Well written! IMPO, alot of our polarization is due the centralization we've undergone since the the 1970s (that began, after a big bump in some areas but then slowly at first in the 1930s, and really got to us being very, very policy centralized across most social AND material (econ, monetary, fiscal) areas by the late 1990s) which has made so much of politics not only all or nothing but even most of those who "win" because their candidate did can't really ever have their policy preferences realized in most all policy areas because at best isnt some sort conceptual average of a great many highly variable areas of the country each with their own situations. You may have touched on this a but when you mentioned delegations for metro areas, well, way back in the days metro areas set most of the policy in their areas and were responsible for most of the tax/spending in their areas as well
I was initially confused by your language around polarization and centralization, but now think I understand you to mean that our continued political polarization across a spectrum from Right to Left (Red to Blue) occurred as we increased the policy and action areas that the federal government centralized at a national level, in contrast to the Founder's expectations of how federalism would constrain national policies to a few areas of national concern and retain state level management of most police and other powers. Is that your meaning? :-)
Hi ssri, thanks for the reply! Pretty much, yeah. But I would stress that it was both the centralization of the public sector and the private sector. Two books (that I can think of right now, at least) that sum it all up pretty well, in general and with some errors in them and some off takes in them, are ‘The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States’ by Theodore Lowi and ‘The Transformation of American Capitalism: From Competitive Market Structures to Centralized Private Sector Planning’ by John Munkirs
Florida now has 28 congressional House seats. We gained one via the last census.
Possibly at the expense of NY?
A lot of different ideas presented here. Some of them I may be resistant to just because they are new to me or I don't fully understand their projected impact - good or bad from my preferred viewpoint. This will require a re-read to fully understand.
But in the principle of caution in removing Chesterton's Fence, let me suggest at least this comment needs deeper debate: "This maintains the Electoral College while diminishing its distortions of the popular vote. " But the electoral college was explicitly designed to put selecting the President (a potential proto king if he was not constrained wisely and properly) at some distance from the "popular" [ possibly mob based or passion oriented] voters. The electors were to be selected at least in part for their sagacity, etc. , and were "of the people" but "separate from the 'people' ".
[And of course similarly for election of senators via state legislatures, which the 17th Amendment compromised.]
On rank choice voting, I understand some people favor this as a way to avoid the time and cost of a run off election. I find that argument to be a poor one. Another issue (if I understand it correctly) is that sometimes it can lead to selecting candidates not really favored as the top one or two across the total candidate field, so some rather mediocre candidate ends up taking the final "win".
Great article and interesting proposals. Unfortunately, not happening. Democrats need to focus on economic issues with universal appeal and figure out how to compete everywhere under the current system and not leave 1/3 or more of the country uncontested.
Obviously, I am not predicting that all or even most of my proposals will be implemented, but do not underestimate the frustration of the American people on the current political system and the ability to reform the process via state-level initiative.
Rank choice voting has slowly been expanding while getting relatively little media exposure. A form of it has been implemented in three states (Alaska, Maine and in some elections in Hawaii), and it is currently on the ballot in Idaho. If this trend continues, we may hit a tipping point where people start to take the idea seriously.
While Republicans need to focus on reestablishing an emphasis on liberty and freedom, coupled to addressing taking responsibility and avoiding "license", and figure out how to compete everywhere under the current system and not leave 1/3 or more of the country uncontested. And when it comes to economic issues with "universal appeal", it must be further emphasized that most such appeals are nothing more than "something for nothing" and have failed long term anywhere and everywhere they are promoted or tried.
But as the Founders were wont to point out many times, a government by consent of the sovereign people requires most of those people to have both individual and social virtue for the system to work long term. This seems to have occurred mostly as our earlier educational system and content converted from one oriented to educating our children to one intent on indoctrinating them instead. Over the decades those children are now "elite" adults in positions of authority and control, but with less virtue (or wisdom) that we might hope for.
Idea: form a new party, or ideally three, inside the existing Democratic Party. Form a national party, defined by a common goal, to contest the Democratic Party nomination spots. (Could also apply to the Republican Party too, but would probably be harder to pull off.)
E.g.: an example using 2020 figures. Sanders leads a socialist party to contest the Democratic nomination spots; Buttigieg leads a liberal party; Biden leads a conservative party. These parties are fixed and survive across electoral cycles. They have closed nomination cycles themselves and are fully controlled by insiders (as is normal throughout the world).
With greater and clearer choices inside the Dem tent it wouldn't take long for the Republicans to whither away into irrelevancy. Eventually you would have privatised elections in the US as a "Democrat" would always win, albeit of the socialist, liberal, or conservative sub-party variety. There is no longer any need to care about what the constitution says as the Democratic leadership, made up of representatives from each sub-party, would be able to make up whatever rules are suitable.
A de facto one-party system where Biden is the conservative and “there is no longer any need to care about what the constitution says” and on party “would be able to make up whatever rules are suitable.”
No thank you. We have a word for that: dictatorship.
Well written! IMPO, alot of our polarization is due the centralization we've undergone since the the 1970s (that began, after a big bump in some areas but then slowly at first in the 1930s, and really got to us being very, very policy centralized across most social AND material (econ, monetary, fiscal) areas by the late 1990s) which has made so much of politics not only all or nothing but even most of those who "win" because their candidate did can't really ever have their policy preferences realized in most all policy areas because at best isnt some sort conceptual average of a great many highly variable areas of the country each with their own situations. You may have touched on this a but when you mentioned delegations for metro areas, well, way back in the days metro areas set most of the policy in their areas and were responsible for most of the tax/spending in their areas as well
I was initially confused by your language around polarization and centralization, but now think I understand you to mean that our continued political polarization across a spectrum from Right to Left (Red to Blue) occurred as we increased the policy and action areas that the federal government centralized at a national level, in contrast to the Founder's expectations of how federalism would constrain national policies to a few areas of national concern and retain state level management of most police and other powers. Is that your meaning? :-)
Hi ssri, thanks for the reply! Pretty much, yeah. But I would stress that it was both the centralization of the public sector and the private sector. Two books (that I can think of right now, at least) that sum it all up pretty well, in general and with some errors in them and some off takes in them, are ‘The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States’ by Theodore Lowi and ‘The Transformation of American Capitalism: From Competitive Market Structures to Centralized Private Sector Planning’ by John Munkirs
I hope your having a nice afternoon.
—Mike
Florida now has 28 congressional House seats. We gained one via the last census.
Possibly at the expense of NY?
A lot of different ideas presented here. Some of them I may be resistant to just because they are new to me or I don't fully understand their projected impact - good or bad from my preferred viewpoint. This will require a re-read to fully understand.
But in the principle of caution in removing Chesterton's Fence, let me suggest at least this comment needs deeper debate: "This maintains the Electoral College while diminishing its distortions of the popular vote. " But the electoral college was explicitly designed to put selecting the President (a potential proto king if he was not constrained wisely and properly) at some distance from the "popular" [ possibly mob based or passion oriented] voters. The electors were to be selected at least in part for their sagacity, etc. , and were "of the people" but "separate from the 'people' ".
[And of course similarly for election of senators via state legislatures, which the 17th Amendment compromised.]
On rank choice voting, I understand some people favor this as a way to avoid the time and cost of a run off election. I find that argument to be a poor one. Another issue (if I understand it correctly) is that sometimes it can lead to selecting candidates not really favored as the top one or two across the total candidate field, so some rather mediocre candidate ends up taking the final "win".
Great article and interesting proposals. Unfortunately, not happening. Democrats need to focus on economic issues with universal appeal and figure out how to compete everywhere under the current system and not leave 1/3 or more of the country uncontested.
Thanks for the comment.
Obviously, I am not predicting that all or even most of my proposals will be implemented, but do not underestimate the frustration of the American people on the current political system and the ability to reform the process via state-level initiative.
Rank choice voting has slowly been expanding while getting relatively little media exposure. A form of it has been implemented in three states (Alaska, Maine and in some elections in Hawaii), and it is currently on the ballot in Idaho. If this trend continues, we may hit a tipping point where people start to take the idea seriously.
https://ballotpedia.org/Idaho_Proposition_1,_Top-Four_Ranked-Choice_Voting_Initiative_(2024)
While Republicans need to focus on reestablishing an emphasis on liberty and freedom, coupled to addressing taking responsibility and avoiding "license", and figure out how to compete everywhere under the current system and not leave 1/3 or more of the country uncontested. And when it comes to economic issues with "universal appeal", it must be further emphasized that most such appeals are nothing more than "something for nothing" and have failed long term anywhere and everywhere they are promoted or tried.
But as the Founders were wont to point out many times, a government by consent of the sovereign people requires most of those people to have both individual and social virtue for the system to work long term. This seems to have occurred mostly as our earlier educational system and content converted from one oriented to educating our children to one intent on indoctrinating them instead. Over the decades those children are now "elite" adults in positions of authority and control, but with less virtue (or wisdom) that we might hope for.
Idea: form a new party, or ideally three, inside the existing Democratic Party. Form a national party, defined by a common goal, to contest the Democratic Party nomination spots. (Could also apply to the Republican Party too, but would probably be harder to pull off.)
E.g.: an example using 2020 figures. Sanders leads a socialist party to contest the Democratic nomination spots; Buttigieg leads a liberal party; Biden leads a conservative party. These parties are fixed and survive across electoral cycles. They have closed nomination cycles themselves and are fully controlled by insiders (as is normal throughout the world).
With greater and clearer choices inside the Dem tent it wouldn't take long for the Republicans to whither away into irrelevancy. Eventually you would have privatised elections in the US as a "Democrat" would always win, albeit of the socialist, liberal, or conservative sub-party variety. There is no longer any need to care about what the constitution says as the Democratic leadership, made up of representatives from each sub-party, would be able to make up whatever rules are suitable.
A de facto one-party system where Biden is the conservative and “there is no longer any need to care about what the constitution says” and on party “would be able to make up whatever rules are suitable.”
No thank you. We have a word for that: dictatorship.