democracy, or rule by those with broad popular support—“of the people, by the people, for the people”—as opposed to aristocratic rule by a small self-appointed class, who think they have a superior understanding of what is best for the people than the people themselves do. But it seems that we can no longer take support for democracy as a given.
The Royalists among us, ideological descendants of Tories and of the Cavaliers who founded southern plantations, those who like to call democracy "mob rule," have been brought out of hiding by Trumpism. They are, I think, a large part of the motivation behind recent voter-suppression efforts, and ultimately the strategy of fomenting distrust of elections themselves, calling democracy itself into question.
I suspect that the realization, conscious or not, of RCV's support for democracy is what makes democrats (Democrats) inclined to support it, and anti-democrats (uniformly Republicans) instinctively oppose it.
Lee's worry: "Democrats will" "exonerate current leadership". Yes, they completely blew it.
They explicitly didn't recognize just how hurting the lower income 80% are. Or that those left-behind blame the Democrats (the incumbents) for their hurting.
They are blinded by their single-minded pursuit of campaign donors. If a policy did not resonate with wealthy donors it was ignored.
Fundamental changes we need:
1. They have the startling vision of Seattle's successful campaign finance voucher program before them and never pursued it, essentially ignoring its presence in 2022's HR1. Resuscitate John Sarbanes' creation and make full-throated advocacy for it while openly acknowledging the futility of advertising overkill. The "we didn't see any other way to win" excuse may have had some validity for Clinton and Obama, but it holds no water now. Take a chance: turn down the big money donations from banks and special interests and make a big show of doing so while asking for small donations. Be open and truthful about the topic. The public already knows there is no free lunch and no free elections either.
2. To be credible, truth, the whole truth is needed. The leadership needs to acknowledge their own culpability in their choice of policies NOT to pursue. Not fixing a retirement system that only helps the 20%. Abandoning AFDC cash welfare, thus leaving kids to go hungry and leading fathers to abandon their children to grow up with gangs and street crime. Not picking up on rural area distress in the face of the dual employment attacks from technology and trade. Unleashing the Wolfs of Wall Street to bring on 2008 and accomplishing essentially nothing to prevent another collapse, one worse than 2008 (given a huge public debt threatening the viability of our "reserve currency" dollar-printing system).
Yes, Fusion voting and other voting reforms to build a network of strong parties are critical. But we need a spark. A simple starting point that will get the public's attention.
Trump won with a simple argument: You are hurting and it's because immigrants and foreign countries took your jobs. The first part rang true. The second part is false but appeals to basic human nature: when hurting, find a target to blame and lash out at.
Until the first part is addressed, the second part will resonate.
I have no idea how this will play out, but truth is a essential part of any recovery.