One of your best! I've been saying for a while that solutions to our most intractable problems are almost always counterintuitive. Hence their intractability. I never would've considered creating a party that goes right down the middle. It would form itself with almost no effort at all. And what was especially brilliant was the framing of this. Do you want the same thing or do you want something different. There are two ways we can go to do something different. Choose one of the other or just stay the same. And the way that people complain about the way things are, and rightfully so. It puts the onus on those people to make an actual decision And gives some legitimate framework with which to do it
One problem is that generically this sounds like No Labels and Problem Solvers, the latter of which dissolved over votes to investigate Jan 6, 2021 insurrection, and to vacate Kevin McCarthy. The former emerged as a spoiler on trumps’s behalf in 2024.
Valid point. I just think that out of all of the other "options" This one could land more or less through the law of natural entropy. The fact that it is such an uncontroversial low-energy solution rather recommends it. Giving people what they think they want... What they apparently claim to want, Is a kind of Trojan horse maneuver. There seem to be a lot of people put off by politics almost as a matter of personal identity. A point of pride. Perhaps giving their apathy a place to land is by definition of entropy a good solution.
But yeah, No Labels was definitely an attempt to co-op that apathy In the service of electing Trump and MAGA Republicans. But I think the recently disenfranchised neo liberal Republicans like Cheney and Kinsinger etc. could make a case for the gooey center. And it seems that they might be ready to do that. Clearly their endorsement of Kamala Harris in this round is a temporary arrangement and agreement. Make no mistake about it. But the creation of a central party almost seems inevitable at this point if we are lucky enough to win in November
Repeal the falsely-named "Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929" , which arbitrarily fixed the # of house seats at the then-current 435 to protect rural (money-dominated) districts. It is rhe sole reason district population is so large, and is NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION - it would *not* require an amendment to be passed.
There are two equally valid alternatives - the "Wyoming Rule", which would use the population of the LEAST populous state to define the size of ONE district (this would emd up at about 675 Representatives),
OR
The "Original Rule" of 35,000 per district. This would end up at about 5,000 districts/Representatives nationwide, which would be trivial to handle electronically, AND make coalitions/"parties" harder to Dominate.
Because it would actually be proportional to the population? That each member of the House would represent a small enough number of people to actually represent them? Unless you disingenuously don't beleive in any of that...
A large number of legislators no more inherently proportional or representative than a small number of legislators. We could have 15 members of Congress and have the most democratic system of government on Earth. All you would accomplish by expanding Congress would be slowing down the process of creating policy in favor of preserving the status quo. I wonder what your real goal is...
Then you don't understand proportions at all. California has 67 times the population of Wyoming, yet has some 50 delegates and 2 senators to Wyoming 's 2+1 - only 18 times. So, no, your small number example is gibberish.
As I say above this is a terrible idea. Small states are already overrepresented in Congress due to Wyoming, for example, getting two Senators. Giving small states more Reps would just exacerbate this problem
You ENTIRELY miss the point. The POPULATION of the least populous state defines a single congressional district.(About 581,000). Each OTHER state would have proportionately MORE districts - so for example, California with 39,000,000 population would have 67 districts - the populated states would get MORE .
As it currently is, there is a fixed 435 seats, and each state gets At LEAST one distract/representative - so small states have proportionally LARGER representation. The place for "balanced" (if it were a real thing) is the Senate, not the House.
Add to this the functioning of preparative bodies in federal districts, and less frequent plenary body which could leverage the DC infrastructure, or move from region to region.
Nobody said otherwise, although the BASIS of the Electoral College is the SUM of Senate & House seats - and the above brings that into better balance. And CRITICALLY, the proposal does NOT require a Constitutional Amendment. You do understand how difficult and Amendment is?
There's a link in the proportional representation NPR article you linked about 435 House seats being a completely arbitrary and frankly stupid number. You want easy reform, there's a place to start. Double the number of reps in the House and get us closer to actual representation in districts. And hey, maybe we won't have any more states with just one rep for the entire dang state!
Yes. There is no justification for the Senate as currently structured.
Rather than a huge house of representatives, return to the roots of this democracy by once again emulating the Iroquois confederacy.
Create four or five preparative bodies, presumably in geographic regions since we do not have a clan structure. These elected bodies can conduct business three days a week in federal districts, and then send representatives to the planetary body for 21 days every fourth month. At home, they can get paid like jurors at the plenary They can get paid like national guardsmen and everyone can continue to do their regular work.
You realize that if we doubled the number of reps, and distributed them proportional to population, California, Massachusetts New York etc would get twice as many reps while Wyoming would... still have one rep?
You've noticed we keep addressing the things you *say*:
"It would even worse if Wyoming or whatever got a bunch of Reps" (which woul not be true)
Instead of the things you *say you meant*
The real problem is the Senate (which is true but is also true of the current system. So the hypothetical one is an absolute positive.)
Either we're all misunderstanding you or you could maybe try phrasing things different. As Dean Martin once said: if the whole room says you're.drunk, even if you haven't had a drink all day, its the least you can do to gonlie down for a bit.
This is smart enough to have gotten me as a paying subscriber. Here's a post I did with Andrew Yang going into detail about ranked voting that I also thought was great:
"MOONSHOTS/Big things to do now!" https://substack.com/@suzannetaylor/p-136933481. "Yang’s reinvention of voting systems is fascinating. I love it. Who would have thought there could be such a different way, but once you hear it you’re hooked. We’d get great candidates that way."
Just a theoretical projection into the future. With this new middle party, you would actually want them to win a couple of election cycles. Because then Americans could see what "no change" really looks like, and it would make the task of identifying the Democratic parties policy much easier because it doesn't need to contain the 'concerns' of the middle faction an that endless tack to the center. We don't have to be tough on crime or support draconian immigration legislation in order to appease the middle and right wingers tack to the middle.
OK here is another projection into a future beyond that. If the middle party wants to stay relevant they will be forced to either move to left or move to the right in order to gain voters who arent satisfied with things the way they are. I have a feeling that move would be a move to the left. Since, with a middle party, left and right are better defined and people have a better idea of what "left" means. Then the actual left could continue to move left to test the boundaries of America's tolerance for more equality and justice and democracy. Man I would love to test this experiment out!
It's pretty odd to me that someone is proposing ANOTHER Republican party, seeing as there are already two of them.
It would make far more sense to me to make an actually leftist leftwing party. I think there might be a bit of a shock as to how many people want an actual political option that actually represents them in some way.
We've already tried that a number of times, how is that worked out for us? I think Hamilton is right. Creating a party to the left of the current left or to the right of the current right undermines your own goals and a two party system.
Creating a party in the middle actually forces people to choose between two things and not three things like you would think. You can choose to stay the same or you can choose change. I think Hamilton was arguing that a large majority of Americans want change, but change can't be properly aligned with only a two-party system. You have to have a party of no change in order for change to "look like something" and most people who want change want positive change.
With only two parties, each party contains features that are attractive to the 'stick in the mud middle' which causes confusion for them at the voting booth. But if you give the 'stick in the mud middle' a home of their own the other two poles stand out in relief And the differences between them to become much clearer. Obviously the differences are already quite stark. But most people aren't paying attention to politics as closely as we are
You say 'current left' like the Democrats represent leftism in any real sense. The left does not meaningfully exist in this country so long as it is a political appendage of a liberal-conservative party. Leftists are politically independent from the Democrats or they are nothing.
I see it like the British political system with multiple parties. Each election cycle alliances and coalitions among the parties are formed. In the end it always comes down to two parties effectively
In Britain we are seeing the same thing. As we speak Minister Starmer is implementing welfare cuts and maintaining support for Israel. Labour have embraced Thatcher in the same way that the Democrats have embraced Reagan.
We can't possibly expect the left to work within this kind of system.
So yeah, I do agree with that. There should definitely be more options than just two, and you need fair representation and a change to the voting system, on many levels.
But a party in between the Batshit Rightwing Party and the Moderate Rightwing Party With Some Liberal Views On Identity Politics is....... not going to present significant change? Everything is on the right, the entire political system is on the right. It's all different flavors of right - mild right, spicy right. So now we put in a medium right in between the mild right and the spicy right? It's still right.
Yes, but how are you going to force the GOP refugees and the rightwing corporate Democrats to self-eject from the Democratic party (and lose all its influence, power, and name recognition built over a century and a half) into your mythical Centrist party?
But the current Democratic Party is where in that setup, that's my question? Is it the New Center or the New Left? Because it does not have any leftist policies, is my point. So when you say 'a new one goes in the middle', that implies it would ALSO not be on the left. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding?
no, I think there a lot of PEOPLE that lean left, but that the actual PARTY that is meant to represent our views isn't doing so. What leftist views does the Democratic party have, except for identity politics? (Which are fine but don't on their own make up an entire leftist agenda). There is no push back against corporations, there is no push back against the war machine, there is no more push back against capital punishment, there is no pushback against over-incarceration and the exploitation of prisoners, no push back against Cop Cities, no pushback against govt. surveillance, no pushback against stomping on students protesting for peace, what exactly is leftist about the Democratic party? She's gonna give us back abortion? Amazing, one point. What else? 'Most Lethal Military?' Thanks, we already tried that, it's gross.
"The first step must be the structural reform that will allow a third party to operate effectively in our political system." This is correct, and I say this as someone who has never voted for nor advocated support for the Democratic Party, ever. I can only add that this would require building a left mass movement for such structural reforms - a movement for a political revolution in reality, for there is absolutely no reason on the current horizon why the bipartisan political oligarchy would cede that power - and that would then also be the potential independent Left electoral presence.
However, the same "structural reform first" requirement also applies to the current Left "strategy" of working within the Democratic Party. "Alternately, if you think your current political party sucks, you just work to amass your own power within that party, and change it for the better. This strikes me as a more direct and practical use of time, which is why I often advocate for the labor movement to seize more power within the Democratic Party, as a prelude to the sort of progressive reforms we all want to see." But there is absolutely no reason to think that the controlling, pro-capitalist and imperialist "Center Party" inside the Democrats - now bolstered by the ex-Republican refugees Cheney, The Bulwark, The Lincoln Project, etc. - would ever have to concede anything to the progressive Left, without the same structural reforms that would give that Left a way to meaningfully threaten The Center in that party, via exit. On the contrary, that Center - the Obamas, Clintons, Biden AND Kamala Harris (despite the Left hopium currently, happens every election) - will be stronger than ever against the Left.
In other words, since this is about electoral strategy, the Democratic Party must be seen as a strategic dead end, and the current Left project for its "social democratization" a will-o-wisp. The Democrats, like Tsarist Russia was for nations, will remain the prison-house of progressive movements.
Hamilton clearly wants the "Center" to form its own party. But why would the Clintons, Obamas, etc abandon control of the Democratic Party to join the new Center Party? That is left unexplained, though I have foreshadowed why above.
This article is written from the perspective of comfortably middle class Democrats who are too embarrassed or self-deluded to accept the truth about what their party is (i.e., fascist), but also too cowardly to ever leave it and risk getting scolded for being a 'third party spoiler'.
This is a REALLY STUPID take, especially from someone supposedly on the Left.
1.) The aim of 3rd parties like the Green Party is to bleed support from the Democrats. They don't think millions of people will flock to them suddenly and catapult them into power; their goal is to pull enough of the left flank of the Dems away that it causes Dems to lose elections/power, which might entice the party to sponsor more progressive policies and win back those who defected to the Greens. They function like a conscience to punish the Dems until they change course (slightly). This is part of the Greens' political calculations, and it's more sound than the theory of change you offer in this article.
2.) Why would Republicans and Democrats (and their owners) ever ALLOW structural change to pass through Congress that would jeopardize their grip on power? Believing it could happen is a level of naïveté that surpasses what you ascribe to the third parties. Look at what the Dems are doing to rat fuck the Greens off of the ballot in multiple states. Why would they then support the Fair Representation Act? And the popular mass mobilization necessary to ever get it passed would de facto be a third party strong enough to seize power in itself...which negates the need for the legislation in the first place lol.
3.) Liz Cheney and other anti-Trump GOP have flocked to the Democratic Party because it already is the third party you think belongs "in the middle." The Democrats are a right wing party, that's why Leftists want to build a third party FAR to the left of it. It's ridiculous you think we need another right wing party: GOP (Nazis), New "Centrist" Third Party (light fascists), Dems (apologetic fascists). So where do you think the Left goes?
"I do not want to be in a Democratic Party that feels the need to cater to a horde of Republican refugees"... that is ALREADY what the democrats are and it's painfully obvious. The only option is the leave it.
The problem of allowing a fascist party (such as the one that we are allowing now), is that they want to gain control, regardless of the voting outcome, thus becoming the only party allowed.
As you note in your comment, we already have a fascist party. This proposal would allow the country club Republican fuckos to separate from the fascist party. America does not outlaw political parties though so I'm not sure what you're asking for.
Sure, Stein is not going to win this election (nor the next). But realistically, she isn't pretending that's going to happen - her stated goal is to get 5% of the votes and thus secure more favourable treatement for her party.
Her actual goal then, is not to become preseident but to demonstrate to the main party whose goals are closest to hers that, there are votes to be had by moving closer to her position.
You may complain that this is an expensive strategy - it might cost the election! But it is, at least, a comprehensible one.
However, the response of Democrats is revealing. They scream that Stein is a wicked witch who steals votes that should rightfully go to the Dems and thus delivers the White House to the Republicans. But we know that this cannot be true because they surely cannot be a single Stein voter who is not acutely aware of the perversities of American electoral systems. Kicking Stein off State ballots will not return these errant voters to the Democratic fold because these voters are (almost by definition) so disenfranchised by the Dems that they have opted to vote perversely - knowing that it harms their own cause.
We know this, Dems know this, BUT THEY PRETEND NOT TO.
Why do they pretend not to understand this obvious dynamic? Because admitting that real progressives hate them this much would mean acknowledging the vastness of the expanse to the left of the Democrat platform.
All of which is mere context, through which to view your sensible sounding proposals.
The main political parties in the US are not engaged in a battle of ideas - they are engaged in the maintenance of power. Forget the interests of voters, neither of the two parties privileged by the current system will enact any of the reforms that you propose - precisely because it would mean ceding power. What mechanism do you propose for encouraging these Turkeys to vote for Christmas? Voters would like a more representative form of Democracy please? Give me a break.
If you would like an example of a basically two party system with a third party in the middle, come and have a look at the UK where we have Tories, Labour and the LibDems. Does this lead to better outcomes all around? No, of course it doesn't.
You would think that this approach would leave the LibDems holding the balance of power all the time and making them perrennial king-makers. The reality is that it only happened once, they immediately sided with the Tories, they had to abandon all their decent policies as the junior partner in the coalition and ended up getting the bulk of the blame for enacting policies that were the opposite of their manifesto. Nick Clegg their ego-as-leader at the time now shills for Facebook.
Or look at the most recent UK election, where Labour just got in with a vast majority (almost two thirds of the seats) based on little more than one third of all votes. And even this occurred because 50% of all those who would ideally have voted Green actually voted tactically and transferred their votes to Labour.
With a grotesquely disproportionate result enabled entirely by tactical voting from a minor party, you'd think that the case for electoral reform would be made, that it would be right at the top of the political agenda, wouldn't you? No, of course not. Not only have we heard not a sniff of electoral reform since the election, but big Labout accounts on Twitter were berating Green voters for not having voted tactically enough.
Labour would actually be better off with Proportional representation - their recent elctoral coalition is amazingly fragile and their polling is already in free fall.
But they won't do it because they cannot grasp the principle of giving away power in order to make alliances.
Jill Stein is an inauthentic poseur who doesn’t even know how many members of Congress there are, and has never held an electoral office. I find her supporters, although well intentioned, to be equally incoherent.
You may be right - I'm not American, I haven't seen her close up. But I would just point out that the same applies to Trump and, until recently, the Democrats were running Joe Biden, whose advanced cognitive decline, the party and the media were actively concealing.
If the supporters of major parties are inclined to throw stones, a Jill Stein's character, they might do well to think of the glass houses that they inhabit.
There doesn't seem to me to be enough space between the parties to accommodate a plurality of voters. Indeed, on a bunch of issues. The problem isn't that the parties are too far apart it is precisely that they are too close together.
A great many Americans support healthcare reform, neither party does
A great many Americans would like to see money drained out of politics neither perty does
A great many Americans would like to see fewer wars - neither party is working towards that
A great many Americans would probably like to stem the flow of migration caused by awful foreign policy decisions in e.g. Venezuela and Haiti rather than a border wall. Neither party does.
A great many Americans would like to see a real plan to end homelessness and reduce spiralling housing costs in cities
Etc ad nauseam.
I think Hamilton would agree with the many here and not with either of the parties. He wants to create a third party in the middle so that a progressive party can move out to the left and take up these issues. I agree that this sounds nice. I just think it's about as likely as Stein getting enough delegates to prevent any candidate from getting a majority in the electoral college. (Although perhaps more likely than her winning outright)
Well, Grover Norquist has been trying to shrink the American state until it small enough to be drowned in a bathtub for the past seven cycles at least. that doesn't seem to be working either.
Demanding we agitate for (beg for) "structural reform" is the embodiment of "putting the cart before the horse".
We ain't getting reform from two parties who already have the present system captured; + actively use that system to keep dissenting internal factions "in line".
Nah, if we're gonna "organize" anything; it won't be subordinated to a party that disdains our agency and our aims. The left is the only faction in US politics without direct partisan representation; and also the only faction that's growing. No more sacrificing to obtain power, only to hand that power over to those who'll just throw it on their pile and lock it away.
New left party, after November, with the goal of contesting 2026 midterms.
You're correct that third parties are impossible under the current system of elections, but proportional representation (even if you could persuade House members to support a change that makes it less likely for them to get reelected) wouldn't have any effect on the Senate. The whole system needs a reworking to give power to the marginalized millions.
The solution isn't a third party, but a union of swing voters. Swing voters are the ones who are going to decide the outcome of November's election. By organizing as a national voting bloc across all 470 Federal races, we can collectively bargain for a better social contract.
What "swing voters" want to rework the system and "give power to the marginalized millions"? The typical Trump-Biden voter is comfortably middle class and ideologically conservative. They don't want a better social contract when the current one serves them best.
Voters across the spectrum want to rework the system. However, when you're committed to one party or the other, you have very little leverage. Look at the polls - swing voters have power., because >90% of "typical" voters on the national level cancel each other out.. A 2% bloc of true swing voters can control the balance of power in Washington. That's leverage.
One of your best! I've been saying for a while that solutions to our most intractable problems are almost always counterintuitive. Hence their intractability. I never would've considered creating a party that goes right down the middle. It would form itself with almost no effort at all. And what was especially brilliant was the framing of this. Do you want the same thing or do you want something different. There are two ways we can go to do something different. Choose one of the other or just stay the same. And the way that people complain about the way things are, and rightfully so. It puts the onus on those people to make an actual decision And gives some legitimate framework with which to do it
One problem is that generically this sounds like No Labels and Problem Solvers, the latter of which dissolved over votes to investigate Jan 6, 2021 insurrection, and to vacate Kevin McCarthy. The former emerged as a spoiler on trumps’s behalf in 2024.
Valid point. I just think that out of all of the other "options" This one could land more or less through the law of natural entropy. The fact that it is such an uncontroversial low-energy solution rather recommends it. Giving people what they think they want... What they apparently claim to want, Is a kind of Trojan horse maneuver. There seem to be a lot of people put off by politics almost as a matter of personal identity. A point of pride. Perhaps giving their apathy a place to land is by definition of entropy a good solution.
But yeah, No Labels was definitely an attempt to co-op that apathy In the service of electing Trump and MAGA Republicans. But I think the recently disenfranchised neo liberal Republicans like Cheney and Kinsinger etc. could make a case for the gooey center. And it seems that they might be ready to do that. Clearly their endorsement of Kamala Harris in this round is a temporary arrangement and agreement. Make no mistake about it. But the creation of a central party almost seems inevitable at this point if we are lucky enough to win in November
Repeal the falsely-named "Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929" , which arbitrarily fixed the # of house seats at the then-current 435 to protect rural (money-dominated) districts. It is rhe sole reason district population is so large, and is NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION - it would *not* require an amendment to be passed.
There are two equally valid alternatives - the "Wyoming Rule", which would use the population of the LEAST populous state to define the size of ONE district (this would emd up at about 675 Representatives),
OR
The "Original Rule" of 35,000 per district. This would end up at about 5,000 districts/Representatives nationwide, which would be trivial to handle electronically, AND make coalitions/"parties" harder to Dominate.
But neither requires an Amendment.
There is zero logical reason that filling congress with thousands of legislators would benefit anything
Because it would actually be proportional to the population? That each member of the House would represent a small enough number of people to actually represent them? Unless you disingenuously don't beleive in any of that...
A large number of legislators no more inherently proportional or representative than a small number of legislators. We could have 15 members of Congress and have the most democratic system of government on Earth. All you would accomplish by expanding Congress would be slowing down the process of creating policy in favor of preserving the status quo. I wonder what your real goal is...
Then you don't understand proportions at all. California has 67 times the population of Wyoming, yet has some 50 delegates and 2 senators to Wyoming 's 2+1 - only 18 times. So, no, your small number example is gibberish.
You do realize that if Congress was that small, states like Wyoming would almost certainly have to share delegates with other states
...which *is* specifically against the constitution. Sea Lion!! Off the Starboard Bow!!
As I say above this is a terrible idea. Small states are already overrepresented in Congress due to Wyoming, for example, getting two Senators. Giving small states more Reps would just exacerbate this problem
You ENTIRELY miss the point. The POPULATION of the least populous state defines a single congressional district.(About 581,000). Each OTHER state would have proportionately MORE districts - so for example, California with 39,000,000 population would have 67 districts - the populated states would get MORE .
As it currently is, there is a fixed 435 seats, and each state gets At LEAST one distract/representative - so small states have proportionally LARGER representation. The place for "balanced" (if it were a real thing) is the Senate, not the House.
Add to this the functioning of preparative bodies in federal districts, and less frequent plenary body which could leverage the DC infrastructure, or move from region to region.
My point is the Senate is the problem not the house of reps
Nobody said otherwise, although the BASIS of the Electoral College is the SUM of Senate & House seats - and the above brings that into better balance. And CRITICALLY, the proposal does NOT require a Constitutional Amendment. You do understand how difficult and Amendment is?
There's a link in the proportional representation NPR article you linked about 435 House seats being a completely arbitrary and frankly stupid number. You want easy reform, there's a place to start. Double the number of reps in the House and get us closer to actual representation in districts. And hey, maybe we won't have any more states with just one rep for the entire dang state!
I completely disagree. Small states already have too much power through the Senate. It would even worse if Wyoming or whatever got a bunch of Reps
Well, yes, but so would the large states. Which is the whole point of "proportional representation."
Yes. There is no justification for the Senate as currently structured.
Rather than a huge house of representatives, return to the roots of this democracy by once again emulating the Iroquois confederacy.
Create four or five preparative bodies, presumably in geographic regions since we do not have a clan structure. These elected bodies can conduct business three days a week in federal districts, and then send representatives to the planetary body for 21 days every fourth month. At home, they can get paid like jurors at the plenary They can get paid like national guardsmen and everyone can continue to do their regular work.
You realize that if we doubled the number of reps, and distributed them proportional to population, California, Massachusetts New York etc would get twice as many reps while Wyoming would... still have one rep?
That's great for that chamber but it doesn't change the real problem which is the Senate where Wyoming and California get the same number of Senators
You've noticed we keep addressing the things you *say*:
"It would even worse if Wyoming or whatever got a bunch of Reps" (which woul not be true)
Instead of the things you *say you meant*
The real problem is the Senate (which is true but is also true of the current system. So the hypothetical one is an absolute positive.)
Either we're all misunderstanding you or you could maybe try phrasing things different. As Dean Martin once said: if the whole room says you're.drunk, even if you haven't had a drink all day, its the least you can do to gonlie down for a bit.
whatever dude
agreed
Exactly. Double it or even quadruple it. The more the representation to find the resolution
This is smart enough to have gotten me as a paying subscriber. Here's a post I did with Andrew Yang going into detail about ranked voting that I also thought was great:
"MOONSHOTS/Big things to do now!" https://substack.com/@suzannetaylor/p-136933481. "Yang’s reinvention of voting systems is fascinating. I love it. Who would have thought there could be such a different way, but once you hear it you’re hooked. We’d get great candidates that way."
Just a theoretical projection into the future. With this new middle party, you would actually want them to win a couple of election cycles. Because then Americans could see what "no change" really looks like, and it would make the task of identifying the Democratic parties policy much easier because it doesn't need to contain the 'concerns' of the middle faction an that endless tack to the center. We don't have to be tough on crime or support draconian immigration legislation in order to appease the middle and right wingers tack to the middle.
OK here is another projection into a future beyond that. If the middle party wants to stay relevant they will be forced to either move to left or move to the right in order to gain voters who arent satisfied with things the way they are. I have a feeling that move would be a move to the left. Since, with a middle party, left and right are better defined and people have a better idea of what "left" means. Then the actual left could continue to move left to test the boundaries of America's tolerance for more equality and justice and democracy. Man I would love to test this experiment out!
It's pretty odd to me that someone is proposing ANOTHER Republican party, seeing as there are already two of them.
It would make far more sense to me to make an actually leftist leftwing party. I think there might be a bit of a shock as to how many people want an actual political option that actually represents them in some way.
Hmmm.
We've already tried that a number of times, how is that worked out for us? I think Hamilton is right. Creating a party to the left of the current left or to the right of the current right undermines your own goals and a two party system.
Creating a party in the middle actually forces people to choose between two things and not three things like you would think. You can choose to stay the same or you can choose change. I think Hamilton was arguing that a large majority of Americans want change, but change can't be properly aligned with only a two-party system. You have to have a party of no change in order for change to "look like something" and most people who want change want positive change.
With only two parties, each party contains features that are attractive to the 'stick in the mud middle' which causes confusion for them at the voting booth. But if you give the 'stick in the mud middle' a home of their own the other two poles stand out in relief And the differences between them to become much clearer. Obviously the differences are already quite stark. But most people aren't paying attention to politics as closely as we are
You say 'current left' like the Democrats represent leftism in any real sense. The left does not meaningfully exist in this country so long as it is a political appendage of a liberal-conservative party. Leftists are politically independent from the Democrats or they are nothing.
I see it like the British political system with multiple parties. Each election cycle alliances and coalitions among the parties are formed. In the end it always comes down to two parties effectively
In Britain we are seeing the same thing. As we speak Minister Starmer is implementing welfare cuts and maintaining support for Israel. Labour have embraced Thatcher in the same way that the Democrats have embraced Reagan.
We can't possibly expect the left to work within this kind of system.
So yeah, I do agree with that. There should definitely be more options than just two, and you need fair representation and a change to the voting system, on many levels.
But a party in between the Batshit Rightwing Party and the Moderate Rightwing Party With Some Liberal Views On Identity Politics is....... not going to present significant change? Everything is on the right, the entire political system is on the right. It's all different flavors of right - mild right, spicy right. So now we put in a medium right in between the mild right and the spicy right? It's still right.
I am proposing a left, a right, and a center party.
Yes, but how are you going to force the GOP refugees and the rightwing corporate Democrats to self-eject from the Democratic party (and lose all its influence, power, and name recognition built over a century and a half) into your mythical Centrist party?
Also there would be no one left. (Excuse the pun)
But who's gonna be on the left? Dems are pretty much center-right by most policies, no?
The center right people will be in the center party. The leftists will be in the left party.
But the current Democratic Party is where in that setup, that's my question? Is it the New Center or the New Left? Because it does not have any leftist policies, is my point. So when you say 'a new one goes in the middle', that implies it would ALSO not be on the left. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding?
You seem to be arguing that those in the left are a minority? Is that your intention?
no, I think there a lot of PEOPLE that lean left, but that the actual PARTY that is meant to represent our views isn't doing so. What leftist views does the Democratic party have, except for identity politics? (Which are fine but don't on their own make up an entire leftist agenda). There is no push back against corporations, there is no push back against the war machine, there is no more push back against capital punishment, there is no pushback against over-incarceration and the exploitation of prisoners, no push back against Cop Cities, no pushback against govt. surveillance, no pushback against stomping on students protesting for peace, what exactly is leftist about the Democratic party? She's gonna give us back abortion? Amazing, one point. What else? 'Most Lethal Military?' Thanks, we already tried that, it's gross.
I think we are underselling how unpopular the left is
"The first step must be the structural reform that will allow a third party to operate effectively in our political system." This is correct, and I say this as someone who has never voted for nor advocated support for the Democratic Party, ever. I can only add that this would require building a left mass movement for such structural reforms - a movement for a political revolution in reality, for there is absolutely no reason on the current horizon why the bipartisan political oligarchy would cede that power - and that would then also be the potential independent Left electoral presence.
However, the same "structural reform first" requirement also applies to the current Left "strategy" of working within the Democratic Party. "Alternately, if you think your current political party sucks, you just work to amass your own power within that party, and change it for the better. This strikes me as a more direct and practical use of time, which is why I often advocate for the labor movement to seize more power within the Democratic Party, as a prelude to the sort of progressive reforms we all want to see." But there is absolutely no reason to think that the controlling, pro-capitalist and imperialist "Center Party" inside the Democrats - now bolstered by the ex-Republican refugees Cheney, The Bulwark, The Lincoln Project, etc. - would ever have to concede anything to the progressive Left, without the same structural reforms that would give that Left a way to meaningfully threaten The Center in that party, via exit. On the contrary, that Center - the Obamas, Clintons, Biden AND Kamala Harris (despite the Left hopium currently, happens every election) - will be stronger than ever against the Left.
In other words, since this is about electoral strategy, the Democratic Party must be seen as a strategic dead end, and the current Left project for its "social democratization" a will-o-wisp. The Democrats, like Tsarist Russia was for nations, will remain the prison-house of progressive movements.
Hamilton clearly wants the "Center" to form its own party. But why would the Clintons, Obamas, etc abandon control of the Democratic Party to join the new Center Party? That is left unexplained, though I have foreshadowed why above.
This article is written from the perspective of comfortably middle class Democrats who are too embarrassed or self-deluded to accept the truth about what their party is (i.e., fascist), but also too cowardly to ever leave it and risk getting scolded for being a 'third party spoiler'.
This is a REALLY STUPID take, especially from someone supposedly on the Left.
1.) The aim of 3rd parties like the Green Party is to bleed support from the Democrats. They don't think millions of people will flock to them suddenly and catapult them into power; their goal is to pull enough of the left flank of the Dems away that it causes Dems to lose elections/power, which might entice the party to sponsor more progressive policies and win back those who defected to the Greens. They function like a conscience to punish the Dems until they change course (slightly). This is part of the Greens' political calculations, and it's more sound than the theory of change you offer in this article.
2.) Why would Republicans and Democrats (and their owners) ever ALLOW structural change to pass through Congress that would jeopardize their grip on power? Believing it could happen is a level of naïveté that surpasses what you ascribe to the third parties. Look at what the Dems are doing to rat fuck the Greens off of the ballot in multiple states. Why would they then support the Fair Representation Act? And the popular mass mobilization necessary to ever get it passed would de facto be a third party strong enough to seize power in itself...which negates the need for the legislation in the first place lol.
3.) Liz Cheney and other anti-Trump GOP have flocked to the Democratic Party because it already is the third party you think belongs "in the middle." The Democrats are a right wing party, that's why Leftists want to build a third party FAR to the left of it. It's ridiculous you think we need another right wing party: GOP (Nazis), New "Centrist" Third Party (light fascists), Dems (apologetic fascists). So where do you think the Left goes?
"I do not want to be in a Democratic Party that feels the need to cater to a horde of Republican refugees"... that is ALREADY what the democrats are and it's painfully obvious. The only option is the leave it.
What a dog turd this was to read. My god.
The problem of allowing a fascist party (such as the one that we are allowing now), is that they want to gain control, regardless of the voting outcome, thus becoming the only party allowed.
As you note in your comment, we already have a fascist party. This proposal would allow the country club Republican fuckos to separate from the fascist party. America does not outlaw political parties though so I'm not sure what you're asking for.
> America does not outlaw political parties though
Not actually true! The Communist Control Act is still on the books.
"It’s okay to say “You all are better than the actual Nazis,” and leave it at that."
Yes, this, all of this.
Also, sounds like Andrew Yang/the Forward Party had the right idea all along? Ugh...
The problem was that their party was just an empty fundraising shell with no people in it. And also no real policy agenda.
Oh right.
Sure, Stein is not going to win this election (nor the next). But realistically, she isn't pretending that's going to happen - her stated goal is to get 5% of the votes and thus secure more favourable treatement for her party.
Her actual goal then, is not to become preseident but to demonstrate to the main party whose goals are closest to hers that, there are votes to be had by moving closer to her position.
You may complain that this is an expensive strategy - it might cost the election! But it is, at least, a comprehensible one.
However, the response of Democrats is revealing. They scream that Stein is a wicked witch who steals votes that should rightfully go to the Dems and thus delivers the White House to the Republicans. But we know that this cannot be true because they surely cannot be a single Stein voter who is not acutely aware of the perversities of American electoral systems. Kicking Stein off State ballots will not return these errant voters to the Democratic fold because these voters are (almost by definition) so disenfranchised by the Dems that they have opted to vote perversely - knowing that it harms their own cause.
We know this, Dems know this, BUT THEY PRETEND NOT TO.
Why do they pretend not to understand this obvious dynamic? Because admitting that real progressives hate them this much would mean acknowledging the vastness of the expanse to the left of the Democrat platform.
All of which is mere context, through which to view your sensible sounding proposals.
The main political parties in the US are not engaged in a battle of ideas - they are engaged in the maintenance of power. Forget the interests of voters, neither of the two parties privileged by the current system will enact any of the reforms that you propose - precisely because it would mean ceding power. What mechanism do you propose for encouraging these Turkeys to vote for Christmas? Voters would like a more representative form of Democracy please? Give me a break.
If you would like an example of a basically two party system with a third party in the middle, come and have a look at the UK where we have Tories, Labour and the LibDems. Does this lead to better outcomes all around? No, of course it doesn't.
You would think that this approach would leave the LibDems holding the balance of power all the time and making them perrennial king-makers. The reality is that it only happened once, they immediately sided with the Tories, they had to abandon all their decent policies as the junior partner in the coalition and ended up getting the bulk of the blame for enacting policies that were the opposite of their manifesto. Nick Clegg their ego-as-leader at the time now shills for Facebook.
Or look at the most recent UK election, where Labour just got in with a vast majority (almost two thirds of the seats) based on little more than one third of all votes. And even this occurred because 50% of all those who would ideally have voted Green actually voted tactically and transferred their votes to Labour.
With a grotesquely disproportionate result enabled entirely by tactical voting from a minor party, you'd think that the case for electoral reform would be made, that it would be right at the top of the political agenda, wouldn't you? No, of course not. Not only have we heard not a sniff of electoral reform since the election, but big Labout accounts on Twitter were berating Green voters for not having voted tactically enough.
Labour would actually be better off with Proportional representation - their recent elctoral coalition is amazingly fragile and their polling is already in free fall.
But they won't do it because they cannot grasp the principle of giving away power in order to make alliances.
I hardly think that your lot are any better.
Jill Stein is an inauthentic poseur who doesn’t even know how many members of Congress there are, and has never held an electoral office. I find her supporters, although well intentioned, to be equally incoherent.
You may be right - I'm not American, I haven't seen her close up. But I would just point out that the same applies to Trump and, until recently, the Democrats were running Joe Biden, whose advanced cognitive decline, the party and the media were actively concealing.
If the supporters of major parties are inclined to throw stones, a Jill Stein's character, they might do well to think of the glass houses that they inhabit.
And I think Hamilton’s proposal assumes a centrist party that usually has a plurality or near plurality of votes. That’s hardly true of the Lib-Dems.
Which is quite an assumption isn't it?
There doesn't seem to me to be enough space between the parties to accommodate a plurality of voters. Indeed, on a bunch of issues. The problem isn't that the parties are too far apart it is precisely that they are too close together.
A great many Americans support healthcare reform, neither party does
A great many Americans would like to see money drained out of politics neither perty does
A great many Americans would like to see fewer wars - neither party is working towards that
A great many Americans would probably like to stem the flow of migration caused by awful foreign policy decisions in e.g. Venezuela and Haiti rather than a border wall. Neither party does.
A great many Americans would like to see a real plan to end homelessness and reduce spiralling housing costs in cities
Etc ad nauseam.
I think Hamilton would agree with the many here and not with either of the parties. He wants to create a third party in the middle so that a progressive party can move out to the left and take up these issues. I agree that this sounds nice. I just think it's about as likely as Stein getting enough delegates to prevent any candidate from getting a majority in the electoral college. (Although perhaps more likely than her winning outright)
Stein has been supposedly working on this "goal" for the last like10 Presidential elections
Well, Grover Norquist has been trying to shrink the American state until it small enough to be drowned in a bathtub for the past seven cycles at least. that doesn't seem to be working either.
Demanding we agitate for (beg for) "structural reform" is the embodiment of "putting the cart before the horse".
We ain't getting reform from two parties who already have the present system captured; + actively use that system to keep dissenting internal factions "in line".
Nah, if we're gonna "organize" anything; it won't be subordinated to a party that disdains our agency and our aims. The left is the only faction in US politics without direct partisan representation; and also the only faction that's growing. No more sacrificing to obtain power, only to hand that power over to those who'll just throw it on their pile and lock it away.
New left party, after November, with the goal of contesting 2026 midterms.
"just do structural reform" ?
You're correct that third parties are impossible under the current system of elections, but proportional representation (even if you could persuade House members to support a change that makes it less likely for them to get reelected) wouldn't have any effect on the Senate. The whole system needs a reworking to give power to the marginalized millions.
The solution isn't a third party, but a union of swing voters. Swing voters are the ones who are going to decide the outcome of November's election. By organizing as a national voting bloc across all 470 Federal races, we can collectively bargain for a better social contract.
Learn more about the American Union and the 2024 strategy at: https://americanunion.substack.com/p/vote-with-radical-love-in-2024
What "swing voters" want to rework the system and "give power to the marginalized millions"? The typical Trump-Biden voter is comfortably middle class and ideologically conservative. They don't want a better social contract when the current one serves them best.
Voters across the spectrum want to rework the system. However, when you're committed to one party or the other, you have very little leverage. Look at the polls - swing voters have power., because >90% of "typical" voters on the national level cancel each other out.. A 2% bloc of true swing voters can control the balance of power in Washington. That's leverage.
It's true that swing voters have a lot of leverage. They use this leverage in support of the status quo.
Why are you so resistant to the idea that a union of swing voters can gain leverage over our political system? Do you want to maintain the status quo?
Did you read what I just said?
Disagree. I wrote a piece called "The Way Forward Isn't Through the 'Center'" that addresses much of this.