Jungle primaries; campaign funding limited to monies raised from citizens of the State of election or operating companies domiciled therein; runoff elections if the “winner” does not attain 50%+1.
This argument targets the freedom of choice in democratic elections rather than the ultimate purpose of those elections. The true purpose of elections in a free society is to help cohere that society under a set of organizational principles and institutions. Organizational efficacy is how we maintain and defend our freedoms, hence the logic of our US political system. The purpose is not to make every citizen happy with every result-an impossibility. And promoting the idea that every citizen in a democracy has infinite freedom of political choice is a fallacy that destroys any hope of civil cohesion. It's akin to thinking I only have to obey the laws I voted for.
For real world data supporting this point, look at the world's 10 largest democracies: the only functional ones that serve the greater public good of expansive political and economic freedoms are the USA and Japan - and the comparison of these two is not even valid. The USA, along with India and Indonesia, are the 3 largest populated, most ethnically diverse, and most geographically dispersed democracies in history. How do the political organizations of these three stack up against each other? That's a rhetorical question.
So, how does the most successful large democracy in history maintain its stability and cohesion? By forcing its diverse population to prioritize political preferences and converge on a workable mandate for governance in defense of individual freedom and justice. Reducing political preferences down to a dichotomous choice has the best chance of achieving an acceptable mandate because 3rd and 4th and 5th level priorities must be discarded in order to forge workable policies. The two-party system, for all its detriments, forces convergence and that's why the USA has not fractured into a disastrous Tower of political Babel. That's why our institutions of the Senate, Electoral College, dominant 2-party system, Federalism, and electoral rules are critical to the longevity and stability of US political democracy.
Under this simple convergence strategy, we still have infinite choices of how to influence the trajectory of these parties. We have seen this at work as the party platforms and constituencies evolve over time. To destroy this system so that everybody can feel good about themselves and their voting options is to destroy the very foundations of our freedoms. This simple fact is so under-appreciated in this age of cultural self-indulgence.
That’s a bit hyperbolic. Allowing Americans to have more choices about political parties in legislative elections, something they clearly desire, would not destroy the foundations of America. Voting for an independent or third party will not end the republic. There would just be more inter-party bargaining. There is nothing constitutional about the permanence of Democrats and Republicans. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about the two parties. The reason the U.S. is relatively stable compared to other nations is the constitutional design itself — separation of powers, checks and balances, the Bill of Rights, and the difficulty of amending the document.
Yes! Very erudite message. Writing as a proud independent from the The Old North State.
Many thanks, and good on you!
The two parties have set themselves up to be invincible. It will take more than just frustrated voters to take down the two parties.
Jungle primaries; campaign funding limited to monies raised from citizens of the State of election or operating companies domiciled therein; runoff elections if the “winner” does not attain 50%+1.
This argument targets the freedom of choice in democratic elections rather than the ultimate purpose of those elections. The true purpose of elections in a free society is to help cohere that society under a set of organizational principles and institutions. Organizational efficacy is how we maintain and defend our freedoms, hence the logic of our US political system. The purpose is not to make every citizen happy with every result-an impossibility. And promoting the idea that every citizen in a democracy has infinite freedom of political choice is a fallacy that destroys any hope of civil cohesion. It's akin to thinking I only have to obey the laws I voted for.
For real world data supporting this point, look at the world's 10 largest democracies: the only functional ones that serve the greater public good of expansive political and economic freedoms are the USA and Japan - and the comparison of these two is not even valid. The USA, along with India and Indonesia, are the 3 largest populated, most ethnically diverse, and most geographically dispersed democracies in history. How do the political organizations of these three stack up against each other? That's a rhetorical question.
So, how does the most successful large democracy in history maintain its stability and cohesion? By forcing its diverse population to prioritize political preferences and converge on a workable mandate for governance in defense of individual freedom and justice. Reducing political preferences down to a dichotomous choice has the best chance of achieving an acceptable mandate because 3rd and 4th and 5th level priorities must be discarded in order to forge workable policies. The two-party system, for all its detriments, forces convergence and that's why the USA has not fractured into a disastrous Tower of political Babel. That's why our institutions of the Senate, Electoral College, dominant 2-party system, Federalism, and electoral rules are critical to the longevity and stability of US political democracy.
Under this simple convergence strategy, we still have infinite choices of how to influence the trajectory of these parties. We have seen this at work as the party platforms and constituencies evolve over time. To destroy this system so that everybody can feel good about themselves and their voting options is to destroy the very foundations of our freedoms. This simple fact is so under-appreciated in this age of cultural self-indulgence.
That’s a bit hyperbolic. Allowing Americans to have more choices about political parties in legislative elections, something they clearly desire, would not destroy the foundations of America. Voting for an independent or third party will not end the republic. There would just be more inter-party bargaining. There is nothing constitutional about the permanence of Democrats and Republicans. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about the two parties. The reason the U.S. is relatively stable compared to other nations is the constitutional design itself — separation of powers, checks and balances, the Bill of Rights, and the difficulty of amending the document.