Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Brian's avatar

I was somehow subscribed to this Substack and just want to say this demand has no basis in reality. Yes, the system is clearly corrupt, but the author does not seem to understand the how and why of these systems developed. If you understand those forces, you'll see how impractical this whole proposal is. The author can't even seem to make up his own mind, declaring "As long as candidates accept the broken and corrupt system as it exists, no progress is possible," and then cheerfully accepts the broken and corrupt system two sentences later by declaring "I can run successfully for president as an independent."

It's only the first of several counter-intuitive claims. The author states, "It is assumed that it is not a big deal to have easily hacked software on voting machines." This is an insult to the thousands of men and women who manage our elections. Is there any source for this wild claim?

To declare "the Democratic Party and the Republican Party will play no role in this election" is fanciful and hypocritical after all the (valid) bemoaning about disenfranchisement. To all the tens of millions of people who want to be represented by those major parties, it will not be permitted! In any case, their existing party infrastructure/institutional knowledge will guarantee that they will emerge at the top. Duverger's law ensures that we will continue to have a two-party system as long as our elections have single winners.

Similarly, it's ludicrous to suggest this proposal "will encourage [independent candidacies from] those who started out in the Democratic or the Republican fortresses" because elections are only one half of the political process. Congress is the legislative branch, and parties will continue to have oversized impact in those chambers. To leave a political party in an election, even if done successfully, is to doom oneself to irrelevance in the legislature.

"We will establish sources of accurate journalism for all citizens over the next six months that will guarantee that we have an informed public and a road forward towards democracy." That was July 9, 2020... how did that turn out? There is already a wealth of information out there for voters, the problem is that it actively must be searched out, as opposed to the passive receiving of information that occurs now through the media. To actively participate takes free time, something that is in short supply for the 140 million people living in or near poverty. (This is why Rome only allowed heads of households to vote, because they were the ones with free time required to become informed on the issues.)

This would be exacerbated by expanding the number of candidates. Not a bad thing in principle, but utterly impractical to ask people to make informed decisions about large quantities of candidates. As we saw in California's 2003 recall election where 135 candidates were on the ballot, name recognition became the deciding factor.

The same is true of "an election in which there will be no financing of candidates by the rich and the powerful." It is absolutely impossible to keep the American people in a vacuum about the election in order to prevent advantages accruing to the connected. Think of how Donald Trump got five billion dollars in free air time during the 2016 election. The popular candidates will get air time, or speak in public venues, or have their message spread by the ground game of the party machines showing up at all the local events to promote them. Advertising truly is "one of the greatest blights" but it is a genie that can not be put back in the bottle on demand. The author tries to say "all viable candidates have equal access to exposure" but you can not mandate name recognition.... and how you define "viable candidate" seems likely to perpetuate the same system we have now, thanks to Duverger's law. Someone will have to decide which candidates are worthy and unworthy.

Then the author veers away from Constitution, claiming "the election planned for November 3 [2020] will be blatantly unconstitutional in nature and therefore completely unacceptable in a legal, constitutional or ethical sense." No, the Constitution gives Congress the obligation to set rules for elections, which they have done. And with the hindsight the author has now, he should realize that 158 million people turning out to vote gives that election an ethical mandate on top of the legal and constitutional one.

One thing that is noticeably absent is any discussion of whether the winner in this field of viable candidates (however those are determined) should be required to have a majority of votes or only a plurality.

I laughed out loud at the suggestion that voting should take place January 15 through January 20, since the Constitution dictates that the president's term is over at noon on that day. I guess the Speaker of the House takes over? (To really drive home the disjointed nature of this proposal, the author changes his mind a few paragraphs later to suggest January 17 to 23 for the election.) Then we swerve back into fanciful with "a temporary government must be established for the transition." By who and what rules are you going to trump the Constitution?

I'm also bothered by many of the "facts" such as "The barriers to voting are growing higher and higher by the day." Um... the number of disenfranchised has been shrinking for years (but still has a way to go) and the voter turnout in 2020 was 158 million, more than 20 million additional people than four years earlier.

I do rather like the humility that the United States would have to demonstrate in order to invite and international group to oversee the election. These would be "ethical and brave individuals committed to due process and the rule of law," except when it comes to "the question of the Electoral College," in which case the author seems to suggest that the Constitution should be ignored. No, that's not how this works.

Anyway, as well intentioned as this all may be, it is impossible to take seriously. Any radical restructuring must take place within the laws, rules, and Constitution that already exist. And there is a way! The American Union of swing voters offers a path in 2024 which addresses four of the author's points.

"That is because money is critical for the current system, but the vote of citizens is not."

A union of swing voters nationwide can control which half of the duopoly controls the House, Senate, and Oval Office. The parties can only spend money trying to make things more competitive, but the outcome is determined by votes.

"The campaign will be focused on the needs of the nation and a scientific analysis of issues and policy."

When a union of swing voters wields power over Washington, that power will be used to demand legislative action, focused on the needs of the nation, prior to the election in exchange for those votes.

"Their abilities, their plans and their innate moral qualities ... must be known to the public as part of the campaign."

The American Union is a moral crusade to address MLK's triple evils of poverty, racism, and militarism. The legislative demands (summarized as end poverty, end mass incarceration, end the endless wars) are shared openly, developed by a people's assembly made up of organizers seizing the moral high ground through sacrifice and service.

"It is far more important to hold open events in which citizens, block by block, door to door, are encouraged to meet together and to consider in detail the policies proposed."

By sidestepping the question of WHO will win the election to focus solely on WHAT do we want in exchange for our decisive bloc of votes, citizens will be able to look closely at very specific policy proposals -- a contrast to the nebulous campaign promises that candidates make -- and decide if they want to pool their votes on Election Day.

No independent candidate can win the presidency in 2024 -- it's mathematically impossible. But what is very possible is that a small percentage of swing voters across five key swing states collectively bargain for the outcome, and cut through the interconnected legislative and electoral problems in our political system simultaneously. Thus, we can build a shiny new political structure around the rotting old one, if we commit to (a) refusing to engage in partisan politics, (b) do the hard work of crowdsourcing Congress, and (c) maximize our political influence by voting as a bloc by our own metrics.

Learn more about this political innovation at: https://americanunion.substack.com/

Expand full comment
Jon Olsen's avatar

I skimmed through this long piece.This paragraph caught my eye

"But such easily hacked technology for counting votes would be unthinkable in ATMs, or in other systems for the control of money. That is because money is critical for the current system, but the vote of citizens is not."

Good observation. As for advertising. I would say that, in pursuit of public duty, all qualified candidates be given free time (much to be negotiated) at the pain of losing their public broadcast license. Make the news and debates interesting,and mas media may gain back some of the customers they have lost due to dishonest reporting, usually by omission.

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts