The most vivid evidence cited to support the conclusion that American voters are polarized in their views is the undeniable polarization of their elected representatives. But the American voters may in fact be less polarized than their representatives. More voters are registered as independents than as either Democrats or Republicans. Many pe0ple who voted for Trump had voted for Obama.
Two changes in the way we elect our representatives could make our representatives less polarized:
The first would be an end to gerrymandering, which produces districts where only one party has a reasonable chance of winning. In these districts, the primary of the dominant party is the real contest, and in these contests, the prize goes to the candidate who adheres most faithfully to the party line — not to the candidate who demonstrates broad appeal, there being no need to demonstrate broad appeal.
The other would be ranked voting, which would force candidates to broaden their appeal. That is, candidates would be hoping not only to be the voters’ first choice, but also their second and third choices, and this would be possible by being less rigid and pure on the issues.
Mechanical reforms in voting cannot solve all the problems that our democracy faces, but they can help. Worth a try, anyway.
pogo says
The “season” for Gerrymandering reform is almost over. We have one more election cycle to pass reforms around the country until reapportionment/redrawing of lines begins again. So focusing resources on this issues beyond 2020 won’t have as much payoff, until 2026 or so when that cycle starts up again.
But even the “fairest” of district lines will NOT address the political divide we face today. Sure in some districts with skew percentages of certain voters will have their “uber-partisanship” weakened bit (which could include making wildly progressive seats like AOC’s or Pressley’s less progressive because they are presently drawn to attract very progressive people).
But how do we address the more natural divide between urban America and rural America? The divide between college educated and blue collar America? We can not draw our way out of that divide. So while I believe that anti-gerrymandering efforts will have a positive impact around the edges, it is not the big solution people make it out to be.
Ranked Choice Voting? I’m on the bandwagon.
doubleman says
I think there’s only one pole in our politics. The extreme right. The both sides idea is a myth. A myth well fostered by our media.
It’s interesting that mechanical changes like ranked choice voting could increase the potential for ideological gaps. Polls show that many ideas of the left (like medicare for all) are broadly popular, so this may mean more left leaning candidates winning. Ideas of the extreme right (like a full prohibition on abortion) are broadly unpopular, so you may see fewer candidates of the far right surviving races in which a more moderate Republican might win.
These changes are good for democracy but the result may not be more moderation in our elected officials, it may be the opposite (which I think would be good).
pogo says
Not sure if I understand your point (or I disagree, if I do understand your point) when you write, “It’s interesting that mechanical changes like ranked choice voting could increase the potential for ideological gaps.”
doubleman says
The OP writes that changes would result in elected officials with a broader appeal and that would reduce polarization. The underlying assumption (as I see it) is that broader appeal means more moderate voices and therefore less polarization. But candidates with “broader appeal” may be ones tapping into popular opinion on things like health care or taxing the wealthy or climate change, and the more broadly popular positions on such issues are less moderate than the current platforms of either party. We could have more elected officials with more ideological positions, like Warren and Sanders, than people like Seth Moulton.
SomervilleTom says
Each day that passes with Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats remaining paralyzed on even beginning an impeachment investigation makes me less eager to engage in any of these discussions.
I see only one actual political force in play — the wealthy protecting the wealthy.
FDR was able to accomplish what he did because America was in chaos and because the threat of home-grown communism was real and immediate. The banking system had completely failed. Millions of Americans were desperately hungry. FDR took office with a mandate to do whatever was necessary to right the ship, and FDR used that mandate to make truly revolutionary changes that the GOP is today fighting hard to reverse.
I think we will not solve the issues that face us until we have another Great Recession — or worse. No president of either party will be able to do anything with the country split almost exactly down the middle. FDR could not have done the New Deal if America of 1930 mirrored America of today.
As a famous consultant once told me: “Sometimes you have to show the electorate that something is broken before they will agree to fix it.”
I think we will remain paralyzed until most of our electorate agrees that government for the wealthy by the wealthy is broken.
jessefell says
I think that Pelosi is reluctant to impeach Trump because it is certain that he would be acquitted by the Senate, and this would have the effect of confirming him in his ability to do the things that demanded that he be impeached. And in the course of being re-elected (may the merciful gods prevent) he would no doubt do more of the same, or worse. It would be difficult, at least politically, to impeach him then, having impeached once already. The case for impeachment now (and it’s a good one) is that the Congress is duty bound to go on record as finding that his behavior meets any reasonable interpretation of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard set by the Constitution.
doubleman says
If they fail to impeach, which disappoints the base and shows the country that the Democrats won’t use their power on critical things, AND Trump wins reelection, he will essentially be a king.
Democrats too often miss a fundamental political truth. People follow strength.
SomervilleTom says
I think that Ms. Pelosi is reluctant to even begin impeachment hearings because she is pursuing a grand self-serving “strategy” of using the abuses and “outrages” of Donald Trump and his GOP Collaborators as fodder in the 2020 campaign. I think it’s a cynical ploy to advance a short-term political agenda, rationalized away by grandiose words and empty promises.
The support for Richard Nixon was as strong or stronger when that Congress began its impeachment investigation. Mr. Nixon was forced to step down when even his supporters had to admit that the resulting case against him was devastating. That case was put together by the impeachment investigation. It was not written by any special prosecutor. Nobody ever indicted Mr. Nixon. It would not have happened if the impeachment investigation had not been initiated.
A prosecutor who has compelling evidence that a person committed a serious crime has a moral, ethical, and legal obligation to indict, prosecute, and do everything legally possible to convict and punish the criminal — even if the person is famous and popular. How would we respond to a prosecutor who proposed to ignore the evidence against Bill Cosby because that prosecutor didn’t believe a jury would convict him?
The only thing certain is that if the Democrats do not initiate impeachment proceedings, ALL of the crimes and abuses of this administration will be enshrined as “unimpeachable”.
The effect of this policy is to completely emasculate Congress.
betsey says
To get involved at the state-level, check out the Massachusetts Coalition Against Gerrymandering and Voter Choice Massachusetts!
BTW it’s called ranked choice voting, not ranked voting.
jconway says
I got called by a Voter Choice MA volunteer last night and we had a great conversation, they are looking for bodies for a Beacon Hill lobbying day on July 16th at 11 and a lot of great events in between. Worth checking out.
What’s fun is it’s a real non-partisan crowd. A lot of unenrolled voters, third party voters, recovering moderate Republicans and progressives. Smart leadership too.