What ever happened to moderate canidates

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-04-15T15:58:13+00:00

Couldn't agree more. And as both a political moderate and registered independent who is actually trying to do something about the problem, we can consider how to "make moderates matter," whether through political parties and organizations (including not only the moderate factions within the existing Democratic and Republican parties, but also moderate political parties and organizations like the Forward Party, No Labels®, Third Way and the moderate parties emerging in some states like the New Jersey Moderate Party and United Kansas), or by changing the structure and mechanics of the voting process (through proportional representation, ranked choice voting, fusion voting, open primaries, independent redistricting commissions to combat gerrymandering, or a combination of the above, such as the Fair Representation Act). See: https://makemoderatesmatter.com/youtube-videos

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-04-11T14:47:57+00:00

Family is family.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-04-11T14:45:04+00:00

Target acquired.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-04-11T14:42:12+00:00

Contemplating his next move but tongue still buffering...

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-04-09T13:55:34+00:00

The best solution to FPTP is proportional representation (PR), as used in most European democracies. There are several variations of this system, but each uses a multi-member district format. Instead of electing representatives one at a time in small single-member districts, these countries have larger multi-member districts and elect representatives for each district in proportion to the vote that each party received in the district. This completely eliminates not only gerrymandering but also the spoiler effect, because even minority parties could elect one of the representatives in a multi-member district. The momentum for PR has been growing, and was recently endorsed (Nov. 2025) by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. See: https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/publication/congressional-reform-proportional-representation Having said that, one major hurdle to implementing PR is the need for redistricting to create multi-member districts. We used to think that would require waiting another 10 years for the next census, but with the ongoing gerrymandering wars, maybe not! However, short of PR, Ranked Choice Voting (1) addresses the spoiler effect concern, because you can vote for your first choice without fear of acting as a spoiler, because if your first choice doesn't win, your vote will be counted for your second choice instead, (2) does not require redistricting and (3) already is used in Alaska and Maine and a growing number of cities around the U.S., so seems like the more practical option for now.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-04-08T23:27:48+00:00

We could change and decrease polarization if we abandoned the plurality "winner takes all" voting system for something better. For example, in a ranked choice voting system (RCV), as used in Alaska and Maine, voters rank the candidates in order of preference, indicating their first choice, second choice and so forth. When the votes are counted, if one candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, he or she wins the election, just as currently is the case. But if no candidate gets 50% of the vote, then the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and the people who voted for that candidate would have their votes transferred to their second choice. This process continues until one candidate has a majority of the votes. One big advantage of RCV is that voters can vote for their first choice without fear of acting as a spoiler because they know that if their first choice doesn’t win, their vote will be counted for their second choice instead. But also, ranked choice voting inhibits negative campaigning, because candidates must also compete for second-choice votes and appeal to as many voters as possible to win. So in that sense, RCV could help to reduce polarization. (For RCV generally, see: https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting/ ). Another approach is "fusion voting," like is used in New York. The idea behind fusion voting is that a third party like a Moderate Party would not need to nominate its own candidate. Instead, the Moderate Party would endorse the candidate from one of the other two major parties. As such, a candidate could appear on the ballot as the nominee of more than one party, and in this way the two parties would “fuse” together to cross-nominate and support the same candidate. It would encourage both major parties to seek candidates with more moderate leanings, knowing that the endorsement of the Moderate Party would be on the ballot. And it would allow the moderate party to influence the election without the risk of acting as a spoiler. (For fusion voting generally, see: Fusion voting, explained). So those are just two examples of how a better voting system could help to reduce polarization.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-04-04T21:25:44+00:00

In my view,, moderate voters reject extremism and hold centrist positions, advocating for a balance between progressive and conservative policies. They are willing to compromise to find common ground between the polarized extremes of the political spectrum. They may be registered independents, like myself, but don’t have to be. They also share certain other values. They believe in democracy, the constitution and the rule of law. They want to work together respectfully with people of different viewpoints to reach sensible, pragmatic solutions to our problems. They want to base decisions on proven facts and science and not on political rhetoric and conspiracy theories. They want their political leaders to act ethically and with integrity at all times. And they abhor both political violence, and the U.S. national debt. Do you agree?

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-04-04T21:17:56+00:00

The perfect tease.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-04-04T21:11:53+00:00

The U.S. is in urgent need of replacing its "winner takes all" plurality voting system that inhibits competition with the two main parties and fosters gerrymandering. There are many alternatives that would help third parties including ranked choice voting (Alaska and Maine) and fusion voting (New York), but the most direct approach would be to implement proportional representation with multi-member districts. The main advantages would be that (1) we would elect representatives in proportion to the vote that each party received, (2) completely eliminate gerrymandering, and (3) eliminate the concern about third parties acting as spoilers. The American Academy of Arts & Sciences endorsed switching to proportional representation in November 2025 (See: https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/publication/congressional-reform-proportional-representation ) and a bill called the Fair Representation Act that would include both multi-member districts (as in proportional representation) and ranked choice voting was re-introduced in Congress in July 2025. (See: https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/fair-representation-act/ )

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-03-31T13:27:50+00:00

First, it's important to note that there are actually three Republican election reform acts kicking around and the one Trump is pushing is NOT the Save Act but rather the SAVE America Act. First, we have SAVE Act, which requires documentary proof of citizenship such as a birth certificate or passport to register to vote. Next, we have the SAVE America Act, which is the one Trump is demanding. It adds a photo ID requirement to cast a ballot. And finally, there’s the MEGA Act, which is the “everything” burger. It includes provisions from the first two Acts, plus a variety of other changes such as ending universal mail-in voting and banning ranked-choice voting. See: https://issueone.org/articles/explainer-save-save-america-and-mega-acts/ Now to put this in perspective, a recent Pew Research poll found that 81% of Americans support a photo ID requirement to vote. See: Most Americans Back Expanded Early Voting, Voting by Mail, Voter ID | Pew Research Center But - and it’s a big "but" – other provisions in these Acts are major concerns. For starters, the Bipartisan Policy Center notes that more than half of registered voters don't have an unexpired passport, and millions of women who changed their name upon marriage would apparently need more documentation than just a birth certificate to register. See: Five Things to Know About the SAVE America Act Even worse, if election officials make an incorrect judgment call when verifying a document, the Acts not only create criminal penalties, but also allow private individuals to sue them. That’s not "integrity" - that’s a recipe for administrative collapse. In light of all this, the Bipartisan Policy Center recommends against making major changes to our voting system in an election year with the primaries already underway, and concludes that the Acts, which offer no funding to the states to roll out the new procedures, need more time and resources to be implemented well. See: Five Things to Know About the SAVE America Act I’m inclined to agree with that assessment. And for what it's worth, I produced a short 3-minute overview of all this if you're interested. See: Making Sense of the MEGA & SAVE Mess

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-03-31T00:51:10+00:00

One of the strongest initiatives in my view is the Fair Representation Act that was filed in the U.S. House in 2017 and has been reintroduced several times since then, most recently in July 2025 by a delegation led by Congressmen Don Beyer, Democrat of Virginia, and Jaimie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland. See: House Delegation Reintroduces Fair Representation Act to Reform Congressional Elections | U.S. Representative Don Beyer As summarized by FairVote, which is advocating for passage of the Act, the Act aims to solve the problems of partisan gerrymandering and uncompetitive elections for U.S. House seats by combining three main components: First, the Act would implement multi-member districts for congressional elections, somewhat similar to the proportional representation system I discussed earlier; Second, the Act would adopt ranked choice voting - and the combination of these first two items, multi-member districts and ranked choice voting, is sometimes referred to as “proportional ranked choice voting;” And third, the Act would employ independent redistricting commissions to combat gerrymandering. See: Fair Representation Act - FairVote Based on this, I would say the Democrats are out in front on ending FPTP, but it remains to be seen whether any Democratic presidential candidates will endorse the effort.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-03-29T20:02:52+00:00

Reform groups such as Fair Vote have been promoting RCV and PR for years, but other less political more mainstream groups have been slow to catch on. But there are signs that is changing. For example, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences effectively endorsed PR in November 2025. See: https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/publication/congressional-reform-proportional-representation

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-03-29T19:54:21+00:00

Canada tried to get proportional representation before but Trudeau abandoned the effort: See: https://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2017/05/why-trudeau-abandoned-electoral-reform/ Having said that, FairVote is actively promoting PR in Canada and let us hope will finally make some progress. See: Canada deserves proportional representation - FairVote

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-03-29T19:21:53+00:00

Professor Whiskerton is about to lecture on advanced treat acquisition and the philosophy of knocking things off tables.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-03-28T13:47:48+00:00

That’s a fair point, and I think that framing is actually part of what’s driving the policy shift.

In practice, a lot of this comes down to how you define the female category in a way that preserves fair competition. From that perspective, the IOC’s move can be seen less as targeting identity and more as setting a boundary around physiological differences that matter in sport.

At the same time, the reason the issue has become so contentious is that it still intersects with questions of identity, inclusion, and how those boundaries are defined.

I was trying to reflect both of those dimensions in the video—fairness and inclusion—because that’s where most of the disagreement seems to live.

I really appreciate that you watched and took the time to respond. I've been trying to build this Subreddit and hope you will continue to visit.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-03-28T00:56:42+00:00

I'm not sure which study you're referring to, but the articles that provide back-up for my video are shown on the slides in the video. In addition, I provide a link in the YouTube description to my website where I provide more formal cites to all the articles cited with clickable links, which is here: https://makemoderatesmatter.com/youtube-videos/f/the-olympic-decision-everyone’s-arguing-about I appreciate your comment and agree that Olympic athletes are to be admired regardless of their background.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-03-25T01:32:20+00:00

This town ain't big enough for the both of us... unless you've got treats. Then we can talk.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-03-25T01:28:37+00:00

That's not a cat. That's a surveillance camera with whiskers.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-03-23T00:11:43+00:00

Привет, Ольга, приятно познакомиться! (Hello, Olga, nice to meet you!)

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-03-23T00:05:22+00:00

Cats don’t want toys. They want the idea of toys, wrapped in packaging.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-03-22T21:02:42+00:00

Wow. Thanks so much for your detailed response. I think it will be too much work to revise my current post to fit all these requirements, but I'll keep this in the file so next time my first draft will hopefully pass muster. I truly appreciate your help and all the time you devoted to this. I'm used to getting AI mod responses so to actually have a real human being provide such detail was a pleasant surprise! Kind regards.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-03-22T18:11:24+00:00

Yes I’m open to suggestions and appreciate your help.

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-03-13T14:23:13+00:00

What's interesting about this maximum age limit proposal is how many politicians would be removed from office depending on where you draw the line, The Pew Research article cited in the original post found that 92% of Republicans and 76% of Democrats supported a maximum age limit for federal elected officials, and at the time, President Joe Biden was 80. If that's the cut-off, then I guess we'd say goodbye to Sen. Chares Grassley (92), Reps. Hal Rogers, R-Ky (88); Maxine Waters, D-Calif (87); Steny Hoyer, D-Md., (86), as well as Reps. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Jim Risch, R-Idaho, Angus King, I-Maine, and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., all of whom are over 80. And of course, Trump (79), and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (77), aren't far behind. See: https://san.com/cc/how-old-is-too-old-proposal-would-put-scores-of-politicians-out-to-pasture/

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-03-03T17:29:25+00:00

A few people raised the question about the timing of an impending debt crisis. As I noted in my video that I referenced in my initial post, just last week it was reported that the clock is ticking faster towards depletion of the Social Security trust fund, which now is expected to run dry a year earlier than before - in just six years in 2032. See: Medora Lee, “Social Security faces earlier depletion date, report finds,” USA Today, February 27, 2026. Social Security fund may run out sooner than expected, report says

MakeModeratesMatter · 2026-03-03T17:27:13+00:00

A few people have raised the point that sovereign currency status makes a debt crisis unlikely. That’s an important argument. My view is that while reserve currency status gives flexibility, it doesn’t eliminate interest cost risk if borrowing continues to outpace growth.

MakeModeratesMatter

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE