I get the theory behind the Democrats putting forth as a presidential candidate in 2024 someone besides Joe Biden. But then I look at the practicalities of that actually happening. It's simply too late for a serious candidate to challenge Biden in the primaries. And if he withdrew from running for reelection today, that would still create a messy contest because a goodly number of the deadlines to get on state primary ballots have already passed, so we could see the biggest convention fight in modern times.
It's anyone's guess as to how that would turn out. I've seen some pundits express worries that it could be so bruising that the winner would walk into the general election wounded, a la George McGovern in 1972. But even if folks were on their good behavior and the party quickly coalesced around a consensus candidate like Whitmer, she would likely be at a disadvantage to the Republican nominee in terms of name recognition, campaign organization and fundraising.
Would Whitmer's relative lack of baggage compensate for all of that? Or would the right-wing noise machine take advantage of her not being a known quantity nationally?
The time to be having this discussion was a year ago, when it was still possible for a serious candidate to challenge Biden. He has shown no sign of dropping out, so in the absence of him experiencing a health issue, Biden is going to be the Democratic nominee. Meanwhile, despite Nikki Haley's moment in the sun, her chances of winning the Republican nomination are quite small in the absence of Trump dying or his legal troubles suddenly becoming much more of a negative to Republican voters than they have been so far.
I would agree that we can't keep doing this, but it's hard to see how major reforms would be possible without the Democrats winning the presidency and both houses of Congress in 2024. How can that happen given the teams already on the field?
Is fusion voting preferable to approval or score voting? I think the latter two might have the same or more effect of reducing polarization (moderate candidates for president would be more likely to win, especially in current conditions, and this includes third party candidates, opening the door for third parties, and when someone you "approved" of or gave a medium score wins, you'll be less likely to resent them). Or should we do both at the same time?
Under fusion voting, who determines which candidates are a part of which parties, the party machines? I imagine every candidate would want their name listed as many times as possible, and that would create ridiculously large lists of candidates, and that seems a bit silly. Unless it was one line per candidate, with that line listing all of that candidate's parties, but that's different than what the infographic showed.
IF 2024 yielded a Democratic Federal administration with both houses of Congress on board and with large enough majorities to get past filibuster (however that might be configured)
AND IF you wanted that administration to DO SOMETHING to make multiple parties viable (Ranked Choice Voting and/or Fusion voting and/or something else)
THEN what might that SOMETHING be?
The attempt in 2022 to pass a Freedom to Vote Act directed many changes to state voting procedures. So far, I have seen no predictions about how such a law might survive court challenge. Not surprising, given that few expected it to pass.
But could mandates to use RCV or fusion voting be added to, for instance, a new version of the Freedom to Vote Act? (I refer to merely the voting aspects of the Act, not the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink it eventually turned into).
Has anyone drafted such language and subjected it to review?
Drutman: "We can’t keep doing this" [Bold Explanation Point needed]
We can try Campaign Finance Vouchers. Like they use in Seattle.
But ONLY if used as one of two campaign pillars.
First Pillar:
Confess, openly, that things have gone steadily bad for 3 decades because BOTH parties turned their attention away from voters and towards donors. With the shift from inexpensive conventions to expensive primaries, the ground shifted under both parties. During Clinton's first term, under fire from the Gingrich culture-focused money-raising machine, the Democrats saw no practical way to fight back but drift rightward. We got:
- TANF instead of cash welfare and vast numbers of hungry children with fathers driven away.
- the 2008 Great Recession (with no jail time for those responsible and an increasingly fragile banking system as the Too-Big-to-Fail super banks just get bigger [check out the WallStreetOnParade website])
- 401(k) and ROTH subsidized retirement for the successful while most workers face "I don’t see how I can retire."
Trump woke us up, but we did not get the full message. Confession, in this case, is not just good for the soul. It is fundamental to success.
Second Pillar:
Make a full-throated commitment to fund a federal program for Campaign Finance Vouchers ("Democracy Dollars"). Break the "being primaried" power that the big donors have over the Republican House and Senate. Commit to doing it the first day, before climate change, voting rights, or any other "critical need" (including Ranked Choice or Fusion voting). If kept clean and simple without unneeded restrictions on outside giving, it can be done with simple legislation. It’s already been ruled legal by the Supreme Court. The voters already suspect campaign finance has something to do with their distress. They already know Congress is ignoring them. Otherwise, without a simple device like vouchers to put real power back in their hands, campaign promises will sound like more Bla-Bla-Bla. We can easily outbid the few billions the big donors have been spending to grab the reins of government.
I get the theory behind the Democrats putting forth as a presidential candidate in 2024 someone besides Joe Biden. But then I look at the practicalities of that actually happening. It's simply too late for a serious candidate to challenge Biden in the primaries. And if he withdrew from running for reelection today, that would still create a messy contest because a goodly number of the deadlines to get on state primary ballots have already passed, so we could see the biggest convention fight in modern times.
It's anyone's guess as to how that would turn out. I've seen some pundits express worries that it could be so bruising that the winner would walk into the general election wounded, a la George McGovern in 1972. But even if folks were on their good behavior and the party quickly coalesced around a consensus candidate like Whitmer, she would likely be at a disadvantage to the Republican nominee in terms of name recognition, campaign organization and fundraising.
Would Whitmer's relative lack of baggage compensate for all of that? Or would the right-wing noise machine take advantage of her not being a known quantity nationally?
The time to be having this discussion was a year ago, when it was still possible for a serious candidate to challenge Biden. He has shown no sign of dropping out, so in the absence of him experiencing a health issue, Biden is going to be the Democratic nominee. Meanwhile, despite Nikki Haley's moment in the sun, her chances of winning the Republican nomination are quite small in the absence of Trump dying or his legal troubles suddenly becoming much more of a negative to Republican voters than they have been so far.
I would agree that we can't keep doing this, but it's hard to see how major reforms would be possible without the Democrats winning the presidency and both houses of Congress in 2024. How can that happen given the teams already on the field?
Is fusion voting preferable to approval or score voting? I think the latter two might have the same or more effect of reducing polarization (moderate candidates for president would be more likely to win, especially in current conditions, and this includes third party candidates, opening the door for third parties, and when someone you "approved" of or gave a medium score wins, you'll be less likely to resent them). Or should we do both at the same time?
Under fusion voting, who determines which candidates are a part of which parties, the party machines? I imagine every candidate would want their name listed as many times as possible, and that would create ridiculously large lists of candidates, and that seems a bit silly. Unless it was one line per candidate, with that line listing all of that candidate's parties, but that's different than what the infographic showed.
Question:
IF 2024 yielded a Democratic Federal administration with both houses of Congress on board and with large enough majorities to get past filibuster (however that might be configured)
AND IF you wanted that administration to DO SOMETHING to make multiple parties viable (Ranked Choice Voting and/or Fusion voting and/or something else)
THEN what might that SOMETHING be?
The attempt in 2022 to pass a Freedom to Vote Act directed many changes to state voting procedures. So far, I have seen no predictions about how such a law might survive court challenge. Not surprising, given that few expected it to pass.
But could mandates to use RCV or fusion voting be added to, for instance, a new version of the Freedom to Vote Act? (I refer to merely the voting aspects of the Act, not the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink it eventually turned into).
Has anyone drafted such language and subjected it to review?
Drutman: "We can’t keep doing this" [Bold Explanation Point needed]
We can try Campaign Finance Vouchers. Like they use in Seattle.
But ONLY if used as one of two campaign pillars.
First Pillar:
Confess, openly, that things have gone steadily bad for 3 decades because BOTH parties turned their attention away from voters and towards donors. With the shift from inexpensive conventions to expensive primaries, the ground shifted under both parties. During Clinton's first term, under fire from the Gingrich culture-focused money-raising machine, the Democrats saw no practical way to fight back but drift rightward. We got:
- TANF instead of cash welfare and vast numbers of hungry children with fathers driven away.
- the 2008 Great Recession (with no jail time for those responsible and an increasingly fragile banking system as the Too-Big-to-Fail super banks just get bigger [check out the WallStreetOnParade website])
- 401(k) and ROTH subsidized retirement for the successful while most workers face "I don’t see how I can retire."
Trump woke us up, but we did not get the full message. Confession, in this case, is not just good for the soul. It is fundamental to success.
Second Pillar:
Make a full-throated commitment to fund a federal program for Campaign Finance Vouchers ("Democracy Dollars"). Break the "being primaried" power that the big donors have over the Republican House and Senate. Commit to doing it the first day, before climate change, voting rights, or any other "critical need" (including Ranked Choice or Fusion voting). If kept clean and simple without unneeded restrictions on outside giving, it can be done with simple legislation. It’s already been ruled legal by the Supreme Court. The voters already suspect campaign finance has something to do with their distress. They already know Congress is ignoring them. Otherwise, without a simple device like vouchers to put real power back in their hands, campaign promises will sound like more Bla-Bla-Bla. We can easily outbid the few billions the big donors have been spending to grab the reins of government.
I'm trying hard to work up a suggested State of the Union address (saying the above) to post on my Substack. Until then, all I have to show is https://michaelfoxworth.substack.com/p/achilles-heel-of-control-by-big-campaign