Democrat 2020

[Montmorency]

The radical portion of Bernie's base genuinely despise Biden, it was probably Chapo posters smearing Biden, not Russian bots.

Chapo are from what I've seen basically Nazbol, if not mere alt-right grifters. Will Menaker certainly.

Personally I feel like the whole Russian propaganda hysteria is just a boogeyman used to discredit leftists who refuse to toe Democratic the party line and women who accuse Democrat politicians of rape.

Then you haven't attended to the issue. It's like dismissing alarm at the German invasion of the Soviet Union as deviationist wreckers undermining Comrade Stalin's and Molotov's brilliant foreign policy. If American oligarchs are recognized as bad, there's no reason to defend non-American ones or dismiss the threats they pose.

I mean, think about your proposition that it is a "boogeyman used to discredit leftists who refuse to toe Democratic the party line and women who accuse Democrat politicians of rape." What would it take for that to be true? It would require believing that not only are accounts of Russian state behaviors are false, but that adoption of a false worldview has been deliberately promoted as a politically-correct shibboleth among the mainstream left in order to target and marginalize revisionist perspectives on other issues.

Alternatively, people who are ideologically-dismissive of evidence out of an underlying hostility toward a political faction discredit themselves as bad-faith actors and are treated thus on an emergent basis.

There are a whole host of political preferences out their besides "Democrats good, Republicans bad".

How about "Democrats are useful, Republicans will kill us?" As even Noam Chomsky has understood since at least 2000, Democrats not getting elected invariably damages the left. Or as these guys put it,

Now we fear that some on the left cannot see the difference between a capitalist democrat and a protofascist. We hope none of us learn this difference from jail cells.

For communists and socialists, Bernie was the compromise candidate, and if they can't have Bernie in 2020 they're not going to vote for a Democrat for president.

There are not enough communists and (proper) socialists to form a self-sustaining electoral bloc. Not voting is a great way to reinforce irrelevance. As a collectivist, it should be easy for you to understand the franchise as a way to advance collective purposes, rather than as a vehicle to reflect one's individual consumeristic attitudes. 'My favorite candidate becomes leader of the party or I take my ball home' is an attitude that tells me the holder doesn't care about progressive values or policy outcomes, and if someone doesn't care about progressive values or policy outcomes when they claim otherwise then it becomes a matter of hypocrisy.

If they were advocating for staying home, maybe. But promoted messages are to vote Trump over Biden which is clearly Russian propaganda. You can't be that left and seriously vote for the fascist.

Staying home is certainly not OK for anyone who lives in a battleground state, or where there is more on the ballot than just President. Which is literally everywhere. Staying home would not be outright pernicious only in DC or the territories.

How has Nach <>, uns worked out literally everywhere?

[Hooahguy]

There are not enough communists and (proper) socialists to form a self-sustaining electoral bloc. Not voting is a great way to reinforce irrelevance. As a collectivist, it should be easy for you to understand the franchise as a way to advance collective purposes, rather than as a vehicle to reflect one's individual consumeristic attitudes. 'My favorite candidate becomes leader of the party or I take my ball home' is an attitude that tells me the holder doesn't care about progressive values or policy outcomes, and if someone doesn't care about progressive values or policy outcomes when they claim otherwise then it becomes a matter of hypocrisy.

This is an attitude thats frustrating to see. I'd say that a plurality of Dem voters, including me, arent getting their first choice with Biden but are going to crawl over a bed of broken glass to vote for him because he is 1000x better than Trump.

The way I see it, the Left needs to think hard about political capital. If they sit on the sidelines and Biden wins, they become politically irrelevant. If they help Biden win, they get a seat at the table. If they help out but Biden loses, they get to gloat and gain political capital. If they sit on the sidelines and Trump wins, then we are all anyways. Those are their options.

I would imagine that the only Leftists who actually think that Trump is better than Biden are probably accelerationists.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The radical portion of Bernie's base genuinely despise Biden, it was probably Chapo posters smearing Biden, not Russian bots. Personally I feel like the whole Russian propaganda hysteria is just a boogeyman used to discredit leftists who refuse to toe Democratic the party line and women who accuse Democrat politicians of rape. There are a whole host of political preferences out their besides "Democrats good, Republicans bad".

For communists and socialists, Bernie was the compromise candidate, and if they can't have Bernie in 2020 they're not going to vote for a Democrat for president.

I don't know how much of Bernie's cadre are described by these two labels, but I believe your assessment of them is spot on.

[Greyblades]

The way I see it, the Left needs to think hard about political capital. If they sit on the sidelines and Biden wins, they become politically irrelevant. If they help Biden win, they get a seat at the table. If they help out but Biden loses, they get to gloat and gain political capital. If they sit on the sidelines and Trump wins, then we are all anyways. Those are their options.

I would imagine that the only Leftists who actually think that Trump is better than Biden are probably accelerationists.

Seat at the table? With what leverage? Biden's a one termer, once he's in he has no reason to give the radical left the time of day on anything important.

Only way the radical left dont become irrelevant for three years is if biden picks one as VP and doesnt last the 4. Considering he's all but confirmed Harris, yeah that isnt going to happen.

A slim hope of accelerationism is as good as it gets for them, maybe get thier own trump if the establishment dems get demolished thoroughly enough.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Seat at the table? With what leverage? Biden's a one termer, once he's in he has no reason to give the radical left the time of day on anything important.

I don't think you are paying attention. Bernie's campaign is "suspended" not abandoned. This means his supporters will continue to vote for him in the remaining primaries, and all the delegates his camp manages to garner will be influential in shaping policy. Biden needs Bernie's social network (which is considerably larger than his own) to help with his campaign. He has to pay attention to Bernie's supporters.

Now whether he follows through if he gets elected, is another matter.

[Greyblades]

Thats what I was referring to; once in the oval office biden has nothing tieing him to his promises made in the primary, not even the need for reelection.

The seat at the table once biden wins is illusory and I dont think bernie's supporters can be counted not to see through it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't think you are paying attention. Bernie's campaign is "suspended" not abandoned. This means his supporters will continue to vote for him in the remaining primaries, and all the delegates his camp manages to garner will be influential in shaping policy. Biden needs Bernie's social network (which is considerably larger than his own) to help with his campaign. He has to pay attention to Bernie's supporters...

Not my read of things, RS.

I have seen losing would-be nominees use their delegate leverage to ensure certain elements of the party platform were THEIR versions of the policies that should be.

The platform then gets ignored as the candidate does what they think will get them elected and runs things to further the policy-set they approve -- which may or may not include the would-be nominee's agenda at all.

My experience says 'blades is right about the "seat at the table" being illusory. It only gets real again if enough of the party's seated Congressional leadership is willing to push back against the administration on behalf of those policies -- and I am not sure teh Bernie group has enough leverage in enough areas to make that happen. I suspect that they do not.

[Hooahguy]

You are misunderstanding what I mean by "seat at the table." If the Left can show themselves to be a reliable voting bloc, they will gain enough influence to have a greater say in what goes on in the party. For example, the evangelicals in the GOP. It didnt happen overnight, it took years. Hopefully the Left would have enough foresight to go down this path instead of the accelerationist route. Or at least learn from Ernst Thalmann.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I am not sure teh Bernie group has enough leverage in enough areas to make that happen. I suspect that they do not.

Perhaps you are right. However, if Biden does get in, he will be taking office in a time that hasn't been this chaotic since FDR took office in 1933. The economy will be in a complete shambles, millions will be unemployed, and there is going to be unprecedented fallout from what's transpired. All this will be exacerbated by the second wave of the pandemic. A tough call for even someone of FDR's stature, let alone someone like Biden.

There are going to be enough voices clamoring for change that it will be tough, if not impossible for Biden and his administration to ignore the calls and blithely push ahead with whatever he deems is important regardless of what anyone else not of his political view thinks.

Otherwise, Olympus Has Fallen might become a possible reality.

[Montmorency]

Seat at the table? With what leverage? Biden's a one termer, once he's in he has no reason to give the radical left the time of day on anything important.

Only way the radical left dont become irrelevant for three years is if biden picks one as VP and doesnt last the 4. Considering he's all but confirmed Harris, yeah that isnt going to happen.

A slim hope of accelerationism is as good as it gets for them, maybe get thier own trump if the establishment dems get demolished thoroughly enough.

All the radical left's greatest successes worldwide have been achieved by the process of organizing the labor force and general public under the aegis of sympathetic liberal and social democratic governments.

Nach <> uns, meanwhile, just leads to chaos and destruction from which moderate national unity governments are subsequently tasked with guiding the recovery.

The NHS didn't come about because Oswald Mosley drove Britain into a pit.

Thats what I was referring to; once in the oval office biden has nothing tieing him to his promises made in the primary, not even the need for reelection.

The seat at the table once biden wins is illusory and I dont think bernie's supporters can be counted not to see through it.

Politicians, particularly presidents, generally keep their promises. There's no reason to believe Biden will move right on legislation (though of course his executive appointments and priorities are going to be more conservative than those of alternatives).

The whole party has, in truth, collectively moved left a lot in the past decade. People need to stop pretending its still the 1990s. Biden is literally running on the left-most major party platform since at least 1972, and possibly since 1964 (arguably the leftmost in American history).

My experience says 'blades is right about the "seat at the table" being illusory. It only gets real again if enough of the party's seated Congressional leadership is willing to push back against the administration on behalf of those policies -- and I am not sure teh Bernie group has enough leverage in enough areas to make that happen. I suspect that they do not.

Why? Biden has formally incorporated elements of Warren's and Sanders' platforms into his own. Is he going to walk that back?

You are misunderstanding what I mean by "seat at the table." If the Left can show themselves to be a reliable voting bloc, they will gain enough influence to have a greater say in what goes on in the party. For example, the evangelicals in the GOP. It didnt happen overnight, it took years. Hopefully the Left would have enough foresight to go down this path instead of the accelerationist route. Or at least learn from Ernst Thalmann.

Thalmann had good reasons, specific to the context of Weimar politics, to hate SPD. It's enough to say that we have more history to learn from, to take a wider view of things.

[Crandar]

I see someone is remembering the Great War episode... But indeed, Thalmann's policy was perfectly justified, since the Weimar social-democrats had allied with proto-fascists, in order to annihilate the worker movement. Regarding the Democratic party, I think it has moved verbally to the lwft since Bush' wars and the 2008 crisis, but not much compared to the seventies. It had leaned quite rightward ever since Gary Hart and Clinton, so the current trend seems like a normalisation, according to the present circumstances. Just how in the eighties and nineties, the center-right position was a response to the economic book and the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact.

[Montmorency]

I see someone is remembering the Great War episode... But indeed, Thalmann's policy was perfectly justified, since the Weimar social-democrats had allied with proto-fascists, in order to annihilate the worker movement. Regarding the Democratic party, I think it has moved verbally to the lwft since Bush' wars and the 2008 crisis, but not much compared to the seventies. It had leaned quite rightward ever since Gary Hart and Clinton, so the current trend seems like a normalisation, according to the present circumstances. Just how in the eighties and nineties, the center-right position was a response to the economic book and the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact.

I think the bolded is a load-bearing word. Let's see what happens when the Democrats actually hold the government.

I do expect Democrats to eliminate the filibuster if they hold at least 52 Senate seats starting 2021, which would help. The fact that there was no constituency for doing so in Obama's first years was one of the greatest limitations on even his moderate agenda.

Take a look at Virginia's track record now that it has become a blue state over the past 2 years, albeit with a moderate government.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020...tate-left.html

[rory_20_uk]

I think the bolded is a load-bearing word. Let's see what happens when the Democrats actually hold the government.

I do expect Democrats to eliminate the filibuster if they hold at least 52 Senate seats starting 2021, which would help. The fact that there was no constituency for doing so in Obama's first years was one of the greatest limitations on even his moderate agenda.

Take a look at Virginia's track record now that it has become a blue state over the past 2 years, albeit with a moderate government.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020...tate-left.html

Surely this would further polarise matters - as well as creating a situation where the USA will lurch even more depending on which party gains ascendancy? The ability to pass executive orders with the Courts playing catch up on the illegal ones is already bad enough.

Is there any chance that states would bin the first past the post for the Electoral College - or ideally just elect by popular vote? Have a government of the people for the people. It'd be a nice change.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

... Why? Biden has formally incorporated elements of Warren's and Sanders' platforms into his own. Is he going to walk that back?

I have no idea. Biden has always struck me as having the basic liberal progressive agenda that most of the dems seek to advance. He doesn't seem as rabid about it, nor unwilling to work through reasonable compromises. We shall see what transpires in specific.

My assertion was that the "seat at the table" accorded IN PRACTICE to the losing would-be nominees is pretty much a null. IF the leader wants to/feels political need to/doesn't object to the policies in the platform from the losing would-be nominee then they get adopted and used. If the nominee/leader doesn't really back them then they fall by the wayside. Johnson under Kennedy, Bush41 under Reagan, Kennedy supporters during the Carter second effort, Palin during the McCain effort...

The seat at the table thing for the loser is unlikely without a significant cadre of federal votes that have to be addressed in the legislature to achieve things. Does such obtain?

Again, those adoptions of policies and concepts by Biden and company may be sincere -- too early to judge that -- but it is Biden's choice in it that matters, not the 'impact' of the not-gonna-get-the-nomination folks.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Is there any chance that states would bin the first past the post for the Electoral College -

or ideally just elect by popular vote? Have a government of the people for the people. It'd be a nice change.

Some states are already experimenting with alternate voting methods. Probably will see the first state change from FPTP for the electoral college in about 10 years.

There is a National Popular Vote Compact making the rounds in the Us, read it on wikipedia. Basically states are passing bills that say when enough states have passed the same bill, they will all switch to awarding their electors to the national popular vote winner. Imo, this is dead on arrival though, so you will not see a national popular vote for president until the constitution is amended or unless Dems gain control of all three branches of gov.

[Montmorency]

Surely this would further polarise matters - as well as creating a situation where the USA will lurch even more depending on which party gains ascendancy? The ability to pass executive orders with the Courts playing catch up on the illegal ones is already bad enough.

"Further polarizing" sounds like what Chamberlain might have feared at Munich. We should not be tolerant of an arrangement where Republicans do as they please and Democrats are prevented from governing. Speaking of, the federal judiciary through the Supreme Court is already heavily compromised and not a reliable judge of what is legal or constitutional. By the time his term is through Trump will have nominated up to a full quarter of all Article III judges, Federalist hacks to the last. I can flood the thread with articles on the sort of people currently sitting as judges and the sort of decisions they render if you would tolerate them. It is a near-guarantee that almost any bill Democrats would care and be able to pass and sign into law would be overturned by the courts, whether the domain be civil rights or healthcare. If that is so then at least the Democratic electorate ought to know what sort of struggle takes place behind the scenes by forcing a tangible distinction between what Polybius called an overt act and a cause.
https://books.google.com/books/conte...9%2C876&edge=0

The Republican electorate has known the value of a judgeship since before I was born, but Democrats skew still too fancifully deferential to what they perceive as a respectable and neutral institution.

Is there any chance that states would bin the first past the post for the Electoral College - or ideally just elect by popular vote? Have a government of the people for the people. It'd be a nice change.

No. A constitutional amendment would be needed. There are possible workarounds, but the national compact ACIN mentions - if genuinely legal, which is debatable even among liberals - [Deleted, nvm]

The underlying geographic distortion of the electoral college is the fundamental problem here. There is no workaround that can address this in preserving the basic nature of the institution. Adding Puerto Rico and Washington DC as states would help by adding perhaps 9* reliable Democratic EVs. As would consolidating the Dakotas or some of the Western states, but there is no imposing territorial adjustments in our federal system. Another workaround: (blue) states could on their own initiative adopt preferential voting systems to replace FPTP. This would be independently desirable as an improvement over FPTP, and would tend to negate any spoiler effect by third parties, so I would support such a reform. I would support the extension of such a reform to all a state's elections, which is to say beyond the presidential race, for that matter. Last year in NYC I voted in favor of adopting a ballot measure that institutes ranked choice voting for local elections starting next year - as an example. I don't have strong opinions on which preferential voting system is best.

I mean, there's currently a constitutional and judicial controversy going on about whether states have authority to control their electors by any law or process - i.e. whether there are any constraints whatsoever on the behavior of electors - so we really just need to rebuild from the ground up in this country.

There is a chance that in this cycle or the next Texas will become a swing state. If Texas turned blue that would guarantee Democrats the presidency indefinitely. Even in such a circumstance I could not call our system tolerable.


*4 Senators (much more valuable than the corresponding EVs in themselves), a representative at-large for DC, 4 representatives for Puerto Rico (similar population to Mississippi, which also has 4)

I have no idea. Biden has always struck me as having the basic liberal progressive agenda that most of the dems seek to advance. He doesn't seem as rabid about it, nor unwilling to work through reasonable compromises. We shall see what transpires in specific.

My assertion was that the "seat at the table" accorded IN PRACTICE to the losing would-be nominees is pretty much a null. IF the leader wants to/feels political need to/doesn't object to the policies in the platform from the losing would-be nominee then they get adopted and used. If the nominee/leader doesn't really back them then they fall by the wayside. Johnson under Kennedy, Bush41 under Reagan, Kennedy supporters during the Carter second effort, Palin during the McCain effort...

The seat at the table thing for the loser is unlikely without a significant cadre of federal votes that have to be addressed in the legislature to achieve things. Does such obtain?

Again, those adoptions of policies and concepts by Biden and company may be sincere -- too early to judge that -- but it is Biden's choice in it that matters, not the 'impact' of the not-gonna-get-the-nomination folks.

I mean, in those examples you named the presidents/nominees literally gave seats at the table, so...

The president is the leader of their party, but they're not a dictator. Over the past century they have tended to pay close attention to the factions composing the party. And if they don't, well - Carter is the most famous example, and his friction with Congressional Democrats was one of the most noteworthy failings of his tenure.

'Not giving people a seat at the table' was one of the great fears bandied about a Sanders nomination.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No. A constitutional amendment would be needed. There are possible workarounds, but the national compact ACIN mentions - if genuinely legal, which is debatable even among liberals - [Deleted, nvm]

The underlying geographic distortion of the electoral college is the fundamental problem here. There is no workaround that can address this in preserving the basic nature of the institution. Adding Puerto Rico and Washington DC as states would help by adding perhaps 9* reliable Democratic EVs. As would consolidating the Dakotas or some of the Western states, but there is no imposing territorial adjustments in our federal system. Another workaround: (blue) states could on their own initiative adopt preferential voting systems to replace FPTP. This would be independently desirable as an improvement over FPTP, and would tend to negate any spoiler effect by third parties, so I would support such a reform. I would support the extension of such a reform to all a state's elections, which is to say beyond the presidential race, for that matter. Last year in NYC I voted in favor of adopting a ballot measure that institutes ranked choice voting for local elections starting next year - as an example. I don't have strong opinions on which preferential voting system is best.

I mean, there's currently a constitutional and judicial controversy going on about whether states have authority to control their electors by any law or process - i.e. whether there are any constraints whatsoever on the behavior of electors - so we really just need to rebuild from the ground up in this country.

There is a plus side to acknowledging that we will need to figure out a total replacement of the electoral college, it allows for the application of all the knowledge we have accumulated about the nature of executive branches from the 19th, 20th and early 21st century. We can investigate whether we should be truly concerned about direct democracy for the position, and if we should what types of creative solutions are at our disposal.

We should ask ourselves how often did tyrants and authoritarians actually had a majority of public support going into power? To what degree did they simply abuse the rules to accumulate effective power and reduce the effective power of the public in opposition?

The Founders half-assed the job so we shouldn't take their views as gospel on this matter. All they could really say on paper is that there are electors and the states decide what to do with them. If they can't decide, then the HoR decide on a per state manner. Perhaps instead of making an even more simple and homogeneous system, we should take the Founders word to the extreme and promote 50 states with 50 methods.

Maybe the US has been lucky and if it wasn't for the character of a few select men in history we would have descended into a Constitutional Dictatorship by now. Perhaps we simply find a new set of electors.
The most radical ideas I can conceive at this time would be to simply substitute the electors with an already existing body, such as the state legislatures or even the governors. Or electoral votes could be substituted with small committees selected at random from the population, one committee per district. I hope some think tanks get creative around this topic because right now proposed solutions are either not legal or too accepting of the status quo.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Quick edit: I am a fool who forgot we already amended the dang system once, which apparently yielded a lot more fruitful discussion during the early Republic. Will need to read some of the debates from that time.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...vatives-223965

[Greyblades]

All the radical left's greatest successes worldwide have been achieved by the process of organizing the labor force and general public under the aegis of sympathetic liberal and social democratic governments.

Nach <> uns, meanwhile, just leads to chaos and destruction from which moderate national unity governments are subsequently tasked with guiding the recovery.

The NHS didn't come about because Oswald Mosley drove Britain into a pit.

Dont remember it coming from Atlee saddling the nation with a shambling half measure either, nor do I remember it coming with a price tag of more then twice the british economic worth.

Thats all the democrats have to offer right now. Either those who want it done but doesnt know how to do it in anywhere near a reasonable budget, or those who probably could figure out how to do it but dont want it to happen for various likely self interested reasons.

You need an Atlee, but all you have is a Brown or a Corbyn.

[Montmorency]

All they could really say on paper is that there are electors and the states decide what to do with them.

Whether electors can be legally constrained is currently being contested.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-chiafalo-baca
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...-electors-vote

Quick edit: I am a fool who forgot we already amended the dang system once, which apparently yielded a lot more fruitful discussion during the early Republic. Will need to read some of the debates from that time.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...vatives-223965

In 2020, either the Republican or the Democrat could be the one with only 37 percent—the one who would have achieved a majority in a two-way race. Which means both parties have an incentive to avoid this kind of un-Jeffersonian disaster.

Significant third party movements are less common now than they were over the past 150 years. There is far more reason to believe the 2020 election will see a 2% or 1% third party share (vs. 5.7% in 2016) than a 25% share. Roffle. So Republicans would not have any incentive to reform the system in order to guard against third parties.

I mean, come on - a runoff election in the event the vote in Florida is 49-47? Are you kidding me? Don't waste our time. And as mentioned above, (blue) states unilaterally adopting proportional representation in the Electoral College would prevent any Democrat winning.

I have heard exactly one good idea for reform short of constitutional reframing if we seek a presidential victory built on compound (state) majorities. That is to promote the state-by-state adoption of a preferential voting system - such as instant runoff - that definitionally produces a majority winner. Maine, which (along with Nebreska) has long used a quasi-proportional Congressional District rather than winner-take-all system for apportioning electoral votes, just recently approved ranked choice for presidential races. (Though Republicans are trying to block it.)

I think the only way a national shift occurs is if/when Texas turns blue. Then Republicans will join the chorus demanding the abolition of the EC. (Just kidding, they'll go for ethnically cleansing Texas.)

Dont remember it coming from Atlee saddling the nation with a shambling half measure either, nor do I remember it coming with a price tag of more then twice the british economic worth.

Thats all the democrats have to offer right now. Either those who want it done but doesnt know how to do it in anywhere near a reasonable budget, or those who probably could figure out how to do it but dont want it to happen for various likely self interested reasons.

You need an Atlee, but all you have is a Brown or a Corbyn.

Huh? The government already supports half of all healthcare costs in the United States. I don't think you have much knowledge either of the US healthcare system and what proposals exist to improve it, nor of what went into establishing the NHS in post-war Britain.

[Greyblades]

And you think the current democrats are both willing to try turning it into something resembling 100% and competent enough to get it done without becoming a an hyper expensive mess?

I dont, not the pelosi-schumer-biden generation.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Significant third party movements are less common now than they were over the past 150 years. There is far more reason to believe the 2020 election will see a 2% or 1% third party share (vs. 5.7% in 2016) than a 25% share. Roffle. So Republicans would not have any incentive to reform the system in order to guard against third parties.

The point of the article is that third parties became less common precisely because of plurality winner take all became more common. Third parties went from having leverage to being spoilers against their ideological camp.

I mean, come on - a runoff election in the event the vote in Florida is 49-47? Are you kidding me? Don't waste our time.

lol, you got it backwards man. Florida 2000 would have greatly benefited from a run off, so would Ohio 2004.

I have heard exactly one good idea for reform short of constitutional reframing if we seek a presidential victory built on compound (state) majorities. That is to promote the state-by-state adoption of a preferential voting system - such as instant runoff - that definitionally produces a majority winner. Maine, which (along with Nebreska) has long used a quasi-proportional Congressional District rather than winner-take-all system for apportioning electoral votes, just recently approved ranked choice for presidential races. (Though Republicans are trying to block it.)

instant runoff is just building into the initial vote the ability to do a full runoff election, hence 'instant' runoff. It's the same either way, both mandate that the winner just obtain a majority outright, not just a plurality among all choices.

I think the only way a national shift occurs is if/when Texas turns blue. Then Republicans will join the chorus demanding the abolition of the EC. (Just kidding, they'll go for ethnically cleansing Texas.)

If Texas goes blue for President, it will also go blue for Senate seats. They wouldn't be able to do much on the federal level with a 4 count switch.

[Montmorency]

And you think the current democrats are both willing to try turning it into something resembling 100% and competent enough to get it done without becoming a an hyper expensive mess?

I dont, not the pelosi-schumer-biden generation.

I don't really understand what function you think these leaders' - or their generation's - competence has in producing something that "gets it [universal coverage?] done."

The first priority in any unified Democratic government should, and probably would, be something like HR1 in 2019: campaign finance reform, voting/electoral expansion, ethics in federal journalism office. Let's say after that is accomplished quickly most agree healthcare is the next priority. Assume at least 230 Democrats in the House and 52 in the Senate, no filibuster, and the Biden campaign's public option plan as a starting point.

House Democrats would go about delegating the tasks of researching the issues and legal precedent. Some representatives, meaning their staffs, activist and lobbying groups, and relevant Congressional support services, would begin writing different drafts or components. Multiple committees would be involved, but the synthetic bill would probably originate in the Ways and Means Committee. This would then be transmitted to the Senate, and the bill would reach the president after Congress reconciles competing versions of the law.

What does this process look like? Who are the relevant actors, and what conditions would the final product have to meet to become law? I'm grading this answer.


Some facts for reference:

As of before the pandemic, the US was spending up to 18% of GDP on healthcare, nearly double. The source for 45-50% of expenditures was the public sector, and close to a quarter of all (federal, state, local) government fiscal outlays were in healthcare. Half the population was on government insurance (viz. Medicaid, Medicare, CHIP, Tricare...) or uninsured, half with employee coverage or individual market plans.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/a...h-care-system/
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...e-changed-time
https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statist...Dashboard.html
https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/pr...hts/index.html
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF10530.pdf
https://www.kff.org/other/state-indi...2:%22asc%22%7D [Kaiser Foundation and census sources, albeit older for 2018, seem to significantly underestimate current Medicare, Medicaid, etc. enrollment as checked against primary sources such as those above]

That means before the pandemic, we could ballpark high-end 2020 spending and figure up to $4 trillion total and of that up to $2 trillion public sources.

Taking Sanders' Medicare for All proposal as an example, most estimates put the 10-year cost at around $30 trillion, or $3 trillion yearly. Even conservative estimates found the program would cut overall healthcare spending; Sanders essentially has the government fill the gap and replace most existing private spending while consolidating administration and increasing bargaining power. It is unclear what Biden's public option would cost, as costs would naturally vary wildly depending on what is included and how much uptake there is, and how much uptake there is depends on the features (such as automatic enrollment). Buttigieg claimed his auto-enroll (for low-income beneficiaries) public option ("Medicare for All Who Want It") would cost $1.5 trillion over 10 years in offering a public option with the same "essential" benefits currently mandated on the ACA private market. A public option would, at least in the short term, not replace existing healthcare spending but add to it.

Here is National Health Service spending as % of UK GDP from 1950.
https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/cha...-gdp-1950-2020


What I'm getting at here is, it would be tedious to describe all the differences between the political and economic landscape of post-war Britain, where modern healthcare had yet barely been invented, and that of the contemporary United States, in addition to the minutiae of the plausible range of limiting factors on the 2021 legislative agenda.

The identity of Democratic party leaders next year makes a difference only on the margins.

The point of the article is that third parties became less common precisely because of plurality winner take all became more common. Third parties went from having leverage to being spoilers against their ideological camp.

Well, no, it's not. The article doesn't say that, and it wouldn't be true if it did. Plurality winner-take-all has been predominant in this country for nearly 200 years.

Now think about all the major third party movements between the Civil War and 2000. On the national level, there were the Populists (80s-90s), Teddy Roosevelt (1912), Bob La Follette (1924), Strom Thurmond (1948; despite getting a tiny proportion of the national vote), George Wallace (1968), and Ross Perot (1992, 96). In 2000 there was Nader, but Nader has always been an also-ran who happened to screw things up by flopping into an election that was decided by the smallest margins; he had a lower vote share than Gary Johnson in 2016. There isn't really a way to slice a third party impact on 2016 unless you stipulate almost every Green vote in Pennsylvania is reassigned to Clinton, but no Libertarian votes to Trump - a ridiculous exercise.

lol, you got it backwards man. Florida 2000 would have greatly benefited from a run off, so would Ohio 2004.

Look at the section offering suggestions. One of them is a runoff "later in November" if a state doesn't produce a majority winner. That's a god awful system. There's no relevance to past elections, since they're past; we might as well say we would have benefited from Bugs Bunny sawing off Florida.

instant runoff is just building into the initial vote the ability to do a full runoff election, hence 'instant' runoff. It's the same either way, both mandate that the winner just obtain a majority outright, not just a plurality among all choices.

It's not the same. On one hand, you have systems that involve a single general election. On the other, you have a proposal to hold a second, physical, runoff.

If Texas goes blue for President, it will also go blue for Senate seats. They wouldn't be able to do much on the federal level with a 4 count switch.

Why not? States don't shift all at once - Virginia was purple before it was blue - and the governor (and probably Cornyn, the senator up for reelection this year) will still be around. Many state and local offices will still be in Republican hands. They would go all in, as part of the national strategy, on burning down Biden's administration for the 2022 midterms. If they can regain some ground - and they do currently hold majorities in the state lege - they will try to cement their grip on power by hook or crook.


BTW, speaking of Texas and filibuster, this is a hoot: the Texas Lt. Governor, who has received some attention for his outbursts in the Coronavirus thread, warns that if Republicans lose seats in the Texas Senate this year, the supermajority requirement for bringing legislation to the floor should be amended to simple majority. Republicans currently hold a 19/31 supermajority in the Texas Senate.

Democrats, please never keep one hand tied behind your back again. The life you save may be your own.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, no, it's not. The article doesn't say that, and it wouldn't be true if it did. Plurality winner-take-all has been predominant in this country for nearly 200 years.

From the article: "
The primary reason was a major transformation in the methods that states use for appointing their Electoral College members. Before the 12th Amendment, most often a state’s legislature voted directly for Electoral College electors, which was consistent with the principle of majority rule. When states let citizens vote for the electors, they took steps to make sure that the chosen electors still represented the majority of the state’s voters, as well. For example, Massachusetts and New Hampshire experimented with different forms of runoffs in the event that an elector did not receive a majority of votes from the citizenry. Some states used districts to vote for presidential electors, rather than have all the voters of the state vote for all the state’s electors. This method permitted a regionally based minority party within the state to win at least some of the state’s electors, but presumably the majority party within the state overall would control a majority of the state’s Electoral College votes.

All of this began to change with the rise of the plurality winner-take-all system, in which all of a state’s electors are awarded to the candidate who receives the highest number of votes in the state—even if that candidate receives only a plurality of the popular vote. Winner-take-all became the dominant method of appointing electors among the states after Andrew Jackson felt robbed of the presidency in 1824 and helped to persuade state legislatures to change their rules to permit plurality victories."

Pre-1824 the electoral college was much more susceptible to splitting electors among different factions than afterwards.

Now think about all the major third party movements between the Civil War and 2000. On the national level, there were the Populists (80s-90s), Teddy Roosevelt (1912), Bob La Follette (1924), Strom Thurmond (1948; despite getting a tiny proportion of the national vote), George Wallace (1968), and Ross Perot (1992, 96). In 2000 there was Nader, but Nader has always been an also-ran who happened to screw things up by flopping into an election that was decided by the smallest margins; he had a lower vote share than Gary Johnson in 2016. There isn't really a way to slice a third party impact on 2016 unless you stipulate almost every Green vote in Pennsylvania is reassigned to Clinton, but no Libertarian votes to Trump - a ridiculous exercise.

All of those quite insignificant relative to the two elections in 1800 and 1824 where we had to go to the HoR to pick the winner due to the diversity in choices splitting electors. There was a third time in 1836 where faithless electors forced the HoR to pick the president, which I bring up as a tangent you may find interesting regarding your earlier point about electors being constitutionally free to disobey their states wishes.

Look at the section offering suggestions. One of them is a runoff "later in November" if a state doesn't produce a majority winner. That's a god awful system. There's no relevance to past elections, since they're past; we might as well say we would have benefited from Bugs Bunny sawing off Florida.

I can't follow this statement at all. Why is it awful other than simply saying 'it is'.

It's not the same. On one hand, you have systems that involve a single general election. On the other, you have a proposal to hold a second, physical, runoff.

Unless there is a large difference between the composition of voters in the first and runoff election, then the results would align with a single instant runoff vote. My point wasn't to prefer the physical election, but you are arguing that fundamentally they bring different results when they don't unless there is rat-fucking going on.

Why not? States don't shift all at once, and the governor (and probably Cornyn, the senator up for reelection this year) will still be around. Many state and local offices will still be in Republican hands. They would go all in, as part of the national strategy, on burning down Biden's administration for the 2022 midterms. If they can regain some ground - and they do currently hold majorities in the state lege - they will try to cement their grip on power by hook or crook.

I specifically only mentioned Federal activity. It's a given they would abuse local/state positions, they already do.
Once you get to the point where it's proven that a Democratic coalition is in fact outpacing the Republicans for state-wide races, rigging the system is merely postponing the inevitable.

Again, unless GOP political agents are able to begin implementing a new Mexican Repatriation program (a bonafide ethnic cleansing in 21st century America if it occurred) they can only go so far. If we go into the land of mass deportation on that scale, then we are already so far gone that elections mean nothing.

The system cannot in the long term sustain such a discrepancy between who picks the politicians and who the politicians represent. We have seen it many happen many times, the South understood this and decided the only way out was to form a new nation built around a different fundamental principle that not all men are created equal.

[Montmorency]

Pre-1824 the electoral college was much more susceptible to splitting electors among different factions than afterwards.

The First Party System is not relevant to contemporary third party politics, nor did the era have its own third party politics, and no hint of period third party politics appears in the article.

Hell, even when there were more than two candidates in a presidential race during this era, they still belonged to either of two parties. The First Party System was unique in our history for third parties literally not existing in any form.

All of those quite insignificant relative to the two elections in 1800 and 1824 where we had to go to the HoR to pick the winner due to the diversity in choices splitting electors. There was a third time in 1836 where faithless electors forced the HoR to pick the president, which I bring up as a tangent you may find interesting regarding your earlier point about electors being constitutionally free to disobey their states wishes.

What is the justification in delaying a national election to send voters to the polls a second time in a runoff to 'correct' a lack of majority winner in the state?

As I said, if there is an overriding criterion to produce majority vote winners by state - in a system that doesn't even rely on majority popular vote! - then just take the simple route and adopt a different voting framework that produces a majority winner in the first round.

Physically obliging people to go out and vote repeatedly is not costless, especially when the purpose is to achieve some purely symbolic outcome like producing a majority winner in a system that doesn't rely on popular vote.

I can't follow this statement at all. Why is it awful other than simply saying 'it is'.

See above. There are any number of things that would have helped in Florida in 2000. I could offer, travel back in time and coerce Sandra Day O'Connor not to vote to stay the Florida recount.

Unless there is a large difference between the composition of voters in the first and runoff election, then the results would align with a single instant runoff vote. My point wasn't to prefer the physical election, but you are arguing that fundamentally they bring different results when they don't unless there is rat-fucking going on.

I'm not? I'm only arguing that purely frivolous symbolic physical runoffs are a waste of everyone's time and detrimental to the process when there are clearly superior alternatives available. Toward, you know, devising a replacement to our current system.

You're reading something into my posts that isn't there.

The system cannot in the long term sustain such a discrepancy between who picks the politicians and who the politicians represent. We have seen it many happen many times, the South understood this and decided the only way out was to form a new nation built around a different fundamental principle that not all men are created equal.

Losing Texas would be an existential hazard to not only the state Republicans. Expect the worse.

[a completely inoffensive name]

What is the justification in delaying a national election to send voters to the polls a second time in a runoff to 'correct' a lack of majority winner in the state?

Well the justification is that the system needs to pick a winner that has majority support. This is the fundamental premise that the Jeffersonian's were advocating for during the debate over the 12th amendment. In a republican type government, there are measures which limit the abuse of majority rule over the minority but the executive as a single person must represent the majority of people just as at the end of the day the House should be ruled by the party that has the majority support. We just shouldn't tolerate any system where a minority candidate can win as a matter of principle here.

As I said, if there is an overriding criterion to produce majority vote winners by state - in a system that doesn't even rely on majority popular vote! - then just take the simple route and adopt a different voting framework that produces a majority winner in the first round.

Physically obliging people to go out and vote repeatedly is not costless, especially when the purpose is to achieve some purely symbolic outcome like producing a majority winner in a system that doesn't rely on popular vote.

Well the system was originally designed to reflect the majority, just in a indirect way. And I agree with the going the alternative voting method, just FYI.

See above. There are any number of things that would have helped in Florida in 2000. I could offer, travel back in time and coerce Sandra Day O'Connor not to vote to stay the Florida recount.

Sure, but as a matter of practical application the requirement for majority support in a winner take all system would be easiest to implement politically.

I'm not? I'm only arguing that purely frivolous symbolic physical runoffs are a waste of everyone's time and detrimental to the process when there are clearly superior alternatives available. Toward, you know, devising a replacement to our current system.

You're reading something into my posts that isn't there.

If you are arguing against physical runoff election based on logistics and cost then ok, I have no issue.

Losing Texas would be an existential hazard to not only the state Republicans. Expect the worse.

Could also trigger a complete collapse of the party internally if they cannot get everyone to agree on a path of total usurpation of power in the face of permanent defeat with the current demographic composition. To what degree are Senate Republicans hanging onto Trump because he has given them victories remains to be seen. Go back to that David Frum quote, once Trumpism as a message fails to produce results no one will admit to supporting it.

[Montmorency]

Could also trigger a complete collapse of the party internally if they cannot get everyone to agree on a path of total usurpation of power in the face of permanent defeat with the current demographic composition. To what degree are Senate Republicans hanging onto Trump because he has given them victories remains to be seen. Go back to that David Frum quote, once Trumpism as a message fails to produce results no one will admit to supporting it.

We shouldn't expect a heel turn from these people because the base believe everything with avid worship, the politicians have to represent the base to get primary-elected (unlimited money is not enough), and lastly, the Republican political class arise from the base. They think the same way and believe the same things. This is a rut as deep as the Congo.

[Greyblades]

I don't really understand what function you think these leaders' - or their generation's - competence has in producing something that "gets it [universal coverage?] done."

The first priority in any unified Democratic government should, and probably would, be something like HR1 in 2019: campaign finance reform, voting/electoral expansion, ethics in federal journalism office. Let's say after that is accomplished quickly most agree healthcare is the next priority. Assume at least 230 Democrats in the House and 52 in the Senate, no filibuster, and the Biden campaign's public option plan as a starting point.

House Democrats would go about delegating the tasks of researching the issues and legal precedent. Some representatives, meaning their staffs, activist and lobbying groups, and relevant Congressional support services, would begin writing different drafts or components. Multiple committees would be involved, but the synthetic bill would probably originate in the Ways and Means Committee. This would then be transmitted to the Senate, and the bill would reach the president after Congress reconciles competing versions of the law.

[...}

What I'm getting at here is, it would be tedious to describe all the differences between the political and economic landscape of post-war Britain, where modern healthcare had yet barely been invented, and that of the contemporary United States, in addition to the minutiae of the plausible range of limiting factors on the 2021 legislative agenda.

The identity of Democratic party leaders next year makes a difference only on the margins.

I don’t really understand why you seem to believe the leadership does not matter.

The majority Party's leadership (or more accurately their whips) and the presidential veto; these are the most important tools in directing action and protecting said action from sabotaging additions.

The people that would be holding said tools in the event of a sweeping 2020 democratic victory are fundamentally unwilling to employ them to either on the matter of universal healthcare, or really anything else you believe would be of benefit. Just look at what they have been doing the last 10 years, hell the last month of stimulus fights is an inditement of their priorities; they are corporatists through and through.

These are not the people to "bring American democracy back from the brink" or whatever ideal the democrat base may believe. They are holding pattern politicians, comfortable in the groove of greenlighting corporate handouts, dragging heels on border security and indulging in ineffectual pearls clutching for brownie points at every opportunity.

You won’t get campaign finance reform because they benefit from the status quo. You won’t get ethics in federal journalism reform because they benefit from the status quo. You might get voting/electoral expansion but only in fashion they benefit from, principle be damned, but you most definitely won’t get Healthcare reform in any form beyond a half-assed "compromise". You know why I say this, because that’s what they did last time and they haven’t changed an iota.

Last time the current generation of democrats were put to the task they cribbed a republican system as a "compromise" and proceeded to make a pigs ear of it; launching with a panoply of problems and in the end helping some at the expense of many others. That was when they were led by something approaching competence. Obama and Reid aren’t here anymore: instead you have the Biden and Schumer. Having Pelosi as a holdover is more penalty than anything.

"Back to normalcy" is back to limp reform overwhelmed by same-old corruption. Thank god its Biden and not someone electable.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Biden/Harris underwhelms me.

Which leaves them a couple of orders of magnitude ahead as compared to the current administration.

[rory_20_uk]

I don’t really understand why you seem to believe the leadership does not matter.

The majority Party's leadership (or more accurately their whips) and the presidential veto; these are the most important tools in directing action and protecting said action from sabotaging additions.

The people that would be holding said tools in the event of a sweeping 2020 democratic victory are fundamentally unwilling to employ them to either on the matter of universal healthcare, or really anything else you believe would be of benefit. Just look at what they have been doing the last 10 years, hell the last month of stimulus fights is an inditement of their priorities; they are corporatists through and through.

These are not the people to "bring American democracy back from the brink" or whatever ideal the democrat base may believe. They are holding pattern politicians, comfortable in the groove of greenlighting corporate handouts, dragging heels on border security and indulging in ineffectual pearls clutching for brownie points at every opportunity.

You won’t get campaign finance reform because they benefit from the status quo. You won’t get ethics in federal journalism reform because they benefit from the status quo. You might get voting/electoral expansion but only in fashion they benefit from, principle be damned, but you most definitely won’t get Healthcare reform in any form beyond a half-assed "compromise". You know why I say this, because that’s what they did last time and they haven’t changed an iota.

Last time the current generation of democrats were put to the task they cribbed a republican system as a "compromise" and proceeded to make a pigs ear of it; launching with a panoply of problems and in the end helping some at the expense of many others. That was when they were led by something approaching competence. Obama and Reid aren’t here anymore: instead you have the Biden and Schumer. Having Pelosi as a holdover is more penalty than anything.

"Back to normalcy" is back to limp reform overwhelmed by same-old corruption. Thank god its Biden and not someone electable.

I do agree with you that it is rare to get one politician that is prepared to do anything that will negatively affect themselves, and thus to get hundreds of them is all but an impossibility.

Politicians tend to be able to pass laws that the "other side" want more easily than ones that they would generally stand for. So, in the UK we have the Conservatives paying 80% of a large part of the private sector for several months which is growth of the state that even Corbyn might have thought was overreach.Similarly, Blair with PFI was able to do more to indirectly privatise the NHS than any Tory has managed.