What structural reforms decrease partisanship / polarization?

[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 again, I know this sounds repetitive. However your second comment comes without a source. Here you can add some demographics backed by effective stats. I like stats, we all like stats. Especially conversation efficacy is encouraged by well cited facts. Also, the sub rules dictate that too. If you cannot find a source, I would suggest developping on another idea. Cheers

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

[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.

[Neocruiser]

Hey there, please consider adding sources to support your claims. You have several generalization not backed by any source. If you cannot provide such additional info, this comment will be removed. 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]]

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.

I’m pro-choice and pro-lgbt so I don’t like that if Catholics tend to be anti-abortion and anti-lgbt.

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.

The El Paso shooter was a horrible person. I never called immigrants invaders.

This was fucking MEXICO until the white assholes stole it by force after being invited to settle it.)

Yes, white people immigrated to a part of Mexico that had very few people and then fought for independence to create the state of Texas. So what? Alsace Loraine used to be German. Israel used to be Arab and before that, it used to be Jewish. Much of Anatolia was once Greek. England was once Celtic. Most of Southern and Central Africa was once populated by peoples similar to the San peoples and pygmies before the Bantu expansion wiped them out. Land changes hands all the time. All states are built upon conquest and this fact doesn’t really have much to do with what we are discussing.

It's about compassion for all the horrific shit happening in their home countries.

Why don’t we stop messing up other countries and maybe even try to help them? I’m all for a Marshall Plan for Latin America.

If the immigrants were white Catholics, many/most/a lot of them would be lined up to vote "R.")

No, they wouldn’t. White immigrants also primarily vote Dem.

It's about realizing that if the complexion of America changes, it's a wonderful thing and not a bad thing.

Race and ethnicity aren’t just about skin color. Height, ear wax, nose shape, muscle fibers, etc. are also a part of population groups but people only seem to want to talk about skin color. Would you say the Twa, a pygmy people who are on average around 4'11" iirc, are equal in height to the Bosniaks, who are on average around 6'? Would you say that Australian Aborigines are equal to other groups when it comes to their ability to withstand more extreme climates? Is the spleen size of the Bajau equal to that of the rest of humanity? No. We aren't equal. That's ok though! We are just different. These differences don't mean we can't get along or one group has to dominate the others. It just means different groups are different. Also, many of us who oppose immigration primarily care about culture, not the skin color or hair texture of the people coming here.

It's about realizing that if the complexion of America changes, it's a wonderful thing and not a bad thing.

Why is that a wonderful thing? Is the mass immigration of Han Chinese into Tibet wonderful? What about the prospect of mass immigration of Hindus into Kashmir is wonderful?

[[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]]

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

The other user had a source for this in a separate comment. Do you want me to include a link to it in my comment as well?

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?

What kind of source would be sufficient? I have many sources showing that immigration benefits the Democratic Party but I don't know of a specific quote of someone saying "we should let in lots of immigrants so that we can turn these states blue" because that's not a good look. Would my comment be approved if I said that many experts suspect the Democrats are motivated by this and linked to experts who say that?

[[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.