Excellent article. The two parties and the blocks they have thrown up to prevent other parties from rising to compete are a root cause of all of our issues with the federal government. You can see all my Substack posts on the Federal Debt issue and the Congress's Quagmire at https://www.fixfederaldebtforever.com/ . I have published 10 of 13 posts on the Congress topic and will finish Feb. 3. So Danielle, we are on the same wavelength on Congress, a hugely important matter for our country. Tom Mast
" Would you have a better chance of reining in the power of big tech if you could turn toward democratic institutions that were not captured by parties that have been captured by big money, including tech money, but that instead actually work for the whole American people? "
I strongly share this sentiment, and is why even as an environmentalist, I have completely relocated my focus on protecting democracy. It is perfectly clear that there is no effective path to protecting our land and enviroment under an authoritarian regime.
I love this article, but I don't understand the difference between the "second set of reformers" who advocate for "open or non-party primaries" and the post's proposed solution of "all-party primaries". I'm sure I'm missing something simple. Could someone help me out?
my understanding is that the "second set of reformers" wants to completely eliminate parties whereas "all-party primaries" are still part of their respective parties, so you would get to pick a spectrum of candidates from moderates to more extreme-yet-still-partisan candidates.
The benefit being that it encourages plural appeal and disincentivizes extremism, as that strategy shrinks their voting base.
Excellent article. The two parties and the blocks they have thrown up to prevent other parties from rising to compete are a root cause of all of our issues with the federal government. You can see all my Substack posts on the Federal Debt issue and the Congress's Quagmire at https://www.fixfederaldebtforever.com/ . I have published 10 of 13 posts on the Congress topic and will finish Feb. 3. So Danielle, we are on the same wavelength on Congress, a hugely important matter for our country. Tom Mast
" Would you have a better chance of reining in the power of big tech if you could turn toward democratic institutions that were not captured by parties that have been captured by big money, including tech money, but that instead actually work for the whole American people? "
I strongly share this sentiment, and is why even as an environmentalist, I have completely relocated my focus on protecting democracy. It is perfectly clear that there is no effective path to protecting our land and enviroment under an authoritarian regime.
I love this article, but I don't understand the difference between the "second set of reformers" who advocate for "open or non-party primaries" and the post's proposed solution of "all-party primaries". I'm sure I'm missing something simple. Could someone help me out?
my understanding is that the "second set of reformers" wants to completely eliminate parties whereas "all-party primaries" are still part of their respective parties, so you would get to pick a spectrum of candidates from moderates to more extreme-yet-still-partisan candidates.
The benefit being that it encourages plural appeal and disincentivizes extremism, as that strategy shrinks their voting base.