One wonders what is possible. That is, where can we find analysis that goes beyond "what would be nice" (proportional representation in House, fusion voting for single districts, a Senate whose members had voting power based on state population, etc.) and looks for politically possible paths to get there. Looking for the "possible" acknowledges the constraints imposed by a constitution designed to be incredibly difficult to change, a public that has lost hope and has seemingly become convinced that government does not need taxes to function (given that federal debt is already past 100% of GDP).
My repeated focus on campaign finance reform using vouchers has the advantage that all it requires is passage of a simple law with a modest budget and a sturdy stare-down of our reactionary court (some members of which are on very thin ice). It could be extremely popular with the public if creatively sold. Unfortunately, to be convincing to the public, I suspect its advocates would need to publicly back away from some of the biggest sources of funds (especially the big financial institutions that are currently in such delicate condition). Courage is required. Given the unpopularity of the Republican party's candidate, the current House majority and abortion-happy Republican state legislatures, maybe such courage is a reasonable bet.
Would vouchers solve the problems Lee addresses? No. But they might buy some time, be a source of hope and reduce the fund-raising pressure on those elected. If thinking came back in fashion, maybe "paths" could be found.
The (obvious, I suppose) next important question would be to identify self-enforcing transition pathways, ideally considered both through an analytical (model) and an actor perspective: who might do what - in line with their self-interest - in order to collectively coordinate into such a novel institutional equilibrium.
If such a transition pathway exists at all. But, under Knightian uncertainty and in light of the potential welfare gains, certainly worthwhile exploring.
Another way to get to a multiple-party system would be to adopt balanced-approval voting. A short explanation of how this would work can be found in an article in the Balanced voting series at Opednews called "How would Balance Help?".
One wonders what is possible. That is, where can we find analysis that goes beyond "what would be nice" (proportional representation in House, fusion voting for single districts, a Senate whose members had voting power based on state population, etc.) and looks for politically possible paths to get there. Looking for the "possible" acknowledges the constraints imposed by a constitution designed to be incredibly difficult to change, a public that has lost hope and has seemingly become convinced that government does not need taxes to function (given that federal debt is already past 100% of GDP).
My repeated focus on campaign finance reform using vouchers has the advantage that all it requires is passage of a simple law with a modest budget and a sturdy stare-down of our reactionary court (some members of which are on very thin ice). It could be extremely popular with the public if creatively sold. Unfortunately, to be convincing to the public, I suspect its advocates would need to publicly back away from some of the biggest sources of funds (especially the big financial institutions that are currently in such delicate condition). Courage is required. Given the unpopularity of the Republican party's candidate, the current House majority and abortion-happy Republican state legislatures, maybe such courage is a reasonable bet.
Would vouchers solve the problems Lee addresses? No. But they might buy some time, be a source of hope and reduce the fund-raising pressure on those elected. If thinking came back in fashion, maybe "paths" could be found.
Thanks!
The (obvious, I suppose) next important question would be to identify self-enforcing transition pathways, ideally considered both through an analytical (model) and an actor perspective: who might do what - in line with their self-interest - in order to collectively coordinate into such a novel institutional equilibrium.
If such a transition pathway exists at all. But, under Knightian uncertainty and in light of the potential welfare gains, certainly worthwhile exploring.
Another way to get to a multiple-party system would be to adopt balanced-approval voting. A short explanation of how this would work can be found in an article in the Balanced voting series at Opednews called "How would Balance Help?".
https://www.opednews.com/articles/How-Would-Balanced-Voting-by-Paul-Cohen-Election_Independent_Parties_Voting-Reform-200531-333.html