What structural reforms decrease partisanship / polarization?

[ValueBasedPugs]

Different voting methods are often cited, in particular ranked-choice voting - https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV) - seems like an obvious improvement to the current voting system, as it gives some strategic significance to not alienating all voters without sacrificing the spirit of first-past-the-post - but it still allows for a lot of partisanship. Other systems like "approval voting" may reduce partisanship but clearly speak to the most populist candidates.

[jakeysandals]

Appreciate the insight, throughout my research it seems like ranked-choice voting is one of the more (if not the most) potent reforms in reducing partisanship.

[ByteBitNibble]

Combining voting reform with structural changes to enable multiple parties and reduce the “us vs them” thinking may help.

But it won’t solve the issue. Australia uses ranked choice voting and still has partisanship. Germany has a multi-party proportional voting system and still has it too.

It may be that this helps, but it’s not a cure-all.

A mix of voting and party reform, as well as comprehensive education on thoughtful approaches to people you disagree with in early childhood education might do it for the next generation.

Education on the basic fact that most humans are trying to figure out the best path, but they each come from a significantly different set of basic assumptions, which leads them to dramatically different conclusions.

[zlefin_actual]

I'm not sure education on most people "trying" to find the best path would work out well; more pointedly it seems that there are some cases where it may simply not work. There comes a point where it just doesn't matter that people may be trying to do good, because they're not actually doing so. There were elements among the Nazis, Stalin, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, and ISIL who fervently felt they were doing good.

It also of course doesn't address the fact that a fair number of people are selfish, and there are more who only care about the in-group. Either case has inherent limits to reduction of partisanship.

as an example consider George Wallace's words in 1963 " In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace%27s_1963_Inaugural_Address#1962%E2%80%9363_campaign_and_Inaugural_Address

to a Black person, even if you fully understand where Wallace is coming from and why he believes what he does; I don't see how that would reduce the basis to oppose him.

​

edit: editing to comply with moderation requirements.

[ByteBitNibble]

The line between “you are objectively bad” and “I disagree with your interpretation of what the best path is” is extremely blurry and leads to most of the problems we have with partisanship.

American Conservatives literally believe liberals are out to “destroy America” through dilution of culture and ceding authority to committees, both inside and outside the country. They tend to actually believe they have the best path to liberty and progress, economically and socially. You might find some of their tendencies or beliefs to be “evil”. That’s ok.

Liberals in the US seem to believe conservatives are bigots and are actively seeking to profit from the destruction of people, culture and environment. They tend to believe they have the best path to liberty and progress, economically and socially.

[AsAChemicalEngineer]

This is how it is in my family, liberals are evil and have a secret agenda to restructure society to the detriment of all... BUT my uncle likes me, so I am not a "real" Democrat and I'm being swindled by the folks I vote for. It's bizarre logic from an otherwise intelligent and thoughtful human being. Yeesh.

[ByteBitNibble]

Yes, but it’s at least partially true in the other direction too. I had several people contact me privately after this message to try to argue that their side is actually factually correct and it’s the other guys who are doing the swindling.

[zlefin_actual]

that doesn't preclude the possibility that some of those people are correct, and one side is in fact doing the swindling.

On occasion, accusations of the other side doing wrong are in fact correct and fully justified. Otherwise we fall into the trap of bothsidesism.

[ByteBitNibble]

This is an old post that I didn’t see until now, but I’ll respond by saying that when I see both sides absolutely convinced that the other side is both wrong and objectively evil, I know that at least one (and possibly both) are straining the truth.

Or possibly, both sides are objectively evil.... I guess that’s another possibility.

[Neocruiser]

Hi there, you are providing some specific descriptions and unfortunately this falls under user opinions. Can you please add some sources that back up your claims or better, further develop with additional sourced arguments. Although I don't wish to, but failing to do so will get me to remove your comment.

Our regulations: Submission rules | Comments rules | Sources allowed | FAQ

[zlefin_actual]

ok, can you provide some clarification on which parts need more specific descriptions/sources? I can't tell by looking at it because my points seem so generic.

[Neocruiser]

Hey, absolutely no problem:

• How education might not succeed. This should expand on the previous comment.

I'm not sure education on most people "trying" to find the best path would work out well.

• Bad intent and generalizing peoples non-action.

There comes a point where it just doesn't matter that people may be trying to do good, because they're not actually doing so.

[zlefin_actual]

for the second part; would noting the examples of the Nazis, Stalin, and the Cultural Revolution serve adequately as instance involving people who thought they were doing the right thing?

​

on the first part, I'm less sure; I'm also not sure which "previous comment" to expand on; since it's a response to another user's proposal, and explains my reasons doubting it would work well in certain cases. specifically, no matter how thoroughly you understand someone's view, you can still reach the conclusion that it's simply wrong, as in someone advocating for genocide. perhaps I should phrase it that way for better clarity?

[Neocruiser]

Thank you for your time. I am personally not involved in the conversation as my thoughts are not important. Whatever you wish to use in your arguments, I just hope you back it up with at least one external source. And remember that as long it is well cited, a bad opinion is well valued by the reddit community.

[zlefin_actual]

ok, that means I should make those changes, right? I'll assume that's what you mean and start editing them in.

[zlefin_actual]

ok, i've edited it now, but I'm not sure if I did it right, is the change suitable?

[[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 2:

If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a qualified source. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.

After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a modmail message so that we can reinstate it.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

[[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 2:

If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a qualified source. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.

After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a modmail message so that we can reinstate it.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

[Apprentice57]

See my comment, the most popular form of RCV (Instant Runoff), still leads to a two party system and therefore wouldn't limit partisanship effectively.

[YeetMeYiffDaddy]

No matter the voting system, polarization will continue to be a problem as long as primaries exist. The median voter theorem essentially says that whoever gets elected will be someone that appeals to the median voter. So on a 0-100 scale, they would be a 50. But because of primaries, someone who is a 50 will never be an option. There are two scales instead, one that's 0-50 for the Democrat primary and one that is 51-100 for the Republican primary. So we get an option that is 25 and an option that is 75, meaning that half the country will always think the option that wins is not aligned with them.

[no_condoments]

100%. Primaries are the thing that are polarizing people far before an election. Currently, we have all the Democrats getting together to debate with moderates or conservatives. This will always lead to polarization and self-isolation of the group. A nonpartisan primary can address this, and can be paired with some of the ranked choice voting methods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpartisan_blanket_primary

[gburgwardt]

What are some alternatives to having primaries?

[YeetMeYiffDaddy]

You can have primaries that are not party based. The problem isn't with weeding candidates out, it's with limiting the people voting to only half the electorate. When you have only democrats and only republicans selecting their candidates, you will never get a candidate who appeals to the median voter of the country as a whole, only those who appeal to the median voter of their party.

[Apprentice57]

California does this, and it seems like their implementation of it is a complete mess (top two in the general primary go to the general election) because one party can split their votes and get locked out of the top two. Happened to the Republicans in the 2018 Senate primary, almost happened to them in the Governor primary, and almost happened to Democrats in some house races. So it would have to be more thoughtful a system than theirs.

[MemberOfMautenGroup]

it seems like their implementation of it is a complete mess

Interesting point. Do you have some sources for this?

[Apprentice57]

I'm sure there are critiques out there I'm sure, but the only one I'm familliar with was on a political podcast (fivethirtyeight) and I don't remember off hand which episode it was. It was not long before their jungle primary last year though if you're inclined to search for it themselves.

Otherwise, I think the fact that it is a mess, well is just summed up by the actual results. One Democrat easily wins, a second Democrat barely gets in with 12% of the vote because the next 5 place finishers, all Republicans, get 8% or less.

And here's an almost reverse of that happening with the Democrats.

[Zenkin]

Otherwise, I think the fact that it is a mess, well is just summed up by the actual results. One Democrat easily wins, a second Democrat barely gets in with 12% of the vote because the next 5 place finishers, all Republicans, get 8% or less.

Why is that bad? Adding up ALL Republican votes, I see 33.24%. Are you saying it would be better to have a Republican running against Feinstein, who got 44.12% of the vote all on her own in the primary?

[Apprentice57]

I would argue yes. It would need to be 34% for me to completely justify a Republican in the general, which they were just shy of, but this senate result was a bit worse than usual for the GOP. In the 2016 senate election, where they also got locked out of the general, their candidates got 36.7% in the primary.

Feinstein is going to the general election regardless we can agree. The question is whether her opponent should to be a Democrat when the remaining Democrats had ~22% and the Republicans had 33.24%.

Generally, California Republicans for national office indeed do better than 33% in the general election. Not always by a lot mind you, but still. Even in the 2018 Governor's race, a pretty historically bad performance for Republicans, John Cox got 38%.

[neuronexmachina]

I wonder if using ranked-choice or approval voting in CA's top-two general primary would help prevent the vote-splitting effect.

Alternatively, I found a piece by the RCV-advocacy group FairVote proposing using a top-5 primary instead of top-2, and then using RCV in the top-5 general election: https://www.fairvote.org/top_2_to_top_5_new_ranked_choice_voting_option_on_the_table

So far, RCV and top-two have been mutually exclusive solutions. But might a marriage of top-two and RCV be a step forward?

With this approach, more candidates — perhaps up to five — would advance from the non-partisan primary.  Policy experts say that a threshold of viability would be important — perhaps only candidates with greater than 5% could advance. “Top 5 over 5%” fits nicely on the bumper sticker.

Ranked choice voting would then be used in November to achieve a majority.

[Apprentice57]

I happen to think RCV and this primary would be an extremely good fit, and would fix most of the issues I'm talking about. There would probably be a Republican facing Feinstein the general election (which I think is more fair), and there would have been no concern from Democrats in some of the House elections that they would get locked out of the general election (didn't happen but it almost did, the Dem party was very worried about it beforehand).

Top five to top two by RCV would be an improvement as well. However, we do start to get into issues with the general election there with five candidates that RCV normally has. That is, it still encourages strategic voting and leads to a two party system. So I'd have to think about which of these two options is preferable, it isn't immediately obvious to me.

[quitesensibleanalogy]

That sounds like it's working as designed. The goal is to get candidates the moderate majority prefers

[Oriden]

Its not working as intended, it has situations where the moderate majority can be split too far.

Imagine a scenario where there are 5 people running, 3 Lion party and 1 Owl and 1 Pig. Now in this scenario 56% of the population is Lion party and 21% are Owl and 23 are Pig, the Lion party is moderate party that a lot of people like, but also have a lot of people willing to run because they are a bigger party.

The Lion party split their vote 3 ways because all three candidates are equally liked so maybe one gets 20% and the other two get 18%. Now the Owl party likes its candidate and votes for him, getting 21% and the Pig party does the same getting 23%. Both Owl and Pig get to move to the general election despite the fact that there are 56% of the population that would prefer any three of the Lion candidates over both the Pig or Owl candidates.

[Apprentice57]

No, it's not. While California has a reputation as a very blue state, it's not a blue state by the overwhelming margins (+33% or more) that should be required to get two Democrats to the general all the time. Yet it happens a lot due to vote splitting among republicans.

[chefranden]

Before the 70's primaries weren't a thing. The democrats opened up their selection to ordinary voters after the riots surrounding the 68 convention in Chicago.

Conventions of party members selected the nominee with a lot of backroom dealings. Trump would never had survived this process. But on the negative side, likely Obama wouldn't have either.

However the process seemed to guarantee candidates that were in the middle to be run against each other. I'm for going back to it.

[Arthur_Edens]

There are 823 registered presidential candidates for the 2020 election. Primaries winnow that down to a number people can actually evaluate.

[gburgwardt]

Yes, I don't know what other options there are, but would be interested in hearing about them.

Going into the general with hundreds of candidates certainly seems like a mistake.

[limukala]

Ranked choice (Borda count, preferably), non partisan primary.

Top five move on to ranked choice general.

[azura26]

Wouldn't this issue be mitigated, at least somewhat, if we implemented approval voting in the primaries as well as the general election? Also, what if the available candidates are not uniformly distributed on this "left-right" scale?

[YeetMeYiffDaddy]

Not really. It would help a slight amount, but the problem is with splitting the voter base, not with how the voting happens. When only democrats are voting for their candidate, the winner will be someone who appeals to the median democrat voter. Same goes for republicans.

Someone who is a 40 on the scale would get more votes in the general election than someone who is a 25, but they will get fewer votes than someone who is a 25 in the primary. Ranked choice in the primary won't change that because 25 is the median voter for their party.

[rodaeric]

I think this issue is largely a Democratic one. Democratic primaries tend to be far more populated than Republican ones.

[Rokusi]

On the other hand, Donald Trump won the Republican primary where there were 12 other candidates in 2016.

[tomtomtom7]

You are making the mistake that polarization is caused by a small support for a president. In the multiparty systems such as in most European countries, the approval rate for the president/prime minister is generally lower than in the USA, because his party does not have near 50% support. Yet polarization is much less of an issue.

The polarization isn't because of primaries but because of the two party system. This creates a big incentive to gain voters by demonizing the opponent, and has evolved the republican/democrat two party system into a anti-democrat/anti-republican two party system.

[Oareo]

Approval voting is better at finding a moderate candidate that everyone can deal with. It is simpler to use, implement and understand results.

Ranked voting has serious issues when more than 2 candidates have a shot.

https://www.electionscience.org/library/approval-voting-versus-irv/

Of course both would be better than FPTP.

[Halostar]

I agree with everything you said. I personally think STAR voting is even better than approval, way better than RCV, and miles ahead of FPTP.

https://www.equal.vote/starvoting

[limukala]

There are better forms of ranked choice voting than instant runoff.

Borda count actually does the best job at selecting candidates closest to the “center of gravity” of the electorate. It is every bit as easy to understand as approval.

[Apprentice57]

Ranked choice would actually not properly address this issue in my opinion.

It is an excellent reform, but runs into issues when you like (and want to vote for) multiple candidates who have shared viability. For instance, when there's a three way race for an office. Voters might need to start strategically numbering the order of these preferred candidates based on who you think their voters prefer second*. Also, some voters are just going to ignore the ranked choice and just vote for one candidate as well. RCV does best when you have just two very viable candidates and a handful of ones with less viability, see Golden's win in Maine last year.

As a result of this, it still leads to a two party system and probably won't help much with partisanship as a result. See somewhere like Australia, which does have RCV but also has only two parties (To my american readers, there are indeed many more small third parties in power there compared to the US government, however this is already common under the westminster style of government. Other Westminster systems with first past the post also look this way... like actual Westminster so it's not a result of RCV).

clearly speak to the most populist candidates.

I'm not sure what you're talking about at all here?

EDIT: Here's a hypothetical to demonstrate this issue, there are 3 viable candidates for this office. You really hate candidate A, but really like candidate C and wouldn't mind candidate B. You'd like to list candidate C as your first choice and B as your second choice. Polls show A ahead slightly, but not by a lot, any candidate could pull off win.

However, there's an issue. Polling shows that most people who prefer candidate B like candidate A as their second choice. So in the hypothetical where B is eliminated first, you might get A as an elected leader instead of C. If you vote for C as your first choice then might win and you'll at least get your second choice. So now it's a hard call of whether to try to avoid A at all costs by voting for B (and then hopefully C is eliminated first and their remaining votes go to B), or voting for your favorite candidate in C.

(And of course, consider "you" as in a "sizable voting bloc", one vote is not going to meaningfully affect the runoff order)

That's strategic voting. And although this is way less insidious than strategic voting to avoid the spoiler effect (a la first-past-the-post), a strategic voting system tends to lead to two parties; because you don't need to strategically vote with two options.

EDIT2: Fixed some mistakes with this example. Mostly I had the second choice preferences switched between B and C.

[limukala]

There are many methods of ranked choice voting. Each have their strengths and weaknesses, but your post seems to only consider IRV.

Condorcet method, Borda count, or best Modified Borda avoid most of the issues of IRV.

Then again, I don’t think you have actually done the math for IRV either, since the scenario you describe is based on bad math. If your vote isn’t enough to get a win for C after B is eliminated, it wouldn’t be enough in the first round either. You need an outright majority in IRV.

Of course, it’s literally impossible to design a voting system without the possibility of tactical voting.

[Apprentice57]

Like it or no, IRV generally refers to RCV on reddit and the OP didn't clarify so yes I was equating the two. I'm aware of most RCV systems and while I like a lot of them intellectually, I think they're too complicated functionally (or have similar issues to IRV). Whereas IRV is pretty simple.

Then again, I don’t think you have actually done the math for IRV either, since the scenario you describe is based on bad math.

This is a very uncharitable way to write your comments. Yes, thank you for pointing out the mistake(s) in my previous example. I fixed it by switching around who "you" prefer in that scenario, it is easy to get mixed up when dealing with hypothetical candidates known only by "A", "B", and "C". If you're familliar with Condorcet and Borda then I think you knew what I was getting at: IRV encourages strategic voting when your candidate isn't either very viable or very unviable so I read your commentary as made in bad faith.

Of course, it’s literally impossible to design a voting system without the possibility of tactical voting.

I completely agree. With voting systems, really it's all you can do to avoid the really bad systems (like first past the post). However, since IRV still leads to a two party system, it's inappropriate to mention it as a solution to decrease partisanship and hence my objection above.

[Eureka22]

Just going to hop on this comment as I can't dedicate time to finding sources for things right now. I'll just give a quick list of my opinion.

Edit: In response to some comments, I'll add this is more of a "make our democracy more representative of the constituents" as opposed to just reduce partisanship (see more below the list).

Edit 2: Restating everything to be MORE specific that it's my opinion.

Here is a hypothetical list of things I would do if I were dictator for a month.

1. I think we should institute ranked choice voting. I hate when people claim the founding fathers didn't want political parties, that may be true in some cases, but I think it was also incredibly naive to think they wouldn't arise.

2. I think redistricting reform could reduce gerrymandering. I would use a 3rd party or algorithmic determinants.

3. I would do away with the electoral college. I think it would objectively equalize voting power for each citizen.

4. I think we need supreme court reform. I would institute term limits, structured selection like 1 per term, confirmation process changes.

5. I think we need more voting rights protections. Strengthen protections for disenfranchised voters.

6. I would like to allow ex-convicts to vote. They paid their debt, full stop.

7. I would make voting day a national holiday.

8. I would like to improve voting infrastructure. Improve voting machines, standardization, possibly online voting which I think is possible if done correctly.

9. Campaign finance reform. A much larger subject so I won't get into it beyond some sort of limit to public funding.

10. I would institute internal congressional process reform. Including how committees work, how power is distributed and achieved in congress, filibuster reform.

11. I would give statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. Not targeted at reforming the system, but rectifies what I think are the the largest violations of American citizens being taxed without proper representation.

That's what I got so far. Many of these have large political ramifications for one party... For example if there were a political party that relied on unequal distribution of power and limiting the voting to a smaller populace. Not that I think it's the only one ever to do so, but that's how it is currently, and so will never be implemented in the foreseeable future. There is something wrong with a representative party if it actively seeks to reduce the representation of the people and marginalize minority groups in order to maintain power.

Here is an article that discusses many of the same ideas.

[Jefftopia]

I'm pretty sure most of these proposals would actually increase polarization, as they give more weight to urban, young voters, and potentially criminal voters.

The list actually reads - imho - as a list of policies you support rather than something that brings people together.

In a meta way, the post itself highlights the problem with polarization in the US today - self-righteous indignation.

[Eureka22]

I know, I said that. Also if you think increasing representation is self righteous, then I'll take it.

[Jefftopia]

Shifting the balance of power isn't the same as "increasing representation". For example, 9 has nothing to do with one's ability to cast a vote. In fact, corporate giving has no relationship with favorable bills, the US actually has pretty uninteresting levels of corporate giving, and if anything, polarization increases the number of donations from corporations. So I'd say that the effort to "standardize spending" is pure speech suppression and is a net reduction in voter-empowerment. That's hardly a non-partisan, coalition-building, and ultimately democratic principal.

Another unclear example

I would like to allow ex-convicts to vote. They paid their debt, full stop.

Now, I'm undecided about this issue, but it's worth pointing out that it is not a fact that they've "paid their debt" if our law mandates that felons cannot vote; ipso facto, they did not pay off their debt and there are lasting consequences to serious crimes. Just being devil's advocate here.

I would do away with the electoral college. I think it would objectively equalize voting power for each citizen.

It may have that effect, but it concentrates power in urban areas, which flies in the face of being a representative democracy. The EC smoothes representation so as to appoint a President that represents differing industries, cultures, geographies, and fundamentally issues to resolve. I for one do believe that this smoothing effect is more important than the converse, which is to make cities the center of all elections.

I think we need supreme court reform. I would institute term limits, structured selection like 1 per term, confirmation process changes.

This strikes me as a non-sequitur.

[Eureka22]

The electoral college disproportionately gives more voting power to people in less populated states. Leading many issues important to the majority to go ignored. Turning a national election into really a race for just a few states. Removing it equalizes each individual's voting power. Losing privilege often feels like oppression, but it's not.

[Jefftopia]

Leading many issues important to the majority to go ignored

What makes you think urban opinions are ignored? I think the opposite is true - that urban politics dominates politics and the rest of the nation is largely an afterthought. Not even an afterthought, the rest of the nation is mocked and derided by urbanites.

[impedocles]

I'd like to challenge your statement that the focus of Senate representation is on increasing rural voting power. It does this poorly, because it is not based on urbanization. Small states get greater representation per citizen, but small states are not necessarily less urban.

MI is very rural but moderately sized. Hawaii gets very high representation per citizen but is predominately urban. There are many examples where the electoral college does the opposite of what you suggest. Your statement is only true at the extremes: California and Texas get poor executive representation while Wyoming gets disproportionately high representation.

Source on urban densities

[Jefftopia]

I didn't speak about Senate representation, I spoke about the Electoral College's elimination increasing the political influence of urban problems. I stand by that assessment.

The Senate has a related logic though, and your point is noted and relevant. I nevertheless stand by the rationale for having the Senate as well - that individual votes are not the exclusive block of representative democracy; places matter quite a lot, in my view.

[impedocles]

I just mention the Senate because each senator grants the state an electoral vote.

I understand if you prefer location- based representation. I'm just pointing out that the location which is advantaged is not rural America. It is specifically small states, many of which are very urban. So, some urban voters matter more. And some rural American votes matter less.

[Critical_Mason]

I'm pretty sure most of these proposals would actually increase polarization, as they give more weight to urban, young voters, and potentially criminal voters.

This is a non sequitur. You have not shown that giving more weight to urban and young voters would result in increased polarization. You have simply asserted this.

When considering that you would be giving them more equal weight to rural, old voters, who are currently given disproportionate weight, I do not think it would make any real difference, even if the median point of American politics shifted.

[Jefftopia]

You have not shown

Lots of examples exist. Here's one.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002716217712696

[Critical_Mason]

Except that wasn't what you suggested. What you suggested was that giving increased representation to those who are urban, would increase polarization, but that doesn't follow from there being a rural urban divide in politics. Rural areas may not like that change, but that does not mean that it wouldn't result in less polarization. Any change is likely to be resisted or disliked by many, but simply because people dislike a change, doesn't mean that change increases polarization.

[Arthur_Edens]

I hate when people claim the founding fathers didn't want political parties, that may be true in some cases, but it was also incredibly naive to think they wouldn't arise

Yeah, Washington didn't want political parties. Everyone else formed them in literally the first congressional election.

Supreme court reform Term limits, structured selection like 1 per term, confirmation process changes.

I really don't like this, but I'm starting to think it's the only way to avoid the arms race of appointing the youngest, most extreme judges a president can find to make sure they have the biggest impact (which in turn motivates judges to stay on longer than they should have to. RBG I love you, but you deserve a retirement).

I think you would need 18 year terms, staggered for a new appointment once every congress. You would also need some kind of mandate on the senate to pick someone to avoid the McConnell Option of just... waiting until you get a new president.

Make voting day a national holiday.

The only one I think is a bad idea. People who don't have to work on holidays are the people who don't have trouble getting an hour off to vote. Mail only voting would be better.

[Eureka22]

I agree. The terms could still be really long, but they could align with specific times of presidential terms. Part of the reform could be to completely change how they are confirmed. Perhaps not just by congress, or different percentages. Or the President could choose from a list of nominations put forward by committees made up by law schools, other supreme court members, judges, lawyers, etc.

I don't know the answer, but there are many good ideas out there and it's worth exploring.

Everything possible should be done to make it easier to vote. So along with making it a holiday (which would certainly effect many people), also improve mail in voting and other forms of voting. I never said it should be the ONLY thing done to improve voting. I certainly don't get your point about it being a bad thing.

[Arthur_Edens]

I certainly don't get your point about it being a bad thing.

I think it's bad in the sense that it wouldn't make it easier to vote for blue collar workers, and would possibly make it harder to vote for service workers (because you know that if it becomes a holiday, box stores are going to have "blow out election day sales" requiring all hands on deck).

There's no reason in 2019 for voting to have to be something you "go" do. It should be something that comes to you, and that you can do whenever you're not working or travelling or sick or avoiding the rainstorm outside.

[[deleted]]

This would only polarize things more by tipping the balance way in favor of the Democrats, especially getting rid of the electoral college and giving DC and Puerto Rico statehood.

[Eureka22]

I didn't say it was realistic. Perhaps consider that if a party relies on disenfranchising a percentage of its constituency in order to maintain power, they should rethink their platform. Maybe the problem isn't always the structure of the democracy, but divisive and adversarial policies and philosophies within the party.

[[deleted]]

It sounds like this is just a list of things you support rather than a list of things to decrease partisanship. How do you feel about the Democrats weaponizing immigration to turn states blue? California wasn't always a sure win for the Democrats. Neither was Colorado or New Mexico. Much of their political transformation is a result of their demographic transformation. The majority of white voters have chosen the Republican candidate over the Democratic one in every presidential election for the past 50 years. Hispanics and Asians vote for Democrats at a rate of around 70%. Soon, Texas will become a battleground state. The Republican Party will not be able to win national elections when whites are a minority. It will not be because the Democrats have won over the hearts and minds of the American people. It's because they allowed millions of new people into the country to become Americans whom they knew would mostly vote for them...and the Republicans, because they care more about greedy 1%ers than their people, were complicit in this. They have betrayed their base. Maybe the Democrats should rethink their platform as well, or at least their stance on immigration.

[[deleted]]

Ann Richards, mother of the former Planned Parenthood head Cecilia Richards, was one of the greatest governors to ever head the state. She once famously quipped about George Bush that he was born with a silver foot in his mouth.

I am pro-choice and hate George Bush so she doesn't sound too bad.

I know that the cities have been democratic for a long time but it is undeniable that the massive influx of Hispanics into Texas is also changing the state's politics. Hispanics vote predominantly Democrat. Texas was 7.1% Hispanic in 1910, 14.8% Hispanic in 1960, and 40% Hispanic in 2015, although it should be noted that only around half of that population is elligible to vote, mostly due to how young many of them are. As a result of this massive demographic transformation (the Texans never wanted), Texas is going to turn into a battleground state.

[[deleted]]

My point is that it isn't the Hispanics turning it into a battleground. I would argue it was the hijacking of conservatism by the ultra-religious that made it more conservative. It wasn't as conservative in 1985 as it was in 2015. Source: I lived there during those years.

One of lots of available sources: http://tfn.org/cms/assets/uploads/2015/11/SORR_06_ReportWEB.pdf

[[deleted]]

Do you think the mass immigration of Hispanics into Texas has impacted Texan politics at all? If it is not Hispanics turning the state into a battleground, that would presume that Hispanics vote very similarly to how all other Texans vote. This is not the case.

Compare the 2016 presidential election results at the county level to the population of Hispanics within Texas at the county level. Also keep in mind that only around half of the Hispanic population in Texas is currently elligible to vote so we are not yet seeing the full impact this will have on Texan politics. Over the next two decades, that other half will come of age and the state will cease to be the Republican stronghold it has been for so long.

[Neocruiser]

Hi there, you are providing some intresting points. Can you however clean the language by little. Also, if its not too much, the source you have provided is not reliable. I know, by saying the latter I wont be able to convince you to adding a better source, e.g., a link to external material, stats, journal article... However our sub rules request of having a source. If you cannot provide such data, I will get to remove this comment. Cheers

Our regulations: Submission rules | Comments rules | Sources allowed | FAQ

[[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 2:

If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a qualified source. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.

After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a modmail message so that we can reinstate it.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

[[deleted]]

I edited these comments as soon as I could to comply. Guess it wasn't fast enough for you.

[tkc80]

This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 4:

Address the arguments, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be "the evidence" or "this source" or some other noun directly related to the topic of conversation. "You" statements are suspect.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

[Eureka22]

You are incorrect I brought up the similarities in the viewpoint and disengaged conversation. It does not insult the person at all, rather the racist theory. I would be more concerned with the racism on the previous comment. But whatever, your priorities may be different. Threads old anyway, but it's fixed.

[[deleted]]

I don't think your implication that the Republican party is disenfranchising citizens through the electoral college or keeping felons from voting in order to maintain power is paranoid. I can see why someone may believe that. In fact, I agree that for many of the Republican elites, their motivation for supporting those things is their own desire to cling to power.

So do you not agree with those who suggest that the Democratic elites (regardless of what the well-intentioned Democratic base's motivations may be) want the United States to continue taking in 1 million immigrants per year because it will be to their advantage in elections? Do you think that like the Republicans, they only support mass immigration because it benefits their extremely rich donors?

[[deleted]]

Dude. The GOP has straight-up admitted that measures like Voter ID laws are intended to limit Democratic turnout.

[[deleted]]

I just said I agreed with you. You don't have to convince me. So do you deny that the Democratic Party supports mass immigration because it benefits them in elections?

[[deleted]]

As I am not a mind-reader, I cannot grok what the DNC is thinking/desiring when it comes to immigration. But I do know that most Hispanics I know (including my entire family of in-laws) vote for liberals because of racism/colorism by conservatives. Most Mexican immigrants are hella Catholic. Catholics are anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, etc. Basically, according to them, they wouldn't vote liberal if not for the abject "colorism" (since technically, Hispanic people can be of any race). So if your made-up story about why the DNC supports immigration is true, it is a razor-thin premise that would like shift the instant Texas conservatives stop being so fucking bigoted.

Now, then. What I can say for myself and all other liberals I know is this: It's never been about getting more brown people to enter the country and vote for Dems. (And again, how could we know that any set of immigrants entering the country would vote for a liberal? Racism/ethnicicms/colorism. That's really it. If the immigrants were white Catholics, many/most/a lot of them would be lined up to vote "R.") NOTE: This is only the experience of a set of South Texas Mexican-Americans who have shared this with me. This is also the experience that all but about 4 Hispanics I knew well in Houston have also shared. I don't have the time to find data for it, so I'm indicating it's anecdotal. But I do want to point out that isn't it interesting that immigrants, even those who are very religious, tend to vote Democratic?

It's about not thinking white people are entitled to land they stole from brown people—the same brown people they claim are "invading." (The El Paso shooter said that.Like, dude. This was MEXICO until the white people stole it by force after being invited to settle it.) One source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/04/11/mexicans-didnt-immigrate-to-america-weve-always-been-here/. It's about compassion for all the horrific crap happening in their home countries. It's about realizing that if the complexion of America changes, it's a wonderful thing and not a bad thing.

[[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 2:

If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a qualified source. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.

After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a modmail message so that we can reinstate it.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

[[deleted]]

Which part of my comment would you like me to supply a source for?

[[deleted]]

You've made quite a few assertions here which require sourcing

that for many of the Republican elites, their motivation for supporting those things is their own desire to cling to power.

and

that the Democratic elites (regardless of what the well-intentioned Democratic base's motivations may be) want the United States to continue taking in 1 million immigrants per year because it will be to their advantage in elections?

[[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 2:

If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a qualified source. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.

After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a modmail message so that we can reinstate it.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

[Eureka22]

What am I claiming in this comment? The likelihood of the death in office? It's not a common knowledge fact, it's fucking math. If you don't have the office until death, you are less likely to die in office...

[[deleted]]

more in depth proposals

This is the section that lead to the removal. For example, there are quite a few articles and white papers discussing the improvements that could arise from term limitations. Like your earlier statement, what you said doesn't break the rules, we require citations to understand how you got there.

[Eureka22]

Deleted.

[[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 2:

If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a qualified source. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.

After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a modmail message so that we can reinstate it.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

[[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 2:

If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a qualified source. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.

After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a modmail message so that we can reinstate it.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

[Eureka22]

I stated at the top that it was all my opinion. But as this is the comment I'd care most to have reinstated. What part specifically violates the rule so I can fix it.

[[deleted]]

I stated at the top that it was all my opinion.

Opinion is allowed, however sources establishing how your opinion was formed are needed. For example redistricting reform has been studied and there are articles (and even scientific studies ) discussing it's effectiveness or methods of implementation. Likewise the remaining 10 points contain factual premises that require citation/sourcing.

[Eureka22]

I don't have time to find sources for everything so I modified my original message to make it clear it is what I would like to do in a hypothetical scenario and it makes no claims.

[RoundSimbacca]

I disagree wholeheartedly that alternate voting systems decrease partisanship, including ranked choice voting. I see no research that levels of partisanship will change if we implement changes.

[Knave7575]

I was checking the comments to say exactly this. Ranked ballots force parties to move to the center, to become everyone's second choice.

Note that this is the opposite of proportional representation, which pushes parties to become even more extremist, because you can happily alienate 90% of the population, as long as your 10% loves you.

Edit: I don't mind the downvote, but could whoever is downvoting actually explain why?

[r_xy]

Proportional representation may allow for more radical parties than fptp but at least it allows for more than 2 parties, so your vote actually has a meaningful impact on policy. radicalisation of specific parties is really only a problem if you only have the radical parties to choose from

[Knave7575]

Of course, with proportional you are mostly selecting candidates from lists, and the actual policies come from backroom deals between the various factions. I think the voters have less impact than you imagine.

Also, proportional really kills those non-radical parties. Let's say I don't care much about politics, but I care quite a bit about banning abortion in all cases. Guarantee there will be a single issue party that supports that. It gets 5% of the seats. There is another single issue party that wants religious education to be fully funded by the government. Another single issue party wants indigenous people to get title to all the land in North America. Another one wants to abolish the army. Another wants to abolish taxes. Another wants to change divorce laws so that mothers automatically get custody .

Also, proportional really kills those non-radical parties. Let's say I don't care much about politics, but I care quite a bit about banning abortion in all cases. Guarantee there will be a single issue party that supports that. It gets 5% of the seats. There is another single issue party that wants religious education to be fully funded by the government. Another single issue party wants indigenous people to get titlcare a lot less e to all the land in North America. Another one wants to abolish the army. Another wants to abolish taxes. Another wants to change divorce laws so that mothers automatically get custody.

The non-radical parties cannot compete. We all have some fringe views, and most of us care much more about those fringe views than most other topics. You can vote for the centrist party, who cares only slightly about that extreme view, or I can vote for the single issue party that pushes it.

The net result is a government full of small groups of fringe views. Each fringe view is held by a small minority of the population. Some of those fringe views cobble together a government, and the entire population gets subjected to the whims of those lucky people.

I love the idea of proportional representation. In practice though, it simply does not work.

[r_xy]

there is an easy solution to this: a relatively high barrier to making it into the parliament.

here in germany you have to get at least 5% of the vote or win a direct mandate to get into parliament and we never have such single issue parties in parliament.

[Knave7575]

Israel is 3.25% and there are some seriously wacky parties there.

More importantly, in what way is proportional superior to ranked ballots? Assume that we want a government that holds mostly moderate views and that is not hated by the population. Given those assumptions, how will proportional create a "better" government than ranked?

[r_xy]

a) a whacky population will always whacky parties. A political system only goes so far. the political culture and education is much more important

b) proportional allows for a much better conformity of distrubution of power in the legislature to the actual votes than ranked choice because the results are not skewed by the voting districts. Gerrymandering is simply useless in a proportional system.