Given polarization, one really useful thing that Democrats could do is fight for changes that Republican voters want but that aren't opposed by Democrats -- even if the issues aren't high priority for all or even most Democrats.
For instance, farmers, who typically vote Republican, would really like to see "Right to Repair" legislation that restores to them the now often constrained right to repair their own tractors and other equipment. While this might not be a top-priority issue for city-dwelling Democrats, it probably is something most would support. But, if "Right to Repair" was championed by Democrats, Republican legislators would probably oppose the effort since they will oppose anything proposed by Democrats even if it serves the interests of their base. So, championing "Right to Repair" would put the Democrats in the position of supporting conservative voters against Republican legislators. That would be a good place for Democrats to be...
I recommend that Democrats find a handful of such issues and champion them as a means to demonstrate their ability to govern in the interests of all while broadening their base.
The two party system is what we seem to be stuck with. Some people do support the system though that thinking seems to be founded on a distrust of actual democracy. But many of us agree that it is the two-party system that is responsible for the extreme polarization we are experiencing.
We need more real choices in our elections. Otherwise we are stuck with many voters not having much enthusiasm for either of the two choices we are given. Fusion voting may help give us more parties but it is doubtful that it will give voters more choices. For that we need to rid ourselves of the bias in our elections that favors the very biggest of political parties. https://unbiasedvoting.substack.com/p/avoiding-the-two-party-duopoly
I like the idea of a unicameral ssytem that couples in a parallel system 3-seat Largest Remainder with a Hare quota, FPTP and a Fusion voting option that would be available to local party leaders in the week before an election. Voters would vote once and local party leaders would choose candidate slates. That would not end the tendency for there to be two big parties but it would change their incentives, mitigating their rivalry and rewarding them for renewing a political center.
Given polarization, one really useful thing that Democrats could do is fight for changes that Republican voters want but that aren't opposed by Democrats -- even if the issues aren't high priority for all or even most Democrats.
For instance, farmers, who typically vote Republican, would really like to see "Right to Repair" legislation that restores to them the now often constrained right to repair their own tractors and other equipment. While this might not be a top-priority issue for city-dwelling Democrats, it probably is something most would support. But, if "Right to Repair" was championed by Democrats, Republican legislators would probably oppose the effort since they will oppose anything proposed by Democrats even if it serves the interests of their base. So, championing "Right to Repair" would put the Democrats in the position of supporting conservative voters against Republican legislators. That would be a good place for Democrats to be...
I recommend that Democrats find a handful of such issues and champion them as a means to demonstrate their ability to govern in the interests of all while broadening their base.
I was wondering whose newsletter this was. Excited to see it’s yours - congrats on starting it!
The two party system is what we seem to be stuck with. Some people do support the system though that thinking seems to be founded on a distrust of actual democracy. But many of us agree that it is the two-party system that is responsible for the extreme polarization we are experiencing.
We need more real choices in our elections. Otherwise we are stuck with many voters not having much enthusiasm for either of the two choices we are given. Fusion voting may help give us more parties but it is doubtful that it will give voters more choices. For that we need to rid ourselves of the bias in our elections that favors the very biggest of political parties. https://unbiasedvoting.substack.com/p/avoiding-the-two-party-duopoly
I like the idea of a unicameral ssytem that couples in a parallel system 3-seat Largest Remainder with a Hare quota, FPTP and a Fusion voting option that would be available to local party leaders in the week before an election. Voters would vote once and local party leaders would choose candidate slates. That would not end the tendency for there to be two big parties but it would change their incentives, mitigating their rivalry and rewarding them for renewing a political center.