An independent movement dedicated to shifting from winner-take-all to proportional representation in legislative elections might be able to resurrect it.
In “first past the post” the voters get a clear and unambiguous signal. An “up” or “down” on the party in power. Proportional representation takes that away and dilutes the mandate. It gives leftist institutions, like the media, first mover power to determine what a compromise coalition will look like. What issues will be dropped (border security and abortion) and what will be kept (climate justice). That’s why leftists hate first past the post and advocate for proportional representation.
We won’t always be so polarized. History shows that leftism always burns itself out, at which point left-liberals and classical liberals pick up the pieces and start building again.
We're back to History, John. The structure of U.S. politics, which Democrat Martin Van Buren created in the 1820s based on rewarding party loyalty/votes with jobs, has been in place now for 200 years. It simply can't change. The single member district/winner take all, you're right, does force voters toward the middle. But history also shows that proportional representation is an even bigger disaster. France has had SEVEN governments in the time we had one.
But the other problem---one for both parties---is that THEY allowed Congress to become entirely irrelevant. Between the "nibble around the edges" people who don't want to solve problems and the "mavericks" like McCain who kept screwing up real reform, just in terms of partisanship and lethargy nothing significant can pass. But the bigger problem is the speed of the world. It simply has moved way past 535 people debating stuff endlessly. The public won't stand for that anymore. That is why Trump appeals to so many---he CAN get past this sclerosis. Now, the Constitutional side of me hates what this has become, but the realist in me says, "Maybe this is what is supposed to happen, given the speed of decision making?"
You're right about Congress abdicating its authority and not keeping up. I do feel people are over only two stale party choices but structural reform is not at all easy for the historical reasons you cite (plus inertia). Would be a generational change.
In “first past the post” the voters get a clear and unambiguous signal. An “up” or “down” on the party in power. Proportional representation takes that away and dilutes the mandate. It gives leftist institutions, like the media, first mover power to determine what a compromise coalition will look like. What issues will be dropped (border security and abortion) and what will be kept (climate justice). That’s why leftists hate first past the post and advocate for proportional representation.
We won’t always be so polarized. History shows that leftism always burns itself out, at which point left-liberals and classical liberals pick up the pieces and start building again.
We're back to History, John. The structure of U.S. politics, which Democrat Martin Van Buren created in the 1820s based on rewarding party loyalty/votes with jobs, has been in place now for 200 years. It simply can't change. The single member district/winner take all, you're right, does force voters toward the middle. But history also shows that proportional representation is an even bigger disaster. France has had SEVEN governments in the time we had one.
But the other problem---one for both parties---is that THEY allowed Congress to become entirely irrelevant. Between the "nibble around the edges" people who don't want to solve problems and the "mavericks" like McCain who kept screwing up real reform, just in terms of partisanship and lethargy nothing significant can pass. But the bigger problem is the speed of the world. It simply has moved way past 535 people debating stuff endlessly. The public won't stand for that anymore. That is why Trump appeals to so many---he CAN get past this sclerosis. Now, the Constitutional side of me hates what this has become, but the realist in me says, "Maybe this is what is supposed to happen, given the speed of decision making?"
You're right about Congress abdicating its authority and not keeping up. I do feel people are over only two stale party choices but structural reform is not at all easy for the historical reasons you cite (plus inertia). Would be a generational change.