To gloss over the noncompetitive nature of our two-party system in local elections is a disservice to readers if you do not mention the role that legislative gerrymandering has led to the selection of voters by the elected instead of the selection of the elected by the voters. Nowhere in the article do I see any reference to this or the root article that was behind the first section. The history of the Republican party selecting and designing districts that exclude minority representation or pack them into small districts is a significant part of why our system is not working right now and why there is no competition in the general election. The primary winner is essentially the person who wins in most of these districts which leads to the extreme positions of candidates that does not represent the general public opinion.
I strongly support fusion voting and believe that it could have changed the results of the 2024 presidential election. I suspect that many more of the Independents, who split for Harris 49% to 46%, would have voted for her if they could have done so for the "party" of democracy and otherwise distanced themselves from the damaged – fairly or unfairly - Democrat brand. For the 2026 midterms, could we implement a virtual form of fusion voting by having voters report back to their prodemocracy organizations who they voted for and for which “party”?
Yes PR would bring democracy. By far the most quickly & easily PR to set up & implementat is Party-List. 2/3 of countries use PR, & it’s almost entirely Part-List. Saints-Lague is the unbiased & optimally proportional PR.
But the single-winner Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) would be enough too. (PR for National office would need Constitutional amendment).
RCV would completely eliminate the spoiler-problems for the Mutual-Majority (MM). It always elects from the MM’s preferred-set.
MM:
The major-size group who all prefer some same candidate-set to everyone else.
That’s their preferred set.
Mutual-Majority Criterion (MMC):
The winner should come from the MM’s preferred set.
But yes, Party-List is uniquely quickly, easily, immediately set up & implementated. No new ballot in or counting.
…&, with the count numbers, anyone can do the count by hand-calculator or pencil & paper.
This is excellent information and promising IF any changes could be made. In the current political environment I don't see it changing without first fixing the House of Representatives. One, if not the most important factor in today's extreme partisanship environment that is ALWAYS overlooked: the size of the House of Representatives has been frozen at 435 Members for 115 years. The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 was a piece of bipartisan (Donkeys & Elephants) legislation that fixed the number at 435. Both parties figured out that by freezing it at that number it would virtually eliminate any chance of a 3rd party to compete with them. History shows they are correct. We need to TAKE BACK THE HOUSE and size it up to 1,305 Members. This would immediately reduce the impact of big money, make gerrymandering more difficult, bring PROPER OVERSIGHT by the People (instead of billionaires), give average Americans the chance to run for the House. It does not require a Constitutional amendment/change as all it requires is Congress to pass a new law and the President sign it. PROJECT1305 is coming soon!!! Until WE decide OUR voices must be heard we will continue down the same worn out path.
Everything you say is correct, but you left out the fourth story, which is the foundation for the whole problem. Voters are limited. They are limited by intellect, or they're limited by interest, or both. They can be, and vigorously are, moved by "shiny objects." Our campaign seasons are protracted, and they allow for private money in politics. Money provides exposure, and the voters are extremely susceptible to things like how often they see ads on TV, how many yard signs they see, etc. Every poll I see demonstrates, for example, that a sizeable majority of people polled favor positions promoted by what we could call Democrats. And yet, Republicans win many elections. Even grossly caricaturish Republicans, like Donnie, win elections. Setting aside your point about the distortions in the system -- and you're very right about them -- when people offhandedly say that Elon Musk, for example, bought elections, that's not true. No one can buy an election. What Elon bought was exposure, and the voting public collapsed into mindlessness, and were swayed by how much was exposed to them. One of the reasons for the establishment of the Electoral College was that the Founding Fathers felt that average colonists (new Americans) were limited in their ability to choose wisely. Whether or not Electors did any better, or could do any better, the Founding Fathers were not entirely wrong to take a dim view of the ability of most new Americans to make choices like who would be a better president. Today, of course, the Electors are no better than anyone else, so if we're going to continue to rely on public voting, the least we can do is make sure that every vote counts, and is not collapsed into a winner take all scheme.
To gloss over the noncompetitive nature of our two-party system in local elections is a disservice to readers if you do not mention the role that legislative gerrymandering has led to the selection of voters by the elected instead of the selection of the elected by the voters. Nowhere in the article do I see any reference to this or the root article that was behind the first section. The history of the Republican party selecting and designing districts that exclude minority representation or pack them into small districts is a significant part of why our system is not working right now and why there is no competition in the general election. The primary winner is essentially the person who wins in most of these districts which leads to the extreme positions of candidates that does not represent the general public opinion.
I strongly support fusion voting and believe that it could have changed the results of the 2024 presidential election. I suspect that many more of the Independents, who split for Harris 49% to 46%, would have voted for her if they could have done so for the "party" of democracy and otherwise distanced themselves from the damaged – fairly or unfairly - Democrat brand. For the 2026 midterms, could we implement a virtual form of fusion voting by having voters report back to their prodemocracy organizations who they voted for and for which “party”?
Yes PR would bring democracy. By far the most quickly & easily PR to set up & implementat is Party-List. 2/3 of countries use PR, & it’s almost entirely Part-List. Saints-Lague is the unbiased & optimally proportional PR.
But the single-winner Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) would be enough too. (PR for National office would need Constitutional amendment).
RCV would completely eliminate the spoiler-problems for the Mutual-Majority (MM). It always elects from the MM’s preferred-set.
MM:
The major-size group who all prefer some same candidate-set to everyone else.
That’s their preferred set.
Mutual-Majority Criterion (MMC):
The winner should come from the MM’s preferred set.
But yes, Party-List is uniquely quickly, easily, immediately set up & implementated. No new ballot in or counting.
…&, with the count numbers, anyone can do the count by hand-calculator or pencil & paper.
This is excellent information and promising IF any changes could be made. In the current political environment I don't see it changing without first fixing the House of Representatives. One, if not the most important factor in today's extreme partisanship environment that is ALWAYS overlooked: the size of the House of Representatives has been frozen at 435 Members for 115 years. The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 was a piece of bipartisan (Donkeys & Elephants) legislation that fixed the number at 435. Both parties figured out that by freezing it at that number it would virtually eliminate any chance of a 3rd party to compete with them. History shows they are correct. We need to TAKE BACK THE HOUSE and size it up to 1,305 Members. This would immediately reduce the impact of big money, make gerrymandering more difficult, bring PROPER OVERSIGHT by the People (instead of billionaires), give average Americans the chance to run for the House. It does not require a Constitutional amendment/change as all it requires is Congress to pass a new law and the President sign it. PROJECT1305 is coming soon!!! Until WE decide OUR voices must be heard we will continue down the same worn out path.
Everything you say is correct, but you left out the fourth story, which is the foundation for the whole problem. Voters are limited. They are limited by intellect, or they're limited by interest, or both. They can be, and vigorously are, moved by "shiny objects." Our campaign seasons are protracted, and they allow for private money in politics. Money provides exposure, and the voters are extremely susceptible to things like how often they see ads on TV, how many yard signs they see, etc. Every poll I see demonstrates, for example, that a sizeable majority of people polled favor positions promoted by what we could call Democrats. And yet, Republicans win many elections. Even grossly caricaturish Republicans, like Donnie, win elections. Setting aside your point about the distortions in the system -- and you're very right about them -- when people offhandedly say that Elon Musk, for example, bought elections, that's not true. No one can buy an election. What Elon bought was exposure, and the voting public collapsed into mindlessness, and were swayed by how much was exposed to them. One of the reasons for the establishment of the Electoral College was that the Founding Fathers felt that average colonists (new Americans) were limited in their ability to choose wisely. Whether or not Electors did any better, or could do any better, the Founding Fathers were not entirely wrong to take a dim view of the ability of most new Americans to make choices like who would be a better president. Today, of course, the Electors are no better than anyone else, so if we're going to continue to rely on public voting, the least we can do is make sure that every vote counts, and is not collapsed into a winner take all scheme.