Ranked choice voting is a complementary change that can allow moderates or "third" party candidates to sometimes prevail.
That said, I've also endorsed "negative voting". In addition to the choice to vote for someone, one can cast a negative vote against someone. This would allow other candidates selling a positive message to prevail against polarizing candidates.
I heartily agree that Ranked Choice Voting could help elect more moderate candidates. And it's NOT complicated to understand, as some of its critics claim.
Fusion voting seems more complicated to me, but either one would be an improvement over the ossified and exclusionary system we have now.
Problem: A candidate like Josh Hawley pretends to cross both party lines and then with mea culpas votes strait MAGA after. Inthat case fusion voting accomplished nothing good. worse that outcome invites other false bad faith candidates.
How does this compare with, or fit together with Ranked Choice Voting, which also helps give more power to each vote and rewards those candidates with broader appeal.
Like a lot of things, it sounds good but I can't think of any Republicans that I agree with enough to overlook the things that I don't. Those who occasionally vote against party legislation are usually convinced (bribed or threatened) to reverse on revotes. The basic Republican philosophy, even before Trump, is that what is good for big business and the wealthy is good for everyone, "the rising tide" and all that. Democratic philosophy is the reverse. Unfortunately, neither party does enough for the most vulnerable in our society and THAT is bad for everyone.
So I have way more in common with the typical Dem candidate even when they often fall short when elected. It would take a major sea change before I could see my way to embracing/trusting a conservative candidate.
If we are talking pie-in-the-sky here I would prefer to start with major campaign financing reform. A reasonable and uniform campaign spending limit, per candidate, could encourage candidates who may not be able to fund a campaign competitively otherwise. A sharp limit to PAC spending would also help level the playing field. Unfortunately these days, campaign spending control is almost as touchy and unattainable as gun control. Thanks to the SC for both problems.
Interesting concept, but who can believe a politician who claims to want to govern from the center? Republicans have been lied to too many times. I'm not saying Democrats are perfect, but I don't understand why people can't realize they represent the ideals of our founding fathers and steering always to that more perfect union. The Republicans want to burn it all down.
I want bullet points of Fusion voting on my desk Monday morning.
Please number the points so as to better work with them.
Please arrange for a compulsory meeting for all 50 state governors. They should be prepared to respond to these changes efficiently and effectively. Refer those who cannot to me.
Please have on my desk the packet to be distributed to all 50 Governors by no later than tomorrow. Contact our printer on the changes made so they can have the packets ready Monday.
Refer Governors unable to attend to myself. I will handle them.
Fusion voting will become the "law of the land" on Monday. Have those with problems on this to see me.
Do you mean Robert Lastick, the guy who wrote the comment above? If so, no idea, sorry. I tried to look him up on DuckDuckGo and there are several of them, but the only promising one is on Facebook. That's where my search ended, because I am not on any social media.
Fusion sounds like a good option, however the discussion would be strengthened by presenting fusion voting vs ranked choice vs open primary with their relative impacts upon the degree of polarization and voter satisfaction against the present 2 party primary system used in most states. We have sufficient states with variations in election processes that sufficient data should likely exist to provide a reasoned objective comparison rather than a subjective opinion even when expert based.
"A Common Sense Party voter who supports a moderate Democrat for Congress over a MAGA fire-breather or a moderate Republican over a purity-at-all-costs Democrat is being smart, not wishy-washy."
This is where you lost me. There are no "moderate" Republicans in a MAGA-ified party. No matter their personal views, their election gives power to the overall party which has been taken over by MAGA. Supposedly normal republicans like Murkowski, Collins, Thune, Cassidy, and the entire House have confirmed every one of trump's unfit dangerous nominees and even now are working out "nuclear" ways to give him even more power and speed up more terrible confirmations. All republicans at all levels have completely sold us out, there seems no line they will not cross. Until the party shifts no one in the republican party can be trusted with power.
This idea is certainly worth exploring. I think a large interest group could certainly exert influence on either party in the primary process, which seems to be broken in that there seems to be pressure to select candidates at the the more extreme ends of the spectrum. I think most of us do not find ourselves in those spaces and might find a home in a fusion environment. Millard
Ranked choice voting is a complementary change that can allow moderates or "third" party candidates to sometimes prevail.
That said, I've also endorsed "negative voting". In addition to the choice to vote for someone, one can cast a negative vote against someone. This would allow other candidates selling a positive message to prevail against polarizing candidates.
I heartily agree that Ranked Choice Voting could help elect more moderate candidates. And it's NOT complicated to understand, as some of its critics claim.
Fusion voting seems more complicated to me, but either one would be an improvement over the ossified and exclusionary system we have now.
Problem: A candidate like Josh Hawley pretends to cross both party lines and then with mea culpas votes strait MAGA after. Inthat case fusion voting accomplished nothing good. worse that outcome invites other false bad faith candidates.
As is in my memo, (see above), please have all (like Josh Howaly) see me on this.
Thanks,
Bob.
Seems to me that ranked-choice voting can accomplish the same thing, perhaps more effectively
I think Ranked Choice Voting is a far better solution.
How does this compare with, or fit together with Ranked Choice Voting, which also helps give more power to each vote and rewards those candidates with broader appeal.
Like a lot of things, it sounds good but I can't think of any Republicans that I agree with enough to overlook the things that I don't. Those who occasionally vote against party legislation are usually convinced (bribed or threatened) to reverse on revotes. The basic Republican philosophy, even before Trump, is that what is good for big business and the wealthy is good for everyone, "the rising tide" and all that. Democratic philosophy is the reverse. Unfortunately, neither party does enough for the most vulnerable in our society and THAT is bad for everyone.
So I have way more in common with the typical Dem candidate even when they often fall short when elected. It would take a major sea change before I could see my way to embracing/trusting a conservative candidate.
If we are talking pie-in-the-sky here I would prefer to start with major campaign financing reform. A reasonable and uniform campaign spending limit, per candidate, could encourage candidates who may not be able to fund a campaign competitively otherwise. A sharp limit to PAC spending would also help level the playing field. Unfortunately these days, campaign spending control is almost as touchy and unattainable as gun control. Thanks to the SC for both problems.
Interesting concept, but who can believe a politician who claims to want to govern from the center? Republicans have been lied to too many times. I'm not saying Democrats are perfect, but I don't understand why people can't realize they represent the ideals of our founding fathers and steering always to that more perfect union. The Republicans want to burn it all down.
Good thinking, Lee;
I want bullet points of Fusion voting on my desk Monday morning.
Please number the points so as to better work with them.
Please arrange for a compulsory meeting for all 50 state governors. They should be prepared to respond to these changes efficiently and effectively. Refer those who cannot to me.
Please have on my desk the packet to be distributed to all 50 Governors by no later than tomorrow. Contact our printer on the changes made so they can have the packets ready Monday.
Refer Governors unable to attend to myself. I will handle them.
Fusion voting will become the "law of the land" on Monday. Have those with problems on this to see me.
Thank you,
Bob.
Who is Lee?
Lee wrote the column.
Big dark money seems to be the problem here. Read Robert Reich's column on American oligarchs and corporations.
If we live by the dollar it seems we will surely die by the dollar!
The author of the article.
Oh thanks.. I must have been sleeping with my eyes open. 😄
You’re good, I had to go look for it. 😊
Do you know who Robert Lisack (sp?) is?
Do you mean Robert Lastick, the guy who wrote the comment above? If so, no idea, sorry. I tried to look him up on DuckDuckGo and there are several of them, but the only promising one is on Facebook. That's where my search ended, because I am not on any social media.
I had the same issue. Haha.
Did it sound wonky to you?
Makes a lot of sense. The two party system is broken.
Fusion sounds like a good option, however the discussion would be strengthened by presenting fusion voting vs ranked choice vs open primary with their relative impacts upon the degree of polarization and voter satisfaction against the present 2 party primary system used in most states. We have sufficient states with variations in election processes that sufficient data should likely exist to provide a reasoned objective comparison rather than a subjective opinion even when expert based.
"A Common Sense Party voter who supports a moderate Democrat for Congress over a MAGA fire-breather or a moderate Republican over a purity-at-all-costs Democrat is being smart, not wishy-washy."
This is where you lost me. There are no "moderate" Republicans in a MAGA-ified party. No matter their personal views, their election gives power to the overall party which has been taken over by MAGA. Supposedly normal republicans like Murkowski, Collins, Thune, Cassidy, and the entire House have confirmed every one of trump's unfit dangerous nominees and even now are working out "nuclear" ways to give him even more power and speed up more terrible confirmations. All republicans at all levels have completely sold us out, there seems no line they will not cross. Until the party shifts no one in the republican party can be trusted with power.
This idea is certainly worth exploring. I think a large interest group could certainly exert influence on either party in the primary process, which seems to be broken in that there seems to be pressure to select candidates at the the more extreme ends of the spectrum. I think most of us do not find ourselves in those spaces and might find a home in a fusion environment. Millard
How is fusion voting meaningfully different from endorsement?