Our political parties have abandoned the center and democracy. What can we do about it?

 

Sadly, NEITHER of our major political parties supports democracy or our republic.  They both lie to us repeatedly, trying to cause us to believe that the “other side” is immoral.  Driving us apart is a national and global disaster.

On the Republican side, ex-President Trump lies continuously (albeit not as much as his critics say).  His election lies spawned the January 6 insurrection, and his scurrilous attacks on everyone, including his former associates, have escalated our internal divisions.

On the other hand, Democrats spent $51.5 million in 2022 to interfere in Republican primaries in 12 states to nominate Republicans who would be easier to beat.  Democratic “election reform” proposals (HR 1, the HEROES Act, etc.) would allow unlimited voter harvesting and ban requiring voter photo ID for federal elections.  See section 303a and 307(f)(2) of H.R. 1 and sections 103-104 of the HEROES Act. 

Both parties have tilted toward the extremes and they have twisted our political process to disenfranchise the moderate bulk of the country who are not activist.  Republicans and Democrats collude to create “safe districts” for each other, where elections are decided in  primaries dominated by fringe fanatics and general elections become meaningless, destroying the meaningfulness of our right to vote.  They create procedural practices in Congress to punish politicians who abandon the “party line” in any respect.

Both parties work together to pass "Sore Loser" laws and to oppose Ranked Choice Voting laws solely to maximize their power (more on each topic below).

I wish I understood more fully how our two major political parties have subverted our process.  I hope readers will help me expand the following list of actions I strongly support to restore balance to our country:

1)     We need a centrist political party.

2)     Ranked-Choice Voting will discourage extremist election tactics.

3)     Congressional reform is necessary to dilute the stranglehold of party leaders.

4)    In your major political parties, support centrist candidates.

5)    State reforms (such as repealing "sore loser" laws.

6)    Gerrymandering to create "safe" districts

Centrist third party

Since 2010, ‘No Labels’ has encouraged respectful discussion between the parties.  They stimulated the “Problem Solvers Caucus” (Democrats and Republicans who meet to find solutions).

Now, ‘No Labels’ is securing a ballot spot for the 2024 Presidential Election which it will consider making available to a third choice ticket with a Republican and Democrat, if it believes that ticket can win and only if the Republicans nominate  Trump and the Democrats nominate Biden.  That is, these efforts will be discontinued if ANY ONE of the following occur:

a)      The Democrats don’t nominate Biden.

b)     The Republicans don’t nominate Trump.

c)      There is no “unification” ticket with a Republican and a Democrat.

d)     If it appears that such a third choice would be a spoiler.  (Most Recent Polls in 8 battleground states (AZ, FL, GA, MI, NV, NC, PA, WI) show 63% are open to a moderate independent.)

Find more info at www.nolabels.org, including ‘No Labels’ positions on issues, etc.

Let me know if you’d like me to add you to my list of people interested in information about ‘No Labels’.

Ranked-Choice Voting

Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) is a very simple technology that allows every voter to participate instantaneously in a series of run-off elections, if necessary.   Ranked-Choice voting makes it easy to vote for a minor candidate without risking being a spoiler and it makes it easier to say essentially  “I prefer any of the other candidates to [name].”

Voters simply rank their first choice, their second choice, … among the candidates.  Assume the candidates are Anne, Eleanor and Mary.  You favor Mary, but she has little chance of winning.  So, you list Mary first, Anne second and don’t list Eleanor at all because you don’t want Eleanor to win.

The first-choice votes are tabulated.  If a candidate wins a majority of the votes, that candidate is elected.  If Eleanor wins in the first round, she has more votes that Mary and Anne put together.  Mary was NOT a spoiler because even if all of Mary’s votes had gone to Anne, Eleanor would still have won.

If no one wins in the first round, the last-place candidate is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed to those voters’ second choices.  If Mary comes in third, as you expected, your vote for Mary would switch to Anne for the second round.

If there were five candidates in the race, it is likely that no one would get a majority in the first round.  The second round would redistribute the votes of the person who came in last in the first round.   With four candidates left, no one might get a majority in the second round.  In that case, the person who came in 4^th in the second round would be eliminated and their votes would be re-distributed.

RCV promotes centrist candidates because it encourages more candidates and if you are not the voter's first choice, it is helpful to be the voter's second choice.

Go to https://www.fairvote.org/ to learn more about RCV.  Ranking candidates is easy; it is no different than “I’d like Chocolate Chip ice cream, but if they don’t have that, I’ll take vanilla.”

Let me know if you’d like me to add you to my list of people interested in RCV.

Practical example:  In August 2018, four candidates ran in the Republican gubernatorial primary.  I wanted to vote for Ken Selzer who was the insurance commissioner.  However, I strongly wanted to avoid Kris Kobach being the candidate.  So, I chose to vote for lieutenant governor  Jeff Colyer (who had become governor when Gov. Sam Brownback left for a position in the Trump administration).  Colyer lost by 350 votes out of 310,000 cast.  53,000 votes were cast for the third and fourth candidate; had those votes been reallocated to their second-choice (with RCV), Colyer would probably have won.  If we had had RCV, I and many others might have voted for Selzer or the fourth candidate, providing a much better indication of the strength of their support.

So, in the general election, Kobach ran against Democrat Laura Kelly, independent candidate Greg Orman and two more minor candidates.  I wanted to vote for Orman.  But, again, I figured a vote for Orman might help Kobach get elected.  So I voted for Laura Kelly, who won.  RCV would have allowed me to vote for Orman and mark Kelly as my second choice.

Congressional Reform

I am less knowledgeable about this area, but for example…

Since 2010, ‘No Labels’ has encouraged respectful discussion between the parties.  They stimulated the “Problem Solvers Caucus” (Democrats and Republicans who meet to find solutions).

Previously, approximately 25% of House members could block a vote on a bill supported by 75%.  The Caucus upped that to 33%, which the Daily Beast lamented as “weakening the power of party leaders and committee chairs”.  I say “Huzzah!  Huzzah!”  But that is not enough.  Any time a majority of the House or Senate are in favor of voting on a bill, a vote should be taken. 

Party leaders have too much control over committee leadership positions and members.  They use these powers to thwart cooperation with the opposing party.

Sore Loser laws

As of March 2020, forty-seven (47) states have enacted "sore loser" laws to consolidate power within our two major parties.  "Sore loser" laws make it impossible (or extremely difficult) for a candidate who has lost in a primary to run for that office as an independent candidate or on another party's ticket.

What is the justification of such laws?

Gerrymandering to create "safe" districts

Democracy is stronger when a political district might swing from one party to another based on the candidates and issues.  "Safe" districts make it extremely unlikely that a district would shift.

In "safe" districts, the election results are determined in the dominant party's primary.  Thus, the relatively small number of primary voters control the election.  Other people's votes have little value.

Competitive districts strongly dilute the impact of other types of gerrymandering.  For example, when maps are redrawn to concentrate Black Americans in a few districts so they can control who gets elected in those districts, we increase the likelihood that Black Americans are elected in proportion to their percentage of the population but we reduce the possibility that Black Americans could be elected in excess of their percentage in the population.  If the Black vote was dispersed in many competitive districts, candidates who could dominate the Black vote could win in all of those districts.  (My argument herein reflects the false presumption that a person's voting decision should be based on their race.  I don't believe that to be the case, but even with that presumption, it is clear that competitive districts are superior to concentration of the electorate based on race.)