Partly agree with this. Trump did indeed inspire millions of “conservative” voters who ordinarily don’t participate in elections to vote for him. Because of their personal admiration for him.
And while Donald did lose GOP voters to Biden, he lost mostly because he inspired record turnout. When it comes to big turnouts, Republican voters are generally outnumbered. They have to outperform percentagewise the Dems.
Even as I write that, though, I recognize that non-affiliated voters are becoming an ever larger portion of the electorate and the traditional definitions of Democrats and Republicans might no longer apply.
Yes, absolutely. I hope and pray that Biden’s success and Trump’s continued backbiting will motivate Democrats and divide Republicans for at least a few months.
“Yes, absolutely. I hope and pray that Biden’s success and Trump’s continued backbiting will motivate Democrats and divide Republicans for at least a few months.”
Let’s hope it gives the Democrats time to find a strong presidential candidate for 2024. When all is said and done, Biden was everybody’s second ro third choice (like Warren Harding) and he is unlikely to run for a second term in view of his age.
I am intrigued by the thought of a Trump party, and what it might do to the GOP. But would it outlive its founder by more than a few minutes? And Our Donald is neither the youngest nor in the best of health.
Even if true, the reason it is true is because that means someone who was your 1st choice is likely someone else’s 5th or 6th choice, and their 1st choice might be your 5th or 6th choice. I don’t see how that improves the situation.
Not true. Joe Biden was my first choice all along, and I don’t think he is anything like Warren Harding, who was a corrupt, know-nothing, political hack and useful idiot who was selected by backroom political operatives for a Senate seat (and later, as a Presidential nominee) because he “looked presidential,” and who is generally regarded as one of the worst presidents in American history. Also, Harding was more like the sixth-choice in the 1920 Republican national convention.
Sure, and after that, let’s abolish war, cure all disease, and ban those little Western saloon doors you find in the changing rooms of all those trendy clothing stores.
That’s interesting that so many of us believe that meaningful election reform is something beyond the country’s grasp. And maybe it is since we appear to have a national legislature that is committed to preventing things that might threaten the big money influence in our elections. I won’t stop tilting at those windmills, though, because I might be convincing a few people to get on the bus.
The frustrating part, as I’m probably not giving you credit for implying, is that the majority of voters would probably welcome and appreciate better election systems. But we can’t even get the Democrats we vote for to give them serious consideration (note: there is pending legislation called the Fair Representation Act, which is pretty righteous – not many takers on the left, though).
This may be my single biggest criticism of the Democratic Party.
I’ve already named two. Approval voting for instances like primaries and ranked choice voting for general elections, to require candidates to earn a majority of the votes and to give third party voters a viable option without the dreaded “throwing their vote away.”
The FRA results in even better representation in states with more than one or two House districts. That one requires single transferable voting and pretty much ends gerrymandering.
The Democrats have an inherent contradiction in where they draw their power from which would be exposed by a multi-party system.
There are too many central issues where their donor base and their voter base are opposed and they manage to keep those to groups under the tent by pitching politics as a process that exists within an unchanging framework that makes it impossible for them to actually give their voter base all of what they want.
They want to live in a world where someone campaigning directly to the voter base is “doing it the wrong way” and FPTP allows them to do that - no one can contest them in a general election on the left side of the spectrum because it would split the vote and hand a win to Republicans. Under the current system they occasionally have to contend with a primary challenge, but in all but very safe seats they can always push to most of their base that they need to vote based on electability in the primaries and then choose the lesser evil in the general and it works often enough that they don’t have to resolve the contradiction. Under any multiparty system (RCV, STV, approval, proportional representation) they can run their candidates in their lane, another party could run a populist campaign on the left and voters favoring one over the other suddenly isn’t a problem in terms of process and the Dems would be forced to actually defend their policies when in office.
“Even if true, the reason it is true is because that means someone who was your 1st choice is likely someone else’s 5th or 6th choice, and their 1st choice might be your 5th or 6th choice. I don’t see how that improves the situation.”
OK, everybody on average. He was the first choice for some, but really he was not exactly the obvious choice until the field thinned out. The Democrats need to find someone with charisma and ability, and is also electable. My guess is that Trump won’t be a candidate, or at any rate not a serious candidate, in 2024, but somebody could well emerge to try to pick up his voter base using much the same tactics.
Not that I want to put Biden down, I am hugely relieved that he got in, but it was a damn close-run thing, as somebody once said. While the media are already sniping at him, he should do a decent job. Another Gerald Ford? I know he got mocked, but he was an OK if uninspiring prez.
If the Ds have this problem to degree X, the Rs have it to degree about 3x.
Which doesn’t make what you said false, but points out that reforming the actual elections, rather than just the parties’ respective primary elections, is a non-starter. Or at least is a non-starter if the goal is to drive towards a a more multi-party system.
STV really doesn’t do that. It opens the door the tiniest of cracks. And provides useful feedback to the Big 2 parties about which way they could trim their platforms to gather more enthusiasts to directly support them, rather than grudgingly supporting them as a second or third choice after Oddball Party A or Oddball Party B.
FPTP definitely benefits both parties. I’d say the Democrats have more of an issue with resolving contractions between what their voters want and what their donors want - as an example the GOP has generally convinced their own voters that a lot of economic policies like cutting regulations on businesses and lowering tax on people richer then them is good for them. I would also say that I think it’s true that RCV or approval voting would probably result in the two main parties still winning almost everything and having all the power, but even that would be a threat to individual figures in the parties who have succeeded under the current paradigm (which is obviously going to be a problem for any shift in election system).
Also I’d say STV is better than RCV for the legislatures because a party can represent a district without a majority in the final runoff. I think the big issue with ranked choice with single-member districts is that parties that have never been in government have a huge hurdle to make it, and they need to cross that before they can prove their ideas to voters. STV allows for a better chance that a minority party can be a kingmaker in the legislature, and then if they do a good job with their initial foothold, can get stronger.
I think this discussion is sort of irrelevant because convincing Americans to even accept RCV is enough of a hurdle and anything more complex than that is not going to happen for a while.
Huh, I didn’t realize until trying to understand your post that STV and RCV actually mean different things. Now I know why STV has “single” in its name - it’s basically the same as RCV but is designed for mutli-member districts, where a voter can put all the candidates they like on their preference list, but only gets one actual vote that counts towards electing multiple people. If their vote isn’t needed to elect their first choice, it transfers to their second choice, whereas the concept of “not needed” doesn’t apply to RCV since there’s only one person being elected.