It was mentioned above, but I think one of the main issues with the divide we’re seeing is that extreme positions get the most attention. It breeds extremism on both sides, and ignores the middle.
What choice would a moderate have between Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz? And how would a candidate in the middle get strong enough support from their base?
There have been many examples of how the only perception is from headlines, people don’t read articles, articulate positions clearly, or understand the other side.
I’m not sure what the solution is when the things that get you elected are not the things that are best for the country.
No reasonable choice. And you make a great point - the best choice for a moderate voter is, basically, a moderate candidate. But so few people who are natural moderates - either in policy outlook or temperament (meaning some people can be quite partisan but work as a moderate, someone who can work with people of different opinions and across the aisle well) - don’t run for office any more, or if they do, they get attacked as being a squish, a DINO, a RINO, whatever, and they say to Hell with this, I’ve got better uses of my time and talents.
And so moderates opt out of service clearing the way for ideologues like a Sanders and Cruz.
I think the one controllable thing that could be done is the primary process and/or modifying the electoral collage to go by district instead of by state (we discussed this before and I think anything with the electoral collage is too hard to do).
The primary process honestly makes no sense. Iowa and New Hampshire have a significant impact on determining the candidates… why those two states? I think you could have more “Super Tuesday” regional voting instead of dragging it out forever over specific states.
Maine also came out with an interesting ranked-voting where you list the candites, so if your top pick doesn’t get a significant percentage your vote counts for your #2. I think this would’ve been a big help in a field like the Republicans had this year where a lot of people were divided over their preferred pick, but Trump had the most number 1 votes even though not many had Trump as their number 2.
From an article:
"Instead of casting a ballot for a single candidate, the voter ranks all of the candidates by preference. So if there are four choices, the voter is asked to rank them one through four.
If no one wins a majority on the first round, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. For voters, that means if the eliminated candidate was your first choice, then your second-choice vote will be applied in the next round of counting.
If your second choice is eliminated, your vote for third choice will be applied — and so on until someone wins a majority."
Yes. It’s a function of our representatives always being concerned about reelection. They cannot offend their donors by compromising with the enemy. Term limits would help.
I like the idea of concerned citizens forming a caucus. It wouldn’t really need to be a third party, it could be an “unparty.” People could be unaffiliated, or could be members of other parties and still be in our caucus.
To work, it would have to be:
A representative cross section of people, so it didn’t become just a party shill.
We’d need to stay away from big philosophical statements like “we’re the small government party.” It would be more like, we’re people who are looking for good ideas wherever they may be found.
We’d have to stay away from taking a stand on a particularly divisive issue, like “we’re pro-choice.” Instead, we’re about good government in general, not about aligning ourselves with a single HOT issue.
Nobody would need to violate their conscious to “go along.” We want a cross-section of ideas.
A group of people tried this at the state level in Idaho. They choose three main issues during that year, and they got the legislature to move on all three, and they won every one of them.
I’m a fan of term limits, but one of the practical obstacles is exactly HOW LONG is too long? On one hand you need enough time to build relationships, knowledge of the process, etc. And you don’t want a good Senator tossed out too soon because they have expertise that helps freshmen and younger colleagues. On the other hand you’ve got the sordid mess that you mention and the longer one stays in the worse it gets.
Most of us feel like we can’t make a difference. The system is broken. We feel overwhelmed at trying to REALLY understand complicated policy. I mean, look at healthcare, for example. I’m not an insider. I’m not a physician. I’m not in insurance. It’s SOOOO complex.
BUT, if a group of us developed a system where we committed to really study a specific policy, with good data. Let’s say something like increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit to help the working poor. We’d have to have some good experts preparing policy briefs that are not “alternate facts.” I think then a lot of people who have checked out would be willing to take the time, learn about it, and weigh in. It would give moderates a voice. It would get regular people involved.
In Idaho, they started with three issues. They were practical good ideas that weren’t particularly partisan.
One had to do with eminent domain abuses. I believe they were concerned that some local councils were going to far with it, and they had a far lefty in the legislature who had been trying to pass a bill for years and couldn’t get any traction in a red state. They studied it and decided it was a good idea. They prepared a policy brief. They had over 2/3rds support. The idea being that if we get Treco, and Aragorn, and EyeDentist, and usmcc, and Drew to agree that something is a good idea, you start to think that maybe you’ve found some moderate wisdom.
One was a property tax issue. The powerful Idaho farm lobby and business interests had gradually been shifting property taxes over to residential homeowners. They studied it, had their group weigh in, and took it on in the legislature and passed it, shifting more of the tax burden back to the agricultural land. In that case, there had been a guy on the far right who had been trying to pass something like 7 property tax measures, and they studied them all and decided this one actually really made sense.
The other issue had to do with opening sessions of the state legislature to the public. It was just a basic transparency in government issue. Not particularly partisan. They got that passed.
To clarify. I’m trying to explain the talk I heard recently, that just rang all the bells for me.
I’m purposefully not using this person’s name because he’s a friend of a friend, but there are some smart, politically connected people working on this. If we can get it off the ground, I’m going to get involved with it, and I think my unaffiliated (but WAY interested in politics) son will try to start a student affiliate at his university, if we can get this idea off the ground.
I think there are a lot of people in the middle who are really unhappy with what’s going on.
ANGER really motivates. Look at what happened with an Obama win? Dems were happy. Happiness doesn’t motivate nearly as much as being TICKED OFF. What were the Reps doing? We saw the rise of the Tea Party movement, Conservative talk radio and other groups became MORE embittered. The rhetoric ratchets up. Now after the rise of Trump, we’ve got women’s marches and protests. People on the left are now really, really motivated in a way they haven’t been for the past 8 years. These MAD groups tend to have a lot of sway, and right now we just alternate with the two extremes being really MAD. The parties actually play on this, and keep people stirred up and angry because that inspires donations. Nobody wants to donate to the “we’re happy, let’s just be moderate” cause.
It’s harder to get the status quo, just regular people who are busy raising kids and working to get involved. I think this idea gives people a way to do that.
I like the idea, Puff. Please keep us posted. Just the act of sitting down and learning about a complicated issue and talking through it with others, of all political stripes, would do wonders for the partisan divide, I think. To your point, most of the issues are unbelievably layered and too many try to boil them down to clickbait headlines. To butcher a semi-famous quote: “Every complex problem has a simple solution. And it is wrong.”
Well tweeting and pandering weirdness asside. His stated goals:
Dove (no wars)/isolationism
Strong Military
Fiscal Conservatism…ish
Unilateral trade agreements
“Free market” regulated healthcare
Pro gun
Pro choice
Pro gay marriage
Pro police
Vetting immigrants
Wall
Fixing inner cities
American worker > International Business
So he’s either a cunning chameleon picking up the easy issues or he’s a pragmatist centrist.
That last one, if he really means it (he seems to) makes him the only politician in the last 30 years to espouse that belief. It’s neither dem nor rep. It’s populist…
Why would a moderate go into government? Ideology usually drives people into politics. If you’re a socialist or a leftists government is a logical place to end up. Conservatives and libertarians in politics tend to love the fight. They get into politics to undo what the left has done. The point being, a moderate doesn’t have much driving them into government. Those on the extremes are committed and driven. Moderates are moderate.
About third parties, the last election was really a turning point for me. I’ve been hoping that we’d see a more moderate fiscally conservative party emerge. I was following the Libertarian news over the last election and it was just really discouraging to see how difficult it is to get on the ballots, and get into the debates.
You can read about it on my old Talking Libertarianism Thread here. There’s been a court battle that’s very hopeful. Links on that thread.
The two dominant parties are really interested in maintaining the current system.
You run into a lot of shenanigans like this where the Washington Sec of State actually changed the rules or mod of operation after the Nov 2016 election to keep a third party out. Libertarians are suing.
Washington Secretary of State Won’t Recognize Libertarian Party After All
“On November 30, the Washington Secretary of State said the Libertarian Party is not a ballot-qualified party, even though 5% for president gains that status and even though her web page says Gary Johnson got 5.01%. Even though the Washington Secretary of State has not reported any presidential write-ins since 1992, or even acknowledged the existence of any presidential write-ins since 1992, now she says the write-ins (the number of which she has not revealed) will pull Johnson’s percentage below 5%.” - Ballot Access News