8 ms·

There needs to be public funding of elections. That would go a long way. If we really want reform, the system should be changed from a first-past-the-post pres

There needs to be public funding of elections. That would go a long way. If we really want reform, the system should be changed from a first-past-the-post presidential system to a parliamentary system with party-list proportional representation. Neither system is perfect, but the latter captures a wider range of views within society. Germany is a stable constitutional federal republic with proportional representation and power vested in the Bundestag. No reason why the US can't have the same.

ianeigorndua 2y ago
Lol, Germany was bought and paid for decades ago and the party with the most political power is the Hells Angels. They even got their rivals federally banned, even though they are not!
- pc86 2y ago
  This comment reads like LLM-generated text, but like... a pretty old version where it's basically MCMC text generation.
  - ianeigorndua 2y ago
    You read like a HAMC damage control bot. I am sick of being lorded over by criminals hiding in plain sight, it is why the economy sucks. They are sucking on it like leeches.
    - pc86 2y ago
      What is HAMC in this context?
      - ianeigorndua 2y ago
        Google it
mullingitover 2y ago
> No reason why the US can't have the same. There's one big reason the US can't have the same: the ruling class don't want it. This isn't some gordian knot. We could have it tomorrow if the ruling class had their feet held to the fire. The fact that we don't is a result of the system working exactly as intended. The richest person in the world is out in broad daylight shoveling bribes to voters as fast as he can transfer the money, and not only is he not getting arrested, he never will be. It's a dark subsection of a very dark chapter.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ryandrake 2y ago
  A person who can't even legally own a gun due to his status as a felon is about to become commander and chief of the military. "Dark subsection" is pretty mild.
  - gottorf 2y ago
    The commander-in-chief isn't leading a charge at the front lines, so whether or not he can legally own a gun has no bearing; otherwise, we'd have to demand that every elected official has direct, hands-on experience in everything that they legislate, regulate, or judge. Well, perhaps that wouldn't be so horrible, after all... I personally find the way he came to be a felon to be a darker subsection, but your mileage may vary, of course.
    - anigbrowl 2y ago
      What you are missing about the analogy is that the US military is effectively the largest gun on the planet.
      - gottorf 2y ago
        I assume your point is that a felony conviction is evidence of an unsound mind that justifies prohibiting someone from owning a firearm, and that this translates to leading our military. The analogy falls apart if said felony conviction is unjust or otherwise has no bearing on one's ability to lead the military. By and large, American voters think so, with two-thirds of those polled thinking that what he was convicted of is a nothingburger[0]. [0]: https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-indictment-hush-money-poll-b3d9a555993faf22e6ebfaf798bfbd2b https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-indictment-hush-money...
BobaFloutist 2y ago
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has been systematically attacking all attempts to limit private campaign finance, including public funding. In 2011, in Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett, they ruled that a program that Arizona established which would give campaigns that opted out of private financing public financing matching their competitors financing infringed on the First Amendment speech rights of the privately financed campaign. That's right, matching private campaign spending with public funding violates the free speech of the privately funded campaign, because it removes their advantage. The solution to campaign finance needs to start and end with court reform, or it's DOA.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- samatman 2y ago
  That was a good decision, because the rule creates a negative responsiveness paradox. Spending money to support your preferred candidate should not make opposing candidates stronger. That was the effect of Arizona's rule: money spent to promote a candidate was matched by free public money, which the opposing candidate did not have exert any effort to obtain. Good voting systems minimize this effect. The US first-past-the-post system is not a good voting system, but that's no excuse for making it worse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_responsiveness_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_responsiveness_parado...
  - cbsks 2y ago
    Why should money be involved in supporting a candidate? Doesn’t the democratic action of voting do that?
    - pc86 2y ago
      Yard signs, phone calls, websites, GOTV operations, consultants, debates, mailers, all of these things cost money. The current system requires you to appeal to donors with a winning message to get contributions to pay for these. Who decides which candidates get limited public funds? Are you just going to split it equally between whoever runs? Why should the public pay for fringe campaigns that won't get any votes?
Animats 2y ago
We have public funding of presidential elections in the US.[1] The last year in which a major candidate accepted it was 2008, because it comes with limits on fund-raising. [1] https://www.fec.gov/introduction-campaign-finance/understanding-ways-support-federal-candidates/presidential-elections/public-funding-presidential-elections/ https://www.fec.gov/introduction-campaign-finance/understand...
keybored 2y ago
Sortition.
- giardini 2y ago
  Fascinating! I've never hear of sortition. Likely zero chance of implementation in USA but also surprising that the founding fathers of the the USA apparently avoided serious consideration. Seems they may have dropped the ball on this problem: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/iw1t1h/did_the_founding_fathers_consider_sortition/?rdt=50216 https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/iw1t1h/did_t...
citrin_ru 2y ago
Proportional representation is prone to a grid lock and fragmentation. A ranked choice looks like a good option in the situation when you don't like both major candidates (or parties) and would like to vote for 3rd one but with first-past-the-post you vote will be wasted unless you will vote for one of two the most popular candidates.
- aldonius 2y ago
  Most of the issue with PR is when your assembly has to select an executive. But the US has a very powerful executive (the President) which sidesteps the problem. The US House of Reps could be multi party PR without any big issues (well, they might need to switch to a "last year's budget is this year's budge unless we vote to change it" model).
cco 2y ago
> Germany is a stable constitutional federal republic with proportional representation and power vested in the Bundestag. No reason why the US can't have the same. The government of the United States is both far older than Germany's Bundestag and has been far more stable over that time. I'm not explicitly arguing one way or the other here, just calling out that I think it is a little early to say that Germany's Bundestag is a stable republic when it is so young.
SllX 2y ago
> There needs to be public funding of elections. That would go a long way. I’m going to push back on this. Not a single dollar of public money should be spent helping anyone at all acquire a seat in an office of power. This includes running primaries through State election apparatuses and laws governing primary selection processes. I’d be okay with zeroing out contributions to individual candidates and limiting political contributions exclusively to political parties to dole out to their members as they see fit, even if that required a constitutional amendment, but not with public money. You’re effectively subsidizing the acquisition of power by interested parties with taxpayer money, while simultaneously cementing an additional incumbent advantage for those already seated and able to write the rules for the public funding of elections.
- gottorf 2y ago
  > You’re effectively subsidizing the acquisition of power by interested parties with taxpayer money, while simultaneously cementing an additional incumbent advantage for those already seated and able to write the rules for the public funding of elections. This is a very good point. And if we can generalize: it's very difficult to regulate something in a way that does not eventually advantage those already inside over those on the outside looking to come in; industry regulations, rent control, minimum wage, etc.
- maxerickson 2y ago
  There probably shouldn't be privileged ballot access where well established organizations have a lower bar than a newcomer.
  - SllX 2y ago
    Outsiders like Donald Trump in 2016 and Bernie Sanders on multiple occasions also shouldn’t be able to come in an effectively (in the case of Trump) or nearly take over an existing political machine and transform it in their image at the low low cost of changing their party registration on a form with their home state. You can do it too! In the State of California where yours truly is domiciled, changing your party registration is easier than changing your underwear so if there’s a particular party whose primary you want to vote in for whatever reason, that’s a thing you can just do with absolutely no cost to you whatsoever. You don’t need any buy-in. If political parties are going to be a thing, and we’ve accepted that they’re just going to be a thing for over 200 years and counting, then there needs to be some buy-in for people running under their banner and proportionate institutional influence from the leaders and rank-and-file of the organization flying that banner. Given freedom of association is a thing, parties are not going to go away no matter what you try and do to constrain them, so I’m okay with them also being a focal point around which people qualify for the ballot and secure donations and staffed time to run for office since that is what they are there for. Real party turnover used to be higher. Parties would either fall out of favor and die and be replaced, or they would face credible risks from smaller parties and work to absorb them into their ranks by taking in the issues that energized them. Right now they’re functionally just an identity group, and that makes them both fragile and dangerous since their name still means something to voters, but their party functions do not command the premium they used to.
gottorf 2y ago
> Neither system is perfect, but the latter captures a wider range of views within society. In the FPTP system in the US, you end up with two "big tent" parties with broadly opposing views. What makes you suggest that this model does not sufficiently capture the width of views within society? > Germany is a stable constitutional federal republic with proportional representation and power vested in the Bundestag. No reason why the US can't have the same. There is a lot to admire about Germany, but that vaunted stable constitutional federal republic just about committed economic suicide via an over-reliance on cheap Russian gas and zealous persecution of domestic nuclear. It now has the weakest prospects among its peer nations. Their governing model isn't a guarantee of good decisions.
- jltsiren 2y ago
  It doesn't capture the width of views precisely because of the "big tent" parties. When a political party is united and effective, it functions as a weighted average of its representatives. When it's not, it loses power and makes other parties stronger. If your opinions are outside the mainstream of any party, you will not have genuine representation in any democratic system, where political parties are allowed to form. Some outlier representative may speak in favor of policies you support, but they would be equally effective as an extra-parliamentary activist.
Amezarak 2y ago
> Germany is a stable constitutional federal republic with proportional representation and power vested in the Bundestag. No reason why the US can't have the same. Germany's second most popular party is labeled a "suspected extremist group", there are discussions of banning it altogether, and the entire rest of the political establishment unites to ensure they are kept out of actual power. When you even have a second-most-popular party that can be labeled an extremist group, I'm not going to call you a "stable" country. In general, the feature of parliamentary democracies where the "wrong" election runner-up is totally shut out also makes it seem not any different in practice than the US system. It's nice that the "right" runner-ups will be a part of a governing coalition, but this is also already effectively the way the US works, as party discipline is not nearly as strong. Democratic institutions are a problem throughout the west right now, and I would definitely not be looking at Germany as a model. Not sure who would be. People say good things about Swiss governance, but I don't know enough of the situation there.
giantg2 2y ago
"No reason why the US can't have the same." The reason that won't work here currently is because the two party system has people currently picking the lessor of two evils. The spectrum of stances within a single party is extremely wide since all cobinations of views must fit within two parties. For example, compare a NYC Democrat candidate vs a WV Democrat candidate. Or a republican candidate from TX vs one from NJ. "There needs to be public funding of elections. That would go a long way." I sort of agree. Instead of all these commercials and flyers, it would be much better if every candidate gets a page on a government website where they can advertise their views and platform. It would be similar to how specimen ballots are available online today. Restrictions like that would remove much of the influence of money.
doctorpangloss 2y ago
Ah yes, Germany, the most stable, fair, well run and well represented government in history.
ETH_start 2y ago
Germany affords no Freedom of Speech and makes major policy blunders, like shutting off all of its nuclear power plants. It's not a country for the US to emulate.
gamblor956 2y ago
There is public funding of elections in the U.S. You can even check a box on your tax return to have part of your tax go toward funding elections. (This affects where $3 of the tax associated with you is budgeted by the federal government; it doesn't affect your tax liability/refund.) According to the IRS, fewer than 4% of people check this box.
adamc 2y ago
Proportional representation will lead to a different kind of gridlock and unstable coalitions. Not sure I want to replicate that.
- timbit42 2y ago
  There are at least 8 types of PR and you can create more. Create one that doesn't cause gridlock.

ianeigorndua 2y ago

Lol, Germany was bought and paid for decades ago and the party with the most political power is the Hells Angels. They even got their rivals federally banned, even though they are not!

pc86 2y ago
This comment reads like LLM-generated text, but like... a pretty old version where it's basically MCMC text generation.
- ianeigorndua 2y ago
  You read like a HAMC damage control bot. I am sick of being lorded over by criminals hiding in plain sight, it is why the economy sucks. They are sucking on it like leeches.
  - pc86 2y ago
    What is HAMC in this context?
    - ianeigorndua 2y ago
      Google it

mullingitover 2y ago

> No reason why the US can't have the same. There's one big reason the US can't have the same: the ruling class don't want it. This isn't some gordian knot. We could have it tomorrow if the ruling class had their feet held to the fire. The fact that we don't is a result of the system working exactly as intended. The richest person in the world is out in broad daylight shoveling bribes to voters as fast as he can transfer the money, and not only is he not getting arrested, he never will be. It's a dark subsection of a very dark chapter.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ryandrake 2y ago
A person who can't even legally own a gun due to his status as a felon is about to become commander and chief of the military. "Dark subsection" is pretty mild.
- gottorf 2y ago
  The commander-in-chief isn't leading a charge at the front lines, so whether or not he can legally own a gun has no bearing; otherwise, we'd have to demand that every elected official has direct, hands-on experience in everything that they legislate, regulate, or judge. Well, perhaps that wouldn't be so horrible, after all... I personally find the way he came to be a felon to be a darker subsection, but your mileage may vary, of course.
  - anigbrowl 2y ago
    What you are missing about the analogy is that the US military is effectively the largest gun on the planet.
    - gottorf 2y ago
      I assume your point is that a felony conviction is evidence of an unsound mind that justifies prohibiting someone from owning a firearm, and that this translates to leading our military. The analogy falls apart if said felony conviction is unjust or otherwise has no bearing on one's ability to lead the military. By and large, American voters think so, with two-thirds of those polled thinking that what he was convicted of is a nothingburger[0]. [0]: https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-indictment-hush-money-poll-b3d9a555993faf22e6ebfaf798bfbd2b https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-indictment-hush-money...

BobaFloutist 2y ago

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has been systematically attacking all attempts to limit private campaign finance, including public funding. In 2011, in Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett, they ruled that a program that Arizona established which would give campaigns that opted out of private financing public financing matching their competitors financing infringed on the First Amendment speech rights of the privately financed campaign. That's right, matching private campaign spending with public funding violates the free speech of the privately funded campaign, because it removes their advantage. The solution to campaign finance needs to start and end with court reform, or it's DOA.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
samatman 2y ago
That was a good decision, because the rule creates a negative responsiveness paradox. Spending money to support your preferred candidate should not make opposing candidates stronger. That was the effect of Arizona's rule: money spent to promote a candidate was matched by free public money, which the opposing candidate did not have exert any effort to obtain. Good voting systems minimize this effect. The US first-past-the-post system is not a good voting system, but that's no excuse for making it worse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_responsiveness_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_responsiveness_parado...
- cbsks 2y ago
  Why should money be involved in supporting a candidate? Doesn’t the democratic action of voting do that?
  - pc86 2y ago
    Yard signs, phone calls, websites, GOTV operations, consultants, debates, mailers, all of these things cost money. The current system requires you to appeal to donors with a winning message to get contributions to pay for these. Who decides which candidates get limited public funds? Are you just going to split it equally between whoever runs? Why should the public pay for fringe campaigns that won't get any votes?

Animats 2y ago

We have public funding of presidential elections in the US.[1] The last year in which a major candidate accepted it was 2008, because it comes with limits on fund-raising. [1] https://www.fec.gov/introduction-campaign-finance/understanding-ways-support-federal-candidates/presidential-elections/public-funding-presidential-elections/ https://www.fec.gov/introduction-campaign-finance/understand...

keybored 2y ago

Sortition.

giardini 2y ago
Fascinating! I've never hear of sortition. Likely zero chance of implementation in USA but also surprising that the founding fathers of the the USA apparently avoided serious consideration. Seems they may have dropped the ball on this problem: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/iw1t1h/did_the_founding_fathers_consider_sortition/?rdt=50216 https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/iw1t1h/did_t...

citrin_ru 2y ago

Proportional representation is prone to a grid lock and fragmentation. A ranked choice looks like a good option in the situation when you don't like both major candidates (or parties) and would like to vote for 3rd one but with first-past-the-post you vote will be wasted unless you will vote for one of two the most popular candidates.

aldonius 2y ago
Most of the issue with PR is when your assembly has to select an executive. But the US has a very powerful executive (the President) which sidesteps the problem. The US House of Reps could be multi party PR without any big issues (well, they might need to switch to a "last year's budget is this year's budge unless we vote to change it" model).

cco 2y ago

> Germany is a stable constitutional federal republic with proportional representation and power vested in the Bundestag. No reason why the US can't have the same. The government of the United States is both far older than Germany's Bundestag and has been far more stable over that time. I'm not explicitly arguing one way or the other here, just calling out that I think it is a little early to say that Germany's Bundestag is a stable republic when it is so young.

SllX 2y ago

> There needs to be public funding of elections. That would go a long way. I’m going to push back on this. Not a single dollar of public money should be spent helping anyone at all acquire a seat in an office of power. This includes running primaries through State election apparatuses and laws governing primary selection processes. I’d be okay with zeroing out contributions to individual candidates and limiting political contributions exclusively to political parties to dole out to their members as they see fit, even if that required a constitutional amendment, but not with public money. You’re effectively subsidizing the acquisition of power by interested parties with taxpayer money, while simultaneously cementing an additional incumbent advantage for those already seated and able to write the rules for the public funding of elections.

gottorf 2y ago
> You’re effectively subsidizing the acquisition of power by interested parties with taxpayer money, while simultaneously cementing an additional incumbent advantage for those already seated and able to write the rules for the public funding of elections. This is a very good point. And if we can generalize: it's very difficult to regulate something in a way that does not eventually advantage those already inside over those on the outside looking to come in; industry regulations, rent control, minimum wage, etc.
maxerickson 2y ago
There probably shouldn't be privileged ballot access where well established organizations have a lower bar than a newcomer.
- SllX 2y ago
  Outsiders like Donald Trump in 2016 and Bernie Sanders on multiple occasions also shouldn’t be able to come in an effectively (in the case of Trump) or nearly take over an existing political machine and transform it in their image at the low low cost of changing their party registration on a form with their home state. You can do it too! In the State of California where yours truly is domiciled, changing your party registration is easier than changing your underwear so if there’s a particular party whose primary you want to vote in for whatever reason, that’s a thing you can just do with absolutely no cost to you whatsoever. You don’t need any buy-in. If political parties are going to be a thing, and we’ve accepted that they’re just going to be a thing for over 200 years and counting, then there needs to be some buy-in for people running under their banner and proportionate institutional influence from the leaders and rank-and-file of the organization flying that banner. Given freedom of association is a thing, parties are not going to go away no matter what you try and do to constrain them, so I’m okay with them also being a focal point around which people qualify for the ballot and secure donations and staffed time to run for office since that is what they are there for. Real party turnover used to be higher. Parties would either fall out of favor and die and be replaced, or they would face credible risks from smaller parties and work to absorb them into their ranks by taking in the issues that energized them. Right now they’re functionally just an identity group, and that makes them both fragile and dangerous since their name still means something to voters, but their party functions do not command the premium they used to.

gottorf 2y ago

> Neither system is perfect, but the latter captures a wider range of views within society. In the FPTP system in the US, you end up with two "big tent" parties with broadly opposing views. What makes you suggest that this model does not sufficiently capture the width of views within society? > Germany is a stable constitutional federal republic with proportional representation and power vested in the Bundestag. No reason why the US can't have the same. There is a lot to admire about Germany, but that vaunted stable constitutional federal republic just about committed economic suicide via an over-reliance on cheap Russian gas and zealous persecution of domestic nuclear. It now has the weakest prospects among its peer nations. Their governing model isn't a guarantee of good decisions.

jltsiren 2y ago
It doesn't capture the width of views precisely because of the "big tent" parties. When a political party is united and effective, it functions as a weighted average of its representatives. When it's not, it loses power and makes other parties stronger. If your opinions are outside the mainstream of any party, you will not have genuine representation in any democratic system, where political parties are allowed to form. Some outlier representative may speak in favor of policies you support, but they would be equally effective as an extra-parliamentary activist.

Amezarak 2y ago

> Germany is a stable constitutional federal republic with proportional representation and power vested in the Bundestag. No reason why the US can't have the same. Germany's second most popular party is labeled a "suspected extremist group", there are discussions of banning it altogether, and the entire rest of the political establishment unites to ensure they are kept out of actual power. When you even have a second-most-popular party that can be labeled an extremist group, I'm not going to call you a "stable" country. In general, the feature of parliamentary democracies where the "wrong" election runner-up is totally shut out also makes it seem not any different in practice than the US system. It's nice that the "right" runner-ups will be a part of a governing coalition, but this is also already effectively the way the US works, as party discipline is not nearly as strong. Democratic institutions are a problem throughout the west right now, and I would definitely not be looking at Germany as a model. Not sure who would be. People say good things about Swiss governance, but I don't know enough of the situation there.

giantg2 2y ago

"No reason why the US can't have the same." The reason that won't work here currently is because the two party system has people currently picking the lessor of two evils. The spectrum of stances within a single party is extremely wide since all cobinations of views must fit within two parties. For example, compare a NYC Democrat candidate vs a WV Democrat candidate. Or a republican candidate from TX vs one from NJ. "There needs to be public funding of elections. That would go a long way." I sort of agree. Instead of all these commercials and flyers, it would be much better if every candidate gets a page on a government website where they can advertise their views and platform. It would be similar to how specimen ballots are available online today. Restrictions like that would remove much of the influence of money.

doctorpangloss 2y ago

Ah yes, Germany, the most stable, fair, well run and well represented government in history.

ETH_start 2y ago

Germany affords no Freedom of Speech and makes major policy blunders, like shutting off all of its nuclear power plants. It's not a country for the US to emulate.

gamblor956 2y ago

There is public funding of elections in the U.S. You can even check a box on your tax return to have part of your tax go toward funding elections. (This affects where $3 of the tax associated with you is budgeted by the federal government; it doesn't affect your tax liability/refund.) According to the IRS, fewer than 4% of people check this box.

adamc 2y ago

Proportional representation will lead to a different kind of gridlock and unstable coalitions. Not sure I want to replicate that.

timbit42 2y ago
There are at least 8 types of PR and you can create more. Create one that doesn't cause gridlock.