Why a healthy democracy depends on healthy political parties, not nonpartisan elections. Or, why doubling down on the failed median voter theory (and all it entails) is pure idiocy.
Hi Lee -- I've been listening to the 99 Percent Invisible (delightful) analysis of The Power Broker this year -- and one of the things that I was reminded of is what machine-era political parties used to be like. They didn't just revolve around elections, they also helped people find jobs and organize themselves and provided other services (sometimes corruptly, alas). Some of what you wrote, about how political parties help provide an _interface_ to the government, and help people conceptualize how government works, resonates with that older notion of a party.
Many of the solutions you talk about require a legislative effort and to some extent agreement among the current parties, which feels like a non-starter. But I wonder if a party, acting alone, could find a way to provide support and services, outside of elections, and address some of the concerns you raise? Sometimes legislative offices fill a bit of this role, but not well or consistently.
What if you could call 1-800-democrats (or 1-800-gop), and get help and advice with anything from local to federal government? Starting a business, dealing with a job applicaiton, whatever. Political parties are (generally) experts in how government works, and having a resource who can help you understand how government works and help you navigate it, in a way that makes government feel less distant and mysterious and threatening, could lead to that civic trust you talk about...
Methinks, if we get an effective CA-style one party domination in a majority of the states that that party will change the rules so that it develops a "machine" that helps it to stay in power indefinitely. What's crucial then, imo, is to get rules akin to what existed in IL from 1870-1980 that prevent one party from dominating a state so that there would be two similarly powerful party machines who then evolve in their expectations away from being able to dominate indefinitely but are both responsive to their bases. This can then be improved upon by helping there to be minor parties who contest the duopoly(or champion minority rights) and small, local parties who'd either specialize in raising up neglected issues and moving the center MLKjr-style or be vents for extremists/racists who cannot attract the capital to become a minor party or win allies to become influential on their distinctive issues.
While I agree with Lee on fusion voting, my biggest concern is identifying practical political paths forward. I spent several hours spelunking through his and the Boston Review links. Some points on that:
- Virtually all the authors acknowledge the distress imposed on the public by the current system. They all ask: "what can be done?" Most acknowledge the contribution of legal barriers to change, campaign finance and social media to the distress. Misha Chellam (https://modernpower.substack.com/p/abundant-vs-moderate) emphasizes the need for mental commitment to long-term action versus quick fixes. Nevertheless, the public needs to be inspired and low-hanging fruit should be eaten when available. In 2022's filibustered HR1, House Democrats toyed with campaign finance vouchers (modeled after Seattle's program). If the 2024 campaign results in a win, that ripe plum should be picked. Vouchers are not a silver bullet. But, unlike fusion voting, they would be readily achievable and immediately appealing. Visible progress feeding desperately needed public hope. Yes, the Democrats have a problem proposing helping voters becoming donors while still hitting up the "usual suspects" for big bucks. Yes, this is individual action, not communal in the sense that Lee advocates. But vouchers would be real power for most voters. Power most do not currently possess - that should encourage them to start joining with their neighbors. All for a relative pittance compared to fixing most of the problems of our economy.
- A federal voucher program would inspire usage in the states. The Republicans, the chief opponents of vouchers and coming off decades of locking up control of states, are already on a back foot nationally. That could yield support for fusion voting.
- In my Substack essay proposing details of a federal campaign finance voucher program (https://michaelfoxworth.substack.com/p/national-democracy-dollars-details) I emphasize the need to encourage voucher donors to provide their "voucher money" to parties or other political advocacy organizations. While 2022's HR1 proposed test of vouchers would have been better than nothing, it persisted in neglecting support for parties. Multiple parties will need money. Vouchers would smooth that path. And advocacy groups' (of all types) role in guiding voucher money from voters to players would influence policy making. Hopefully some of Lee's supporters are approaching Rep John Sarbanes (HR1's principal author) to urge revisions.
- HR1 tied voucher money to restrictions on taking outside donations. My essay argues that such restrictions are unnecessary and invite court delay or obstruction. Delay is not our friend.
- The Timmons ruling could be reversed if, as some are advocating, two of the current justices were impeached and removed. Not the best path to encourage public unity but might be useful.
- The Democratic party (from Clinton through Obama and possibly before) had a large role in creating (or failing to prevent) the economic and social conditions that have fed the current dissention (as several of the Boston Review commentors acknowledge). Harris and the Democrats seem determined to avoid acknowledging their role. Trump relies on supporter's feelings of grievance. Only confession and requests for forgiveness are likely to weaken his hold on those emotional bonds. Policy talk, after decades of big talk and no progress, seems unlikely to. Whatever paths one considers taking (even a constitutional convention), they would be far easier if the presidential winners came in with larger margins.
If the GOP is proven to be unable to replace Trump's charisma, and also non-competitive for nat'l elections then it will have a hard time holding itself together: big bizniz, military hawks and social conservatives(both pro-life activists and more secular MAGA). This has promise to create a temporary multiparty phase for the US that should enable us to push for less is more PR, taking advantage of how the major party locked out of power would benefit from rule changes, not unlike 3-seat PR for state reps elections that prevent either of the next two major parties from dominating a state's politics, also making both parties more geographically diversified and thereby easier for minorities to pit off of each other.
IMO, RCV's usefulness is mediated by the extent it subverts the "southern strategy" bubble, something that also makes it harder to adopt so that one cannot gauge its usefulness by its effects in NYC or minneapolis where the bubble is nigh non-existent. Although, in Mpls, as a Minnesotan, we do see the emergence of two new parties within the DFL that are divided by how to deal with their police's history of mistreatment of minorities. In St Paul, which also uses RCV for municipal elections, there are only female city council members and an African-American mayor and the relationships among the leaders are somewhat better overall. These cities epitomize the differences between metro and greater Minnesota that have a 3:2 population ratio. The MN GOP is dominant in greater MN but that's not enough. We need to break their spirit or perceived chances of gaming the current rules to be competitive statewide so they'd need to push for 3-seat PR to become competitive.
Yep, that figure of 11 is correct (across all congressional and legislative races)—just double-checked myself!
I was responding to your footnote in which you said "Most Alaska Republicans signed a pact." That doesn't seem to have been the case, either in terms of people who actually signed anything or even in terms of people who dropped out.
Across all of those races, there were 119 total candidates prior to dropouts. So that's a dropout rate of about 9%. That doesn't seem that high to me, though we don't have much basis for historical comparison.
In total, as a result of these withdrawals, there were four races that previously had multiple Republicans but now have just one (AK-AL, Sen-H, Sen-R, and HD-09). This came about due to just six Republicans dropping out, though these four races were probably strategic choices for them since they're all competitive.
That said, I count 13 others races that still have at least two Republicans. That's out of 51 total races (1 House, 10 state Senate, 40 state House).
So ultimately, I think we can say that a handful of Republicans dropped out to avoid multi-Republican general elections, and it could have an impact in some races. And given how small both chambers of the state legislature are, that could in turn have a broader impact. But I'd be a little reluctant to say that a relatively small group of people dropping out of an election amounts to subverting a system.
Ooh, looking forward to reading your Boston Review piece and the ensuing discussion. As a non-expert, I am trying to ring bells and shake trees on here until people organize around starting new parties that can become actual contenders, not the weird ideological fundraising machines (AKA "third parties") that fail to get elected anywhere. I appreciate you raising questions about RCV/IRV. It doesn't seem to be living up to the hype.
well, I myself do believe that we need a new pair of major parties and that if we're smart, we can push a mix of less is more campaign finance and electoral reforms that make neither able to dominate, both are contested by minor parties and complemented by small, local 4th parties who either act like yeast by raising up neglected issues thru MLKjr-style activism, contesting more local elections, voting strategically together in other elections, or are vents for extremists who can neither attract capital to be minor parties nor win allies through Gandhi-style polticis of conversion...
As for RCV, it's impact for the US is mediated by the extent it subverts the "southern strategy", and it's harder to adopt the more it's likely to help, so there's a sample selection problem to the empirical analysis of its more recent implementation, not to mention how $speech tends to try to offset its impact by turning on its spigot moreso for some reason...
I need to organize my thoughts into a short essay on here, but it appears that RCV is "hackable" in various ways and tends to benefit candidates who are darlings of the professional-managerial class, leading to some weird and unrepresentative election outcomes. (Of course Alaska had to make it worse by combining RCV with "jungle primaries.") Michigan has people organizing a ballot drive for 2025 to make RCV the norm for the entire state, and my former enthusiasm for the method is wobbling now that I am looking into its effects where it has been adopted.
RCV tends to hurt major parties that are "off center". Candidates who are darlings of the professional-managerial class tend to be better at crafting brands that are more circa-center these days.
The key is whether or the extent it's subverting the "southern strategy" bubble and then us needing to be ready to take advantage of the major partisan realignment set off by such that will make it feasible to push for less-is-more PR.
Hi Lee -- I've been listening to the 99 Percent Invisible (delightful) analysis of The Power Broker this year -- and one of the things that I was reminded of is what machine-era political parties used to be like. They didn't just revolve around elections, they also helped people find jobs and organize themselves and provided other services (sometimes corruptly, alas). Some of what you wrote, about how political parties help provide an _interface_ to the government, and help people conceptualize how government works, resonates with that older notion of a party.
Many of the solutions you talk about require a legislative effort and to some extent agreement among the current parties, which feels like a non-starter. But I wonder if a party, acting alone, could find a way to provide support and services, outside of elections, and address some of the concerns you raise? Sometimes legislative offices fill a bit of this role, but not well or consistently.
What if you could call 1-800-democrats (or 1-800-gop), and get help and advice with anything from local to federal government? Starting a business, dealing with a job applicaiton, whatever. Political parties are (generally) experts in how government works, and having a resource who can help you understand how government works and help you navigate it, in a way that makes government feel less distant and mysterious and threatening, could lead to that civic trust you talk about...
Methinks, if we get an effective CA-style one party domination in a majority of the states that that party will change the rules so that it develops a "machine" that helps it to stay in power indefinitely. What's crucial then, imo, is to get rules akin to what existed in IL from 1870-1980 that prevent one party from dominating a state so that there would be two similarly powerful party machines who then evolve in their expectations away from being able to dominate indefinitely but are both responsive to their bases. This can then be improved upon by helping there to be minor parties who contest the duopoly(or champion minority rights) and small, local parties who'd either specialize in raising up neglected issues and moving the center MLKjr-style or be vents for extremists/racists who cannot attract the capital to become a minor party or win allies to become influential on their distinctive issues.
Better > More.
While I agree with Lee on fusion voting, my biggest concern is identifying practical political paths forward. I spent several hours spelunking through his and the Boston Review links. Some points on that:
- Virtually all the authors acknowledge the distress imposed on the public by the current system. They all ask: "what can be done?" Most acknowledge the contribution of legal barriers to change, campaign finance and social media to the distress. Misha Chellam (https://modernpower.substack.com/p/abundant-vs-moderate) emphasizes the need for mental commitment to long-term action versus quick fixes. Nevertheless, the public needs to be inspired and low-hanging fruit should be eaten when available. In 2022's filibustered HR1, House Democrats toyed with campaign finance vouchers (modeled after Seattle's program). If the 2024 campaign results in a win, that ripe plum should be picked. Vouchers are not a silver bullet. But, unlike fusion voting, they would be readily achievable and immediately appealing. Visible progress feeding desperately needed public hope. Yes, the Democrats have a problem proposing helping voters becoming donors while still hitting up the "usual suspects" for big bucks. Yes, this is individual action, not communal in the sense that Lee advocates. But vouchers would be real power for most voters. Power most do not currently possess - that should encourage them to start joining with their neighbors. All for a relative pittance compared to fixing most of the problems of our economy.
- A federal voucher program would inspire usage in the states. The Republicans, the chief opponents of vouchers and coming off decades of locking up control of states, are already on a back foot nationally. That could yield support for fusion voting.
- In my Substack essay proposing details of a federal campaign finance voucher program (https://michaelfoxworth.substack.com/p/national-democracy-dollars-details) I emphasize the need to encourage voucher donors to provide their "voucher money" to parties or other political advocacy organizations. While 2022's HR1 proposed test of vouchers would have been better than nothing, it persisted in neglecting support for parties. Multiple parties will need money. Vouchers would smooth that path. And advocacy groups' (of all types) role in guiding voucher money from voters to players would influence policy making. Hopefully some of Lee's supporters are approaching Rep John Sarbanes (HR1's principal author) to urge revisions.
- HR1 tied voucher money to restrictions on taking outside donations. My essay argues that such restrictions are unnecessary and invite court delay or obstruction. Delay is not our friend.
- The Timmons ruling could be reversed if, as some are advocating, two of the current justices were impeached and removed. Not the best path to encourage public unity but might be useful.
- The Democratic party (from Clinton through Obama and possibly before) had a large role in creating (or failing to prevent) the economic and social conditions that have fed the current dissention (as several of the Boston Review commentors acknowledge). Harris and the Democrats seem determined to avoid acknowledging their role. Trump relies on supporter's feelings of grievance. Only confession and requests for forgiveness are likely to weaken his hold on those emotional bonds. Policy talk, after decades of big talk and no progress, seems unlikely to. Whatever paths one considers taking (even a constitutional convention), they would be far easier if the presidential winners came in with larger margins.
If the GOP is proven to be unable to replace Trump's charisma, and also non-competitive for nat'l elections then it will have a hard time holding itself together: big bizniz, military hawks and social conservatives(both pro-life activists and more secular MAGA). This has promise to create a temporary multiparty phase for the US that should enable us to push for less is more PR, taking advantage of how the major party locked out of power would benefit from rule changes, not unlike 3-seat PR for state reps elections that prevent either of the next two major parties from dominating a state's politics, also making both parties more geographically diversified and thereby easier for minorities to pit off of each other.
IMO, RCV's usefulness is mediated by the extent it subverts the "southern strategy" bubble, something that also makes it harder to adopt so that one cannot gauge its usefulness by its effects in NYC or minneapolis where the bubble is nigh non-existent. Although, in Mpls, as a Minnesotan, we do see the emergence of two new parties within the DFL that are divided by how to deal with their police's history of mistreatment of minorities. In St Paul, which also uses RCV for municipal elections, there are only female city council members and an African-American mayor and the relationships among the leaders are somewhat better overall. These cities epitomize the differences between metro and greater Minnesota that have a 3:2 population ratio. The MN GOP is dominant in greater MN but that's not enough. We need to break their spirit or perceived chances of gaming the current rules to be competitive statewide so they'd need to push for 3-seat PR to become competitive.
I'm not a top-four partisan or anything, but according to the Alaska Beacon, this pledge only surfaced in two races, and not all Republicans in both of those races signed: https://alaskabeacon.com/2024/07/22/some-alaska-republican-candidates-pledge-to-withdraw-if-they-arent-atop-gop-votes-in-primary/
Dahlstrom also did not pledge beforehand to withdraw if she finished third (only Begich did).
Alaska Public Radio says 11 candidates dropped out: https://alaskapublic.org/2024/09/04/why-candidates-are-withdrawing-from-alaskas-general-election/
Yep, that figure of 11 is correct (across all congressional and legislative races)—just double-checked myself!
I was responding to your footnote in which you said "Most Alaska Republicans signed a pact." That doesn't seem to have been the case, either in terms of people who actually signed anything or even in terms of people who dropped out.
Across all of those races, there were 119 total candidates prior to dropouts. So that's a dropout rate of about 9%. That doesn't seem that high to me, though we don't have much basis for historical comparison.
Of those 11, nine were Republicans, and one of those Republicans, oddly enough, was an incumbent who finished first in his primary but seems to have just had enough: https://www.adn.com/politics/alaska-legislature/2024/08/22/wasilla-rep-jesse-sumner-drops-out-of-alaska-house-race/
In total, as a result of these withdrawals, there were four races that previously had multiple Republicans but now have just one (AK-AL, Sen-H, Sen-R, and HD-09). This came about due to just six Republicans dropping out, though these four races were probably strategic choices for them since they're all competitive.
That said, I count 13 others races that still have at least two Republicans. That's out of 51 total races (1 House, 10 state Senate, 40 state House).
So ultimately, I think we can say that a handful of Republicans dropped out to avoid multi-Republican general elections, and it could have an impact in some races. And given how small both chambers of the state legislature are, that could in turn have a broader impact. But I'd be a little reluctant to say that a relatively small group of people dropping out of an election amounts to subverting a system.
Ooh, looking forward to reading your Boston Review piece and the ensuing discussion. As a non-expert, I am trying to ring bells and shake trees on here until people organize around starting new parties that can become actual contenders, not the weird ideological fundraising machines (AKA "third parties") that fail to get elected anywhere. I appreciate you raising questions about RCV/IRV. It doesn't seem to be living up to the hype.
well, I myself do believe that we need a new pair of major parties and that if we're smart, we can push a mix of less is more campaign finance and electoral reforms that make neither able to dominate, both are contested by minor parties and complemented by small, local 4th parties who either act like yeast by raising up neglected issues thru MLKjr-style activism, contesting more local elections, voting strategically together in other elections, or are vents for extremists who can neither attract capital to be minor parties nor win allies through Gandhi-style polticis of conversion...
As for RCV, it's impact for the US is mediated by the extent it subverts the "southern strategy", and it's harder to adopt the more it's likely to help, so there's a sample selection problem to the empirical analysis of its more recent implementation, not to mention how $speech tends to try to offset its impact by turning on its spigot moreso for some reason...
I need to organize my thoughts into a short essay on here, but it appears that RCV is "hackable" in various ways and tends to benefit candidates who are darlings of the professional-managerial class, leading to some weird and unrepresentative election outcomes. (Of course Alaska had to make it worse by combining RCV with "jungle primaries.") Michigan has people organizing a ballot drive for 2025 to make RCV the norm for the entire state, and my former enthusiasm for the method is wobbling now that I am looking into its effects where it has been adopted.
RCV tends to hurt major parties that are "off center". Candidates who are darlings of the professional-managerial class tend to be better at crafting brands that are more circa-center these days.
The key is whether or the extent it's subverting the "southern strategy" bubble and then us needing to be ready to take advantage of the major partisan realignment set off by such that will make it feasible to push for less-is-more PR.