I think it's apparent I'm a little bit off the ideological beaten path here at Daily Kos. I'm a liberal libertarian or a communitarian, which translates in practice to a dynamic centrism. What is a dynamic centrist? I believe that there are always (at least) two sides to every political conflict. In a healthy democracy, both sides are equally good and bad and simply need to be reconciled. In an unhealthy "democracy"/kleptocracy then one of the sides is clearly more corrupted by power than the other. Right now that side is most associated with the Republican party.
But to make things right(or left), we need to focus less on getting the other side into power and more on making the system healthy again. This is why I've been relentlessly posting about Strategic Election Reform(SER) at Daily Kos.
SER entails advocacy for an upgrade to the 3-seated state assembly elections used in Illinois from 1870-1980 that Barack Obama endorsed and tried to bring back in 2001. It would make more elections competitive, handicap the rivalry between the two major parties and help ethnic/economic/ideological minorities get more voice, thru their increased ability to determine who wins the third state assembly seat. (*See below for brief description of 3-seated PR election.)
It's an everyone, except those who benefit unduly from the status quo, wins scenario, except it requires a willingness to let go of the honest desire to get "our party" in power at the state/national level. But I think it's a no-brainer for Kossacks that the quality of elected Democratic leaders matters more than the quantity. So my hope is that Rob Richie of FairVote and other progressive leaders see the light and decide to commit to a 6-year push for 3-seated Hare Largest Remainder state assembly elections in multiple states**. The goal would be to succeed in at least one state in the next six years, with the expectation that SER would then spread to more states from there.
Happy New Year!
dlw
* 3-seated Hare LR is the proportional representation election closest to our current first-past-the-post election rule. This is because first-past-the-post is equivalent to a single-seated Hare LR election rule. It has one candidate per party and one vote per voter. But the typical outcome would be that the top three candidates would win one seat each. That is unless the top candidate beats the third place candidate by more then one-third of the total vote. In that case, (s)he would win two seats for her/his party and get to pick a team-mate/partner to hold the second seat.
This would entail that there be state-districts, with one state senator and three state assembly-persons in each district. So if the percent of votes received by four candidates were: 40, 30, 20, 10 then the top three would win one seat each. If the percent of the votes received were: 55, 35, 8, 2 then the top candidate would win two seats and the second place candidate would win one seat. Thus, one can anticipate that the two major parties would win one seat in each state-district and get 33.3+% of the state assembly seats. Third parties would be able to together win up to 33.3% of the seats.
In order to get things done, one could mandate that every two years the parties first have to pick their leaders and then determine which of the (major) parties is in power with a (plurality) vote by the newly-elected assembly-persons. The leader(s) of the party in power would then be given extra powers so they can get things done, even though their party only controls 33.3+% of the state-assembly seats. This would reduce the chaos from the inability of any party to win a strong majority. It would also let the third party state assembly-persons determine which of the two major parties is in power. If third parties are smaller and less hierarchical in their leadership then they would have a lower overhead and be harder to corrupt. This would guarantee that the leaders of the party in power would have a hard time abusing their extra powers to make sure their party stays in power. And that would in turn make it very hard for one party to dominate a state's politics, as so often happens in practice today. Then, the changes in voter behavior(increased turnout and better informed voters due to influence of local third parties) and campaign finances (more major intere$t$ would have to hedge more between the two major parties and accept a lower and more variable return on their $peech) due to the use of SER in state legislative elections would spill over to make more national elections better. More national elections would be competitive and it would be harder for either major party to dominate our national politics if they cannot dominate our state politics. And if neither party can get a "permanent majority" then their incentives would be to work out compromise reforms together rather than relentlessly attack each other.
** I am not against Instant Runoff VotingIRV) But it is perhaps over-emphasized right now by electoral reform advocates. Clearly, it's not easy to get electoral reform period and IRV has had the most success of any election rule alternative to first-past-the-post. I do not mean to gainsay the hard work of many to push for the use of IRV for single-seated elections. I merely wish to submit my informed opinion that 3-seated Proportional Representation is just as, if not more, important as the use of IRV. It does do a better job of helping to elect third party and minority representatives. It is more simple, since the ballot is the same as the current ballot. And even if the odds are more against the adoption of 3-seated state-assembly elections, if SER is pursued in multiple states over the course of six years then the odds of success in at least one state should be high enough to land some big fish in support of the reform.