I watched the event live online. I found the event had more political double talk than sincere attempts at solving problems. Take the deficit and debt. Of course they are a problem, but they offered no real answers beyond the POSSIBILITY of lifting the Social Security cap and making SS means tested. And they completely dodged the issue of big (and dark) money in politics. Given their past record of advocating for campaign finance reform, contrasted now with their current behavior of taking dark money and lacking any transparency in revealing their donors, No Labels has many of the same negative behavior as the two parties. They really just offered talking points (many that I agree with) but offered nothing concrete to solve our problem. And unless you really think that "both sides" are equally "bad" (which I sure you do believe that trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power is the same as opening money in climate change), No Labels has no reason to run as 3rd party against a Biden, who truly is acting in a moderating manner. (And if you support 3rd party efforts...why did you oppose Ranked Choice Voting in MA? Which would eliminate the spoiler effect of 3rd parties?)
I don't think there's a right way or wrong way in choosing an election system, merely a matter of preference, and the people of Massachusetts have spoken. RCV was on the ballot and it lost pretty convincingly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it lost in your town, lost in the entire district, and lost state wide.
I'm fully aware that the legislature can overturn the will of the voters after a ballot question, your party has done that on numerous occasions, but I'm sure you'll agree that that would be the height of arrogance, wholly undemocratic, and yet another example of parties making good people do bad things.
That's why I maintain that all parties, across the world, are corrupt, they vary only by degree. A look at the criminal manner in which we do redistricting shows this: done in complete secrecy behind closed doors, just like everything else on Beacon Hill, and that's why we have the reputation that we have. It shows we're little better than the Republicans who do this in red states. I'm sure you'll agree that we can and should do better.
But I totally agree on funding transparency, and on their idea of a third party run. Third parties never win, the most they can accomplish is to play spoiler, and they should not put up a spoiler in the hopes of tipping an election.
Thank you for commenting! I very much appreciate hearing from readers.
"I don't think there's a right way or wrong way in choosing an election system, merely a matter of preference..." Really? That's like saying the rules of a baseball game does not affect the outcome of the game.
Our current election rules--anchored by the Electoral College--makes choosing between only two parties the only way to play our election game. If you really believe that (two) Political Parties are Ruining Our Country, as the title of your article states-- and is something we can both agree on--then we need election reforms like RCV and Open Primaries to break the power of the duopoly. Cursing the two party system, but then saying the type of election system doesn't matter is a real head scratcher to me. We need more voices in our political system and the current rules prevent--practically speaking--viable third (or fourth) parties and the only way that's going to happen is by reforming the rules (many of which do not require a Constitutional Amendment).
Serious question: how do we inject more voices (parties) into our election system without them being spoilers only. Because that's all they are today.
I'll say it again Kevin: ALL political parties are corrupt and prone to evil. It's not as if they're not corrupt when there's more than two parties, just look at various countries in Europe that have multiple parties; not much better. And I'm just a regular guy, if you really feel strongly about this issue then you should be directing your anger and frustration to the legislators that can actually do something about this. Your party is in complete control of our state government. Don't you work for a State Senator or something? What's he doing about this issue?
And for the record, we already have RCV in several states, so where are the third (and fourth) parties it was supposed to create? The only thing RCV has done is made Republicans who won on election day end up losing to Democrats after RCV rankings were activated.
To answer your serious question, we can inject more voices by improving openness and transparency on Beacon Hill where everything is done in secrecy behind closed doors. Hearings have become meaningless, testimony worthless and kept from the public, as committee members will pretend to consider testimony but all they're really doing is waiting for the Speaker to tell them what to do. The public is not even allowed to see how members vote in committee, that's outrageous.
RCV and a 3rd party won't change that, only a balanced government that's forced to operate in a bipartisan manner will.
I watched the event live online. I found the event had more political double talk than sincere attempts at solving problems. Take the deficit and debt. Of course they are a problem, but they offered no real answers beyond the POSSIBILITY of lifting the Social Security cap and making SS means tested. And they completely dodged the issue of big (and dark) money in politics. Given their past record of advocating for campaign finance reform, contrasted now with their current behavior of taking dark money and lacking any transparency in revealing their donors, No Labels has many of the same negative behavior as the two parties. They really just offered talking points (many that I agree with) but offered nothing concrete to solve our problem. And unless you really think that "both sides" are equally "bad" (which I sure you do believe that trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power is the same as opening money in climate change), No Labels has no reason to run as 3rd party against a Biden, who truly is acting in a moderating manner. (And if you support 3rd party efforts...why did you oppose Ranked Choice Voting in MA? Which would eliminate the spoiler effect of 3rd parties?)
I don't think there's a right way or wrong way in choosing an election system, merely a matter of preference, and the people of Massachusetts have spoken. RCV was on the ballot and it lost pretty convincingly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it lost in your town, lost in the entire district, and lost state wide.
I'm fully aware that the legislature can overturn the will of the voters after a ballot question, your party has done that on numerous occasions, but I'm sure you'll agree that that would be the height of arrogance, wholly undemocratic, and yet another example of parties making good people do bad things.
That's why I maintain that all parties, across the world, are corrupt, they vary only by degree. A look at the criminal manner in which we do redistricting shows this: done in complete secrecy behind closed doors, just like everything else on Beacon Hill, and that's why we have the reputation that we have. It shows we're little better than the Republicans who do this in red states. I'm sure you'll agree that we can and should do better.
But I totally agree on funding transparency, and on their idea of a third party run. Third parties never win, the most they can accomplish is to play spoiler, and they should not put up a spoiler in the hopes of tipping an election.
Thank you for commenting! I very much appreciate hearing from readers.
"I don't think there's a right way or wrong way in choosing an election system, merely a matter of preference..." Really? That's like saying the rules of a baseball game does not affect the outcome of the game.
Our current election rules--anchored by the Electoral College--makes choosing between only two parties the only way to play our election game. If you really believe that (two) Political Parties are Ruining Our Country, as the title of your article states-- and is something we can both agree on--then we need election reforms like RCV and Open Primaries to break the power of the duopoly. Cursing the two party system, but then saying the type of election system doesn't matter is a real head scratcher to me. We need more voices in our political system and the current rules prevent--practically speaking--viable third (or fourth) parties and the only way that's going to happen is by reforming the rules (many of which do not require a Constitutional Amendment).
Serious question: how do we inject more voices (parties) into our election system without them being spoilers only. Because that's all they are today.
I'll say it again Kevin: ALL political parties are corrupt and prone to evil. It's not as if they're not corrupt when there's more than two parties, just look at various countries in Europe that have multiple parties; not much better. And I'm just a regular guy, if you really feel strongly about this issue then you should be directing your anger and frustration to the legislators that can actually do something about this. Your party is in complete control of our state government. Don't you work for a State Senator or something? What's he doing about this issue?
And for the record, we already have RCV in several states, so where are the third (and fourth) parties it was supposed to create? The only thing RCV has done is made Republicans who won on election day end up losing to Democrats after RCV rankings were activated.
To answer your serious question, we can inject more voices by improving openness and transparency on Beacon Hill where everything is done in secrecy behind closed doors. Hearings have become meaningless, testimony worthless and kept from the public, as committee members will pretend to consider testimony but all they're really doing is waiting for the Speaker to tell them what to do. The public is not even allowed to see how members vote in committee, that's outrageous.
RCV and a 3rd party won't change that, only a balanced government that's forced to operate in a bipartisan manner will.