I agree with Paul Cohen that more parties and more proportionality are needed, but how do we get the changes made. I don't believe that it will happen from the top, so it needs to get started from the bottom. The Forward Party has had limited success with this model and is continuing to work with individuals in each election and many voters are aware of the need for change yet are skeptical that it can be done. It would be a great thing if a way to get voters involved more quickly.
And in fact any change in the voting system will be from the bottom up. It starts in localities, often initiated by citizen initiatives and then grows to adoption by a state. Then other states follow suit. Within our system of government it is hard to think of how it might be otherwise than from the bottom up.
As far is just starting a new party, it has been tried and it has failed time and time again. In many of my Balanced Voting articles at OpEdNews I have shown reasons why we should not expect anything different until we adopt an improved voting system.
As others have said, this is a very compelling argument, but there's not an obvious way to get from here to there. It's hard to imagine either current political party to push for this effectively. It would be perceived as unsupportable by the other party. And cf other commenters, it's hard to imagine a slow state-by-state approach working either. It would be way too slow to deal with the current anti-democratic threat, and implemented in most states would essentially be a unilateral disarmament for whichever party is currently dominant. Not happening.
So I tend to think that it needs to happen all at once, in a grand bargain at a constitutional convention. The alternatives involve violence (which is bad), or dis-union (which is bad). Or failure to retain democracy (which is at least as bad).
This is a fascinating and persuasive account of how our politics can be improved. My question though is how we can get there when the most influential elites and institutions rely on the status quo for their power and position? Do we need some kind of Moses to rally the “silent majority” and lead them to the promised land? Is there a solution for actually getting here absent some extraordinary person raising their hand and volunteering to champion the cause?
Also — have you read James Davison Hunter’s recent book, Democracy and Solidarity? He clearly views the breakdown of US politics as having its roots in an exhausted cultural foundation, but it seems like you view it as mainly structural. I find you both persuasive and I’m not sure where the synthesis is in your views.
Another problem with our politics that should get more attention is the exalted position of the Supreme Court and in particular their ability to re-shape and even strike down laws that they happen not to like. This has become particularly pernicious in this age of a politically active court.
This problem was not meant to be and it could be corrected fairly easily. There is no need for a Constitutional amendment because Judicial review is not a role for the court that is even mentioned in the Constitution; quite the opposite in fact. Article 3, Section 2, paragraph 2 reads that:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
It is up to Congress to determine whether SCOTUS can be engaged in judicial review. The intent of the founders was that Congress would make (and presumably revise or eliminate) laws and the only role of the Courts was to interpret them.
In the case of Marbury v Madison, SCOTUS simply declared their power of judicial review and that has become a convention, a habit since then. But it is not even legislation; Congress could and should simply rule against it. There is a more suitable alternative.
No doubt the Court deserves a role in such matters. But we should consider diminishing that role. Their role should be advisory rather than dictatorial. If they find legislation to be unconstitutional they should advise Congress of that opinion and make their argument for to Congress to consider. The final decision in changing a law would go back to those responsible for enacting laws and that is Congress with the approval of the President.
DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS: CREATE A MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW BOARD & INCLUDE DR. BANDY LEE TO EVALUATE TRUMP’S MENTAL FITNESS
---------------------
The 25th Amendment outlines procedures for the transfer of presidential powers. Trump is unable to perform duties due to MENTAL incapacity.
---------------------
Inciting a bloodless digital coup and violating the U.S. Constitution are not parts of his duties outlined in Article II of the U.S. Constitution and further shaped by tradition and federal law. Trump is in an alternate reality. Physicians have already made this diagnosis.
---------------------
Dr. Bandy X. Lee, a forensic psychiatrist and editor of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, has long expressed concerns about Donald Trump's mental health, particularly regarding his detachment from reality and potential danger to public safety. In her analyses, Dr. Lee suggests that Trump's behavior may reflect a form of "shared psychosis," where his delusional beliefs and grandiosity influence his supporters, leading to a collective detachment from reality.
---------------------
Trump's recent self-declaration as a "king" exemplifies the grandiose self-image that Dr. Lee and other mental health professionals have warned about. Such proclamations not only indicate a distorted self-perception but also pose significant risks to democratic institutions and societal norms. Dr. Lee emphasizes that when a leader exhibits signs of mental instability, it can have a profound impact on the nation's mental health and governance structures.
---------------------
Trump's recent calling of Zelenskyy a dictator and falsely claiming that Ukraine started the war further highlight his mental instability and detachment from reality. Such statements not only distort historical facts but also demonstrate a persistent pattern of delusional behavior and grandiose misinformation.
---------------------
In summary, from Dr. Lee's perspective, Trump's self-identification as a "king" underscores deep-seated psychological issues that endanger both individual well-being and the foundational principles of democracy.
---------------------
In less than four weeks, Trump and Musk have thrown U.S. government agencies into disarray. Their actions are capable of causing permanent, structural change. Given Trump’s stated desire to become a dictator, and his recent claim that Americans "won’t have to vote anymore," the collapse of the entire U.S. federal government is no longer an abstract threat; it is an imminent possibility.
More parties and more proportionality. Sure, but how do we get there. Perhaps the current chaos in Washington will end in a total abandonment of the Constitution and eventually a totally new government and electoral system. That might be an improvement and it might be a disaster but it surely would be a change.
But for the last decade and now more than a hundred articles in a series at OpEdNews.com I have been arguing for what would be a more evolutionary process to put an end to the two-party duopoly. I agree with Lee Drutman that this duopoly is at the root of much of what is wrong with our politics. If such a solution interest you, you might start with a recent article, "What is so special about Balanced Approval Voting". In short, what is so special is that it would make it difficult if not impossible for the two-party system to survive. It is evolutionary because the city by city and state by state adoption of a different voting system is at best a slow process with ample time to evaluate and solve any problems that might develop.
I agree with Paul Cohen that more parties and more proportionality are needed, but how do we get the changes made. I don't believe that it will happen from the top, so it needs to get started from the bottom. The Forward Party has had limited success with this model and is continuing to work with individuals in each election and many voters are aware of the need for change yet are skeptical that it can be done. It would be a great thing if a way to get voters involved more quickly.
And in fact any change in the voting system will be from the bottom up. It starts in localities, often initiated by citizen initiatives and then grows to adoption by a state. Then other states follow suit. Within our system of government it is hard to think of how it might be otherwise than from the bottom up.
As far is just starting a new party, it has been tried and it has failed time and time again. In many of my Balanced Voting articles at OpEdNews I have shown reasons why we should not expect anything different until we adopt an improved voting system.
As others have said, this is a very compelling argument, but there's not an obvious way to get from here to there. It's hard to imagine either current political party to push for this effectively. It would be perceived as unsupportable by the other party. And cf other commenters, it's hard to imagine a slow state-by-state approach working either. It would be way too slow to deal with the current anti-democratic threat, and implemented in most states would essentially be a unilateral disarmament for whichever party is currently dominant. Not happening.
So I tend to think that it needs to happen all at once, in a grand bargain at a constitutional convention. The alternatives involve violence (which is bad), or dis-union (which is bad). Or failure to retain democracy (which is at least as bad).
This is a fascinating and persuasive account of how our politics can be improved. My question though is how we can get there when the most influential elites and institutions rely on the status quo for their power and position? Do we need some kind of Moses to rally the “silent majority” and lead them to the promised land? Is there a solution for actually getting here absent some extraordinary person raising their hand and volunteering to champion the cause?
Also — have you read James Davison Hunter’s recent book, Democracy and Solidarity? He clearly views the breakdown of US politics as having its roots in an exhausted cultural foundation, but it seems like you view it as mainly structural. I find you both persuasive and I’m not sure where the synthesis is in your views.
Another problem with our politics that should get more attention is the exalted position of the Supreme Court and in particular their ability to re-shape and even strike down laws that they happen not to like. This has become particularly pernicious in this age of a politically active court.
This problem was not meant to be and it could be corrected fairly easily. There is no need for a Constitutional amendment because Judicial review is not a role for the court that is even mentioned in the Constitution; quite the opposite in fact. Article 3, Section 2, paragraph 2 reads that:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
It is up to Congress to determine whether SCOTUS can be engaged in judicial review. The intent of the founders was that Congress would make (and presumably revise or eliminate) laws and the only role of the Courts was to interpret them.
In the case of Marbury v Madison, SCOTUS simply declared their power of judicial review and that has become a convention, a habit since then. But it is not even legislation; Congress could and should simply rule against it. There is a more suitable alternative.
No doubt the Court deserves a role in such matters. But we should consider diminishing that role. Their role should be advisory rather than dictatorial. If they find legislation to be unconstitutional they should advise Congress of that opinion and make their argument for to Congress to consider. The final decision in changing a law would go back to those responsible for enacting laws and that is Congress with the approval of the President.
---------------------
DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS: CREATE A MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW BOARD & INCLUDE DR. BANDY LEE TO EVALUATE TRUMP’S MENTAL FITNESS
---------------------
The 25th Amendment outlines procedures for the transfer of presidential powers. Trump is unable to perform duties due to MENTAL incapacity.
---------------------
Inciting a bloodless digital coup and violating the U.S. Constitution are not parts of his duties outlined in Article II of the U.S. Constitution and further shaped by tradition and federal law. Trump is in an alternate reality. Physicians have already made this diagnosis.
---------------------
Dr. Bandy X. Lee, a forensic psychiatrist and editor of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, has long expressed concerns about Donald Trump's mental health, particularly regarding his detachment from reality and potential danger to public safety. In her analyses, Dr. Lee suggests that Trump's behavior may reflect a form of "shared psychosis," where his delusional beliefs and grandiosity influence his supporters, leading to a collective detachment from reality.
---------------------
Trump's recent self-declaration as a "king" exemplifies the grandiose self-image that Dr. Lee and other mental health professionals have warned about. Such proclamations not only indicate a distorted self-perception but also pose significant risks to democratic institutions and societal norms. Dr. Lee emphasizes that when a leader exhibits signs of mental instability, it can have a profound impact on the nation's mental health and governance structures.
---------------------
Trump's recent calling of Zelenskyy a dictator and falsely claiming that Ukraine started the war further highlight his mental instability and detachment from reality. Such statements not only distort historical facts but also demonstrate a persistent pattern of delusional behavior and grandiose misinformation.
---------------------
In summary, from Dr. Lee's perspective, Trump's self-identification as a "king" underscores deep-seated psychological issues that endanger both individual well-being and the foundational principles of democracy.
---------------------
In less than four weeks, Trump and Musk have thrown U.S. government agencies into disarray. Their actions are capable of causing permanent, structural change. Given Trump’s stated desire to become a dictator, and his recent claim that Americans "won’t have to vote anymore," the collapse of the entire U.S. federal government is no longer an abstract threat; it is an imminent possibility.
---------------------
More parties and more proportionality. Sure, but how do we get there. Perhaps the current chaos in Washington will end in a total abandonment of the Constitution and eventually a totally new government and electoral system. That might be an improvement and it might be a disaster but it surely would be a change.
But for the last decade and now more than a hundred articles in a series at OpEdNews.com I have been arguing for what would be a more evolutionary process to put an end to the two-party duopoly. I agree with Lee Drutman that this duopoly is at the root of much of what is wrong with our politics. If such a solution interest you, you might start with a recent article, "What is so special about Balanced Approval Voting". In short, what is so special is that it would make it difficult if not impossible for the two-party system to survive. It is evolutionary because the city by city and state by state adoption of a different voting system is at best a slow process with ample time to evaluate and solve any problems that might develop.