Drutman thinks fusion will best usher in "party-centered reform" that the two-party system so badly needs -- and maybe even proportional representation
I learn something new every time I read this blog. I hadn’t thought of RCV as candidate-centered reform, but now comparing it to fusion voting, I see the contrast to party-centered reform. I’ve been thinking of RCV as voter-centered reform.
It seems that over time our political parties have become entrenched in their right to wield power instead of their privilege to serve they way voters want them to. Won’t more strong parties result in the same scenario and individual voters still be in the same spot we are now.
What about the fairly large percentage of Americans who aren’t “joiners” by nature? I’ve been thinking of RCV as a way for them to fully be heard without forcing them to choose between parties first, then specific candidates? Sort of like parties being the middlemen. (Although pondering my support of union organizing, I do see the value of organizing parties. I’m just not sure that government has to be run by faithful party joiners who become more attached to their party than their voters).
And I hadn’t been aware of the widespread adoption of fusion in the 19th century. I’m curious to know why it all but disappeared.
I was surprised by Mr. Drutman's argument here. I read his book, "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop," which was very pro-RCV. And that was written in 2019 -- hardly a lifetime ago!
Mr. Drutman -- if you're reading this, could you elaborate on what changed in your thinking? Was there some political event that changed your mind?
I learn something new every time I read this blog. I hadn’t thought of RCV as candidate-centered reform, but now comparing it to fusion voting, I see the contrast to party-centered reform. I’ve been thinking of RCV as voter-centered reform.
It seems that over time our political parties have become entrenched in their right to wield power instead of their privilege to serve they way voters want them to. Won’t more strong parties result in the same scenario and individual voters still be in the same spot we are now.
What about the fairly large percentage of Americans who aren’t “joiners” by nature? I’ve been thinking of RCV as a way for them to fully be heard without forcing them to choose between parties first, then specific candidates? Sort of like parties being the middlemen. (Although pondering my support of union organizing, I do see the value of organizing parties. I’m just not sure that government has to be run by faithful party joiners who become more attached to their party than their voters).
And I hadn’t been aware of the widespread adoption of fusion in the 19th century. I’m curious to know why it all but disappeared.
I was surprised by Mr. Drutman's argument here. I read his book, "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop," which was very pro-RCV. And that was written in 2019 -- hardly a lifetime ago!
Mr. Drutman -- if you're reading this, could you elaborate on what changed in your thinking? Was there some political event that changed your mind?