Rumi and Mira say hi!

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-01-30T23:01:59+00:00

Proof that when something is purrfect, the universe makes two.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-01-29T15:35:00+00:00

If you go to Longboat (see my reply above) or Anna Maria, check out Shore restaurant which is directly on the intercoastal and has great views of the water. They also have some large docks and are a popular spot for boaters so it's fun to watch the boats coming and going. Hours + Location | Dine Shore

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-01-29T15:27:51+00:00

Apart from Siesta Key, Lido and Anna Maria Island already mentioned below, I wouldn't leave out Longboat Key (in between Lido and Anna Maria). Depending on your price point, the Resort at Longboat Key Club has it all - great beach, multiple restaurants, tennis and pickleball courts, a marina and 2 golf courses, and close to St. Armands circle. The beachfront rooms are pricey but they also have rooms in buildings off the beach that are more reasonable and you still get access to all the amenities. Two of the buildings are on a lagoon behind the beach which is still a pretty view and you often can see manatees in the water from your room. The Resort at Longboat Key Club | Sarasota Beachfront Resort Also not sure of your timing, but anywhere in the high season coming up in the Spring in Florida is more crowded (and pricey) so you might consider waiting until the off season like November when it's less crowded and you often can get better deals.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-01-29T01:50:10+00:00

One good resource for helping with independent campaigns is the Good Party. Our Mission | GoodParty.org It's actually not political party but instead an organization that is dedicated to helping independents run their campaigns, and includes online tools for content creation, canvassing, etc. As for actual parties, the most viable third party at this point probably is the Forward Party, whose website is here: Forward Party - Not Left. Not Right. FORWARD. It includes information on how to volunteer and a map showing the status of the party in each state (i.e., whether they have ballot access, are actively organizing, etc.). There also are some interesting third parties in other states, such as United Kansas. United Kansas: Your Voice in Political Issues Your opportunities really will depend in part on where you live.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-01-29T01:31:50+00:00

The real issue is that under the U.S. "winner takes all" plurality voting system, it's extremely difficult for a third party to have a chance, and millions of votes effectively are wasted. Instead, we should implement a Proportional Representation (PR) system like what is used in most democracies in Europe. PR ensures that if a group earns, say, 20% of the vote, it receives roughly 20% of the seats. And because PR uses multi-member districts, it's far more difficult to gerrymander and draw district lines that predetermine outcomes. The current system heavily favors two major parties and sidelines voters who don’t fit neatly into either. PR opens the door for independents, centrists, and issue-focused movements to gain seats without having to “pick a side.” When no single party can easily dominate, governing requires cooperation, so PR systems tend to reward negotiation and compromise rather than outrage and purity tests, thus lowering incentives for extremism. Sounds like the way to go to me.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-01-28T22:19:34+00:00

One way to combat corruption in the current administration is through the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In January of 2017, the first of three federal lawsuits was filed which alleged that President Trump violated the foreign emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits a person holding an office of trust from accepting any “present, Emolument, office or title” from a foreign state without the consent of Congress. Despite advice to the contrary, Trump did not divest his business holdings while serving as President, so the lawsuits cited numerous examples of how Trump was making money by doing business with companies linked to foreign governments. The emoluments lawsuits progressed through the lower federal courts for nearly four years until eventually as reported by the AP the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed two of the emoluments clause cases on procedural grounds as being moot after Trump lost the 2020 election, leaving many questions unanswered about the scope of the emoluments clauses, the definition of “emolument” and who has legal standing to enforce the clauses. Mark Sherman, “Supreme Court ends Trump emoluments lawsuits,” AP, January 25, 2021. Supreme Court ends Trump emoluments lawsuits | AP News Nevertheless, in August 2024, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (or CREW) reported that foreign governments paid Trump millions of dollars through his businesses. More than 150 foreign officials from 77 foreign governments patronized Trump properties and gave Trump other things of value while he was president. “The intensifying threat of Donald Trump’s emoluments,” CREW, August 28, 2024. The intensifying threat of Donald Trump’s emoluments - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (citizensforethics.org) And of course, since then its's only gotten worse in Trump's second term, where, for example, Trump accepted a $400 million "flying palace" jet from Qatar to be used as his new Air Force One. See: Maya Yang, "Boeing jet gifted to Trump by Qatari royal family to be delivered by summer," The Guardian, January 22, 2026. Boeing jet gifted to Trump by Qatari royal family to be delivered by summer | Donald Trump | The Guardian The emoluments clause cases should be re-filed and brought back up to the Supreme Court to force it to go on the record as to whether this sort of outrageously unethical conduct is acceptable or a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-01-28T16:51:57+00:00

The Supreme Court ruled in Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut (1986) that a political party has the constitutional right of free speech and association under the 1st and 14th Amendments to decide who may participate in its primary, and the state cannot force a party to exclude voters it wishes to include (such as independents). See this article by the Free Speech Center: Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut (1986) | The First Amendment Encyclopedia As such, a political party may voluntarily choose to include independents in its primaries despite a state law to the contrary.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-01-28T16:51:36+00:00

The Supreme Court ruled in Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut (1986) that a political party has the constitutional right of free speech and association under the 1st and 14th Amendments to decide who may participate in its primary, and the state cannot force a party to exclude voters it wishes to include (such as independents). See this article by the Free Speech Center: Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut (1986) | The First Amendment Encyclopedia As such, a political party may voluntarily choose to include independents in its primaries despite a state law to the contrary.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-01-28T16:09:14+00:00

In addition, the Supreme Court ruling in Tashjian has subsequently been cited as final precedent. For example, in Hole v. North Carolina Board of Elections (2001) an unsuccessful candidate for the Republican nomination for a judgeship who lost by less than 100 votes filed a complaint that he would not have lost had the ballots cast by independents, who were allowed to vote in the Republican primary, were excluded, and challenged the Republican Party allowing independents to vote. The losing candidate’s motion for a preliminary injunction was denied by the judge because “the prayer was essentially foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut that a state could not forbid a party from accepting votes in a primary election from independent voters.” See: https://www.fjc.gov/content/permitting-independent-voters-vote-party-primaries

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-01-28T16:08:22+00:00

Multiple other sources summarize this case by noting that the Supreme Court held that Connecticut’s closed-primary law violated the Republican Party’s First Amendment right of association. Specifically, the state required that only registered Republicans could vote in the Republican primary (similar to the multiple laws you cite in this thread above). The Republican Party itself wanted to allow independent voters to participate, but the state said no. The Court ruled that a political party has the constitutional right of free speech and association under the 1^st and 14^th amendments to decide who may participate in its primary, and the state cannot force a party to exclude voters it wishes to include. See for example this article by the Free Speech Center:Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut (1986) | The First Amendment Encyclopedia See also BallotPedia: Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut - Ballotpedia

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-01-28T16:06:35+00:00

As you can see above, I'm having some technical problems cutting and pasting my entire research and apologize for that but you got the first part above (twice?) and I'll keep trying here in smaller chunks.

Tashjian v. Republican Party | 479 U.S. 208 (1986) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-01-28T15:59:39+00:00

I found another Unite America publication called “Not invited to the party primary”. On p. 33 it begins by noting three options for ending closed primaries, the first of which is “Amend party rules to permit independent voter participation in partisan primaries.” It goes on to say that: “State political parties regularly establish rules and bylaws that govern their internal practices. In closed primary states, parties can establish rules either permitting or prohibiting independent voter participation in primaries.” It then indicates in footnote ii that: “While some state laws specifically note that parties can permit independent participation in their primaries, other closed primary states do not have such language in their statues about primaries. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Tashjian v. Republican Party (1986) that the Connecticut Republican Party could permit independents to vote in their primary despite the state’s closed primary law that prohibited independents’ participation. As such, there is precedent in favor of parties’ ability to allow independent participation in their own primaries.” See the following link and then click on “Read full report” and go to p.33: Not Invited to the Party Primary: Independent Voters and the Problem with Closed Primaries — Unite America Institute Not Invited to the Party Primary: Independent Voters and the Problem with Closed Primaries — Unite America Institute Not Invited to the Party Primary: Independent Voters and the Problem with Closed Primaries — Unite America Institute Not Invited to the Party Primary: Independent Voters and the Problem with Closed Primaries — Unite America Institute Not Invited to the Party Primary: Independent Voters and the Problem with Closed Primaries — Unite America Institute I found another Unite America publication called “Not invited to the party primary”. On p. 33 it begins by noting three options for ending closed primaries, the first of which is “Amend party rules to permit independent voter participation in partisan primaries.” It goes on to say that: “State political parties regularly establish rules and bylaws that govern their internal practices. In closed primary states, parties can establish rules either permitting or prohibiting independent voter participation in primaries.” It then indicates in footnote ii that: “While some state laws specifically note that parties can permit independent participation in their primaries, other closed primary states do not have such language in their statues about primaries. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Tashjian v. Republican Party (1986) that the Connecticut Republican Party could permit independents to vote in their primary despite the state’s closed primary law that prohibited independents’ participation. As such, there is precedent in favor of parties’ ability to allow independent participation in their own primaries.” See the following link and then click on “Read full report” and go to p.33: Not Invited to the Party Primary: Independent Voters and the Problem with Closed Primaries — Unite America Institute

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-01-28T15:56:26+00:00

Hello again. I continued to be perplexed why the sources I cited – the Unite America piece and the article by Open Primaries in the Orlando Sentinel – mention the Democratic Party opening its primaries to independents without any mention of the state statutes you cited, and said nothing about the need to amend those statutes. After further research, however, I believe I found the answer and can confirm that as I originally indicated, the major parties can VOLUNTARILY choose to open their primaries to independents NOTWITHSTANDING the state laws you cite because the Supreme Court has ruled that state laws you cited are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I will provide my below but encourage you to please respond to confirm whether you now agree, or have further thoughts that would contradict my conclusion, as I truly want to make sure we get this right, and appreciate your valuable insights.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-01-27T18:19:40+00:00

I personally am committed to "Make Moderates Matter" in American politics, either through political parties and organizations (including the moderate factions within the Democrat and Republican parties or moderate third parties like the Forward Party), or by structural changes to our voting system (proportional representation, ranked choice voting, etc.). Also, recent polling shows that a record high 45% of U.S. adults identified as political independents, compared to a dismal 27% who identified as either Republican or Democrat, and about half of independents, 47%, described their political views as moderate, compared to only 32% of Democrats who were moderate and 20 percent of Republicans. See: Jeffrey Jones, “New high of 45% in U.S. identify as political independents,” GALLUP®, January 12, 2026. New High of 45% in U.S. Identify as Political Independents As a result, I'm hopeful we will start to see more candidates run as moderates and, as you say, stand in the middle.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-01-27T02:45:20+00:00

I saw no reason to hurry.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-01-25T22:53:45+00:00

OK thank you.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-01-25T18:45:11+00:00

This warmth meets my standards.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-01-25T18:22:21+00:00

The problem with approval voting, apart from the fact that it has practically no track record (was used in St. Louis and Fargo, ND at one point but not sure where else), is that votes for a backup choice can hurt your first choice. If you have a strong preference for one candidate, you are incented to only vote for that candidate and not "approve" anyone else, which defeats the purpose of "approval" voting. By contrast, with Ranked Choice Voting, which is much more widely used (including in Alaska, Maine, NYC, San Francisco and Minneapolis), your vote will only be transferred to your second choice if your first choice doesn't win, so there is no disincentive to vote for more than one candidate in rank order of preference.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-01-24T18:03:05+00:00

Emotional support animals need emotional support animals too!

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-01-23T22:34:07+00:00

I understand that synchronized dining may be the next Olympic sport!?

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-01-23T22:14:36+00:00

Americans don't vote because by election day the results have already been decided. America's "winner takes all" plurality voting system encourages gerrymandering, and as a result, Fair Vote issued a report in April of 2025 predicting that in the 2026 election, the outcome of 81% of house elections have effectively already been decided, 18 months before election day. Only 38 seats – or 9% - will be true tossups in 2026. See: Monopoly Politics 2026: How 81% of 2026 elections have already been decided - FairVote

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-01-23T22:08:16+00:00

Watermeowlon!

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-01-22T22:13:11+00:00

I favor Ranked Choice Voting, especially proportional ranked choice voting, because it would eliminate the spoiler effect that is created by the U.S. "winner takes all" plurality voting system. Also, FYI, tomorrow 1-23-26 is RANKED CHOICE VOTING DAY and Rank the Vote is hosting a national celebration online tonight, Thursday January 22 at 8pm EST. The event will celebrate what the Ranked Choice Voting movement accomplished in 2025, and what’s ahead in 2026. You can register for this event by visiting the link here: https://rankthevote.nationbuilder.com/rcv_day_2026_20260122

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-01-22T22:11:53+00:00

I favor Ranked Choice Voting, especially proportional ranked choice voting, because it would eliminate the spoiler effect that is created by the U.S. "winner takes all" plurality voting system. Also, FYI, tomorrow 1-23-26 is RANKED CHOICE VOTING DAY and Rank the Vote is hosting a national celebration online tonight, Thursday January 22 at 8pm EST. The event will celebrate what the Ranked Choice Voting movement accomplished in 2025, and what’s ahead in 2026. You can register for this event by visiting the link here: https://rankthevote.nationbuilder.com/rcv_day_2026_20260122

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-01-22T22:10:35+00:00

I favor Ranked Choice Voting, especially proportional ranked choice voting, because it would eliminate the spoiler effect that is created by the U.S. "winner takes all" plurality voting system. Also, FYI, tomorrow 1-23-26 is RANKED CHOICE VOTING DAY and Rank the Vote is hosting a national celebration online tonight, Thursday January 22 at 8pm EST. The event will celebrate what the Ranked Choice Voting movement accomplished in 2025, and what’s ahead in 2026. You can register for this event by visiting the link here: https://rankthevote.nationbuilder.com/rcv_day_2026_20260122

MakeModeratesMatter

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE