![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alyaza[...]if we want to have more parties, we have to understand that it’s the institutions that give us our party system. We need electoral reforms that make it possible for third parties to compete without being spoilers.
Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America, Lee Drutman
what i just quoted to you probably seems really fucking obvious. it does to me: the American political system is fundamentally broken and minoritarian, and electoral reform will be necessary in order for there to ever be meaningful choices in most of our elections. i am currently a partisan Democrat by vote and will probably vote for Kamala Harris in November1—but i would quite like if this was not the case given that i am a socialist. this party is a tent i am in because of our bad institutions, not because i want to actually be here.
luckily, this year Colorado gets to vote on Proposition 131 (or Initiative 310) - a top-four ranked-choice voting initiative. i have many disagreements with this sort of electoral reform (and i think it's, in electoral reform terms, a fairly meager reform), and the guy pushing it is some annoying center-right "moderate" who Doesn't Agree With Either of the Parties—but i will be voting for it. a step forward is a step forward, and this is obviously an improvement on the existing system. more importantly: top-four has strong potential for left-wing third parties, especially if coupled with liberal ballot access laws. i have argued previously that Alaska is now the most compelling state to attempt to build a socialist third party in because of its electoral system, and Colorado (which already has/had a number of Democratic-caucusing socialists in its legislature) could become a very compelling state for third parties too with this system. that would be pretty cool to me, personally.
unfortunately, the Green Party of Colorado does not seem to agree with this assessment or even the basic possibility of third parties being advantaged by such a system.
in their judgement, it is primarily bad to do electoral reform like this because it is not their preferred electoral reform. they argue that we should instead be "using RCV to elect our state and federal representatives by proportional representation from multi-seat legislative districts." and yes, that is agreeable—i support a single-transferrable vote system (which, if anyone's wondering, is what "multi-winner RCV" is.). but i have no idea how that actually conflicts with passing Proposition 131, or why the Green Party thinks "we should use an even better system" is a compelling argument for voting against something that would improve the system marginally.
the assertions that changing to this system would "make primary elections more expensive — increasing the role of big money in our elections and further corrupting our democracy" are plainly goofy. "big money" is already entrenched in our elections—there is basically no way to make this "worse". and how does this not already happen in FPTP? if anything it's worse in an FPTP system because "big money" can win a plurality instead of needing a majority—often the biggest spender in a clown-car FPTP race is the one who wins. AIPAC (the "American Israel Public Affairs Committee" - a big pro-Israel lobbying and spending group) in particular has made mincemeat of federal-level open primaries this year, and that's because they can throw millions of dollars into races of that sort and skate to victory with 30% or 40% of the vote. at least in ranked-choice, groups like this would be obliged to win over supporters of other candidates and not merely buy their way to victory. (candidates could also meaningfully strategize against this by engaging in ranking agreements.)
and i just frankly don't know what to say about the notion that a top-four primary is comparably "anti-democratic" to FPTP, as the Greens insinuate. i would agree if the number of slots for advancing to the general election was two, as in California and Washington (in the latter, Democrats combined for ~56% of the vote in the Land Commissioner race this year, but nearly got locked out because it was split between 5 candidates). but if, say, three or four Republicans advance in a top-four primary, that's probably because people actually want three or four Republicans. a lot of races in Alaska this year (and likewise in 2022) don't even have four candidates running, so there is no real risk of one party being "unfairly" locked out of the general election if they put up even a token candidate. many of those four-candidate races are only four candidate races in the first place because a third party candidate filed. and lastly: Alaska has demonstrated that voter preferences are largely identical between the primary and the general election in a system like this. in blunt terms, a candidate that fails to make the top-four is neither likely to win nor influence the outcome—it's probably fine if they're not on a general election ballot.2
in short: i don't agree at all with the Greens, and i think this is an almost-textbook example of them shooting themselves in the foot. but maybe i shouldn't be surprised: this is a party which has barely run any candidates since 2018 and seems moribund outside of reviving itself every four years to get the Green presidential nominee on the ballot. and unfortunately goofy goober decisionmaking like this is seemingly emblematic of third parties generally in this country. until they aren't (or unless their judgement is correctly overriden by voters and they get over themselves), i suspect i will begrudgingly remain a partisan Democrat by vote. (medium term party surrogate model my beloved)
what i'm reading (42/40)
i have unfortunately made zero progress on Kochland, but i hope to begin that again tomorrow. i have been reading a few news articles in preparation for what will likely be the first Cohost Union News post tomorrow, though. no spoilers!
converted essay of the day
today's essay is Just How Bad The Antifa Wildfire Panic Got In Rural Oregon in 2020, a post i wrote in May of 2023. this is one where i've preserved the imagery by Devin Eskew and other photojournalists because it's something that i think needs visual accompanyment. the story is in part that people in rural Oregon were so fearful of the enemy within—this faceless, amorphous idea of "antifa" far divorced from anything the left uses the term to mean—that they took to roadblocks and menacing journalists and passersby. the fear was pervasive and all-encompassing; it did not discriminate on class or occupational grounds. randoms who just wanted to save their houses were as in on it as the deputies of the police department. the hysteria was so severe that it necessitated pushback from law enforcement agencies, journalists, and the government itself. it was the worst a crisis situation has to offer and—not to alarm anyone—maybe it's one sign of a future to come in the Western US.
notes
1 it's really only Cornel West who i am otherwise considering and--regrettably--even Cornel has been up to some real corny shit this year, so i'm not actually very enthralled with his candidacy. the PSL candidates are write-in this year, so that seems pointless (in addition to propping up a party i have some real issues with personally and strategically). and the less said about Jill Stein the better—she really makes me wish that Murray Bookchin had gotten his wish to make the Greens an "anti-party" party.
2 as an extreme example: the original fourth-place Republican for Alaska's at-large House of Representatives district this year got 652 votes. the Democrat replacing him (because said Republican dropped out) is literally in a federal prison outside of Alaska and got 467 votes.
no subject
Date: 2024-09-15 02:14 am (UTC)i really appreciate your takes- both on politics and in general, by the way, i was meaning to tell you this on cohost but i feel like you have a lot of perspective on things built on, like, both practicality and idealism. it's very swag imo. i hope someday i'll have enough knowledge to fully understand the politics you write about
no subject
Date: 2024-09-15 02:58 am (UTC)yeah it's curious too because Massachusetts is the sort of place you'd expect it to pass--but i think a lot of people probably just didn't care much for electoral reform when it came up for a vote. maybe if it was on the ballot this year it'd pass, idk.
funny enough here it's an open question of, if this initiative passes, when it'd actually apply. there's a weird state law snafu where you--to simplify a bit--can't use RCV statewide without several jurisdictions "studying" it and affirming it first. so although our current governor is willing to try and accommodate the result, it seems really unlikely it'll start applying in 2026 (when it's intended to). but he's term-limited in 2026, so maybe his successor will blow it up.
(i'm generally confident though that if it passes, eventually the changeover will happen. and i'm content with that)
no subject
Date: 2024-09-15 03:13 am (UTC)