With all due respect, I disagree in part and point out that this sort of posturing has always been a part of politics. Did Hamilton, Jefferson, or Madison really shock anyone with the arguments they made considering their positions? Lincoln or Douglas? The Black Panthers or the NAACP? "Don't ask, don't tell" folks or "Same Sex Unions Now" folks? This kind of "normalization" in arguments is as old as the ideas of self-rule and Republics. Exposure was dangerous then and it is still dangerous now but only if the sovereigns of this system make it so. We've done so for the last 250 years and can again.
Systems neither send invitations nor control weather or not windows are opened or closed. The people working and living in those systems control that, especially in a place where "the People" are the actual sovereigns. Ideas need to be put forth and then taken to the public for action. I agree that the shit that happens online is a masquerade that pretends to do this but I think that it continues because far too many of us are told that there is no real way to make it stop.
I'd argue that a part of the reason why we got to this place in our body politic is through the complacency of the People as sovereigns. I'd also argue that continually telling them that nothing matters and leaving them with unabashed nihilism as the only and predestined outcome in argument after argument is one of the reasons why, even though our ideas have broad popularity, the left and center-left lose so often in this country.
I leave by asking a question for Mr. Del Monte and do so sincerely: what is the solution? You've been there; how do we fix it in both the immediate and in the long run? Instead of just leaving us with a sense of "nothing matters," how about leaving us with a, "but if we do this, this, and this, then we can..." sort of answer.
I was 19 when the Cold War ended and I've spent much of my adult life watching good ideas fail because the folks who sell them to the public (and that's why it is called "the marketplace of ideas") do a shit job of selling them and then far too often insult the very public that they are trying to help. Let's get over that shit and actually try to fix things.
If your question about what can be done is a serious one, then I can offer one suggestion. It won't be a complete solution, but it will go some way towards ameliorating the problem.
Let me just set out what I think (one of) the problem is: It's the strict demarcation into two parties. Normally, i.e. in many other 'normal' countries, the political spectrum would be covered by a number of parties. But in the USA, you've only really got two, the blues and the reds. That's it.
One other factor which is really prevalent in the USA is the fact that many constituencies (districts) are not competitive. (#Gerrymandering). Which means that the actual political competition is not the general election but the primary. Which in turn means that politicians have to play to their local base, i.e. the local party. And they will reward hyper-partisanship and punish any efforts at co-operation with others.
Having laid out (one of) the problem in the paragraphs above, I will now offer a solution: A change from FPTP voting system to a PR-style one. In a FPTP system, it is really really difficult for other, newer parties to emerge. Plus it practically asks for massive gerrymandering to occur. (FPTP = First past the post)
Now if you consider a PR-style voting system, the composition of the legislature reflects the vote shares the parties are achieving. Often this leads to coalition-type agreements and arrangements. This changes the tone of politics. It requires politicians to be (reasonably) civil to other politicians, after all there is a real probability that there'll be a requirement for co-operation or even a coalition in the future.
In our parliament we use a hybrid system, which has proven to be really good. We still have constituencies which directly elect MSPs, but the overall make-up of our legislature corresponds to the vote shares at the election. It works well.
Where? Scotland. It's called the Holyrood voting system, have a look at either the Wiki or even better the BBC Bitesize.
Thanks for the response and it was a serious question indeed (which is why I put the word "sincerely" in the question).
I agree that two parties can lead to problems but throughout our history, this dynamic has been there and we still somehow worked our way through it by finding a way to gain consensus. Proportional Representation is interesting but we'd need to pass a Constitutional Amendment to make it happen so that would have to be something that was thoroughly debated in each State and then put up for a larger series of votes in order to pass. Those usually take years to make happen and I don't think that we could get there right now in this age of hyper-division.
I think that attacking Gerrymandering would be easier to accomplish here if that came with some election reforms that all parties would want to see.
Claudia, I have looked at it and there are parts that I like but more that I have a tendency to dislike, partially because of the complexity and partially because I generally agree with the winner take all approach to elections, win or lose.
I would like to learn more about it than the WIKI (I watched some of the Party videos from Scotland and they were interesting).
I generally think that elections should be as simple as possible and that the vast majority of folks in the US are already ignorant of how the primary system works and how election law differs from State to State. My fear with making a drastic change like this is that it would keep more people home and make more of the US subject to "stolen/rigged" election claims because of the seeming complexity of all of it.
Let me try and make it very simple - our Holyrood parliament has got approx 125 MSPs (Members of the Scottish Parliament). Roughly half are elected directly, i.e. the person who will become the MSP for Auchtershoogle North is the person who will get the highest number of votes in that constituency.
The other half of MSPs are selected from lists, which the parties have set up. The number of ‘List’ MSPs each party gets is dependent on the actual vote share in the election, the intention is that the make up of the parliament reflects the voteshares each party achieves.
On a practical level, when you walk into a polling station in Auchtershoogle North, you are handed a ballot paper with TWO columns on it. The first column lists all the candidates, Joe Bloggs, Jane Doe, Jack Green, Jim McNulty, Jared Smith and so on. You get to make ONE cross in that column, this will decide who the MSP will be.
The second column lists all the parties, Progress for Scotland, Scottish Worker Party, Scotland’s Prosperity, Scottish Democrats, the Environment Party …. you get to make ONE cross in that column. This is the vote which will determine whether any of the parties get any MSPs and how many. It is the more important of the votes.
That’s it. It’s actually fairly easy to understand.
There is one other detail, there is not one party list for the whole of Scotland, the 'party list' has been broken into regional sections. Trying to explain this makes the Wiki a bit more complicated than it really needs to be.
Some explanations also go into the system which is used to compute seat allocation and cram the d'Hondt or the Niemeyer method into the article as well.
Voters don't actually care about d'Hondt/Niemeyer*, they care that our parliament reflects our votes.
(* I have very dim memories of one of our teachers valiantly trying to explain d'Hondt and Niemeyer to us - I didn't really care then and I don't care now. I care that my vote matters.)
I appreciate that you’ve responded. And I appreciate that you looked into the system. I am happy to provide a bit more information or context - or just my opinion. (It’ll likely be split into a number of bits, that way it’ll be easier to respond.).
Let me first of all provide a bit of context: The Westminster (UK) parliament has got approx 650 MPs, elected by FPTP. At the last election the Labour party achieved 65% of seats on a 35% voteshare. (I’m quoting from memory, apologies if I’m marginally out.). It is important to stress that this result is not due to gerrymandering (constituency boundaries are set by an independent commission) but due to the fact that there are now candidates of 5 or 6 ‘main’ parties standing for election. Which means that on current trends the next government is likely to be elected on an even smaller voteshare, theoretically a majority of MPs on a voteshare of 20% or thereabouts are possible.
Outcomes like this stretch my idea of democracy beyond breaking point!
I guess another issue that I have here is the amount of MPs throughout the UK. 650 is a ton of representatives to someone Stateside where our entire number of Federal reps is 535 for a space and population that is 5 times larger than the UK as a whole.
New York State has 18 million people with 213 total reps (in the Assembly and Senate). Scotland is 125 for just under 6 million people.
That's a ton of folks who are elected. Ironically, we have many very active Parties in NY with minor parties that tip tons of elections statewide (Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives, Working Family, Greens, and others) in much the same way that Scotland does.
I'm interested in how this difference effects registration and turnout.
Do you have any insights on that?
A quick Google search shows that NY has a larger percentage of the population that is registered to vote but turnout in both places is 59% of registered voters.
It seems like we have the same problem...not enough people show up on Election Day.
Quote: "My fear with making a drastic change like this is that it would keep more people home and make more of the US subject to "stolen/rigged" election claims because of the seeming complexity of all of it."
I'd like to make a counter argument: I think a PR-style voting system encourages people to go and vote. Because no vote is wasted.
Let's look at an example: It is likely that there will be 6 'main' parties putting up candidates in the upcoming elections (there will be Holyrood elections in May): SNP (Scottish National Party), Labour, Liberal Democrats, Greens, Conservatives and Reform (the party of Nigel Farage). The person winning the seat in Auchenshoogle North potentially won with as little as 20% of the votes. That's ok, they're going to be the duly elected MSP for that constituency.
In our example the results for the 'second' votes for Scotland could be something along the lines of SNP 45%, Labour 15%, Greens 12%, LibDems 12%, Conservatives 7%, Reform 7%. In a classic FPTP system all the votes cast for the non-winning party is lost, the majority of votes are wasted votes. But in the Holyrood system every vote counts. Because the make-up of parliament will reflect ALL the votes, not just the winning ones in any constituency.
I guess one of our main differences here is I don't see a vote for the non-winning party or person to be a "wasted" vote. It counted. It counted fairly. It wasn't wasted at all. It was a vote cast in an election.
Why should we assume the reflection of all of the votes is good? I think of fringe parties like American Communists and the Segregationists in our past as examples here. They lost and lost because they represented ideas that were rejected by most people. I don't want them having a role in government at that point I'm not sure that it would be good to give them a role or a seat.
The only wasted votes are votes not cast.
I guess that I like the protections of a majority rule and that is why I prefer a system with a separate executive (again, partly because of what I know) over a Parliamentary system.
A few points - first of all thank you for your response.
Second - is a constitutional amendment actually required? Does the constitution spell out FPTP as a required voting system?
Third - I'd actually suggest that PR-style systems could be and should be implemented in states first. Eg Wyoming strikes me as a great place to have a Holyrood-style voting system. (And a unicameral parliament, there's an easy win there.)
Fourth - your last sentence is the clincher: You write that you're looking for reforms that 'all parties would want to see'. And frankly, in the current setup this is not going to happen. Because the current situation - or let's be blunt the current mess - is of benefit to some established politicians. They've become comfortable in uncompetitive constituencies/districts, they've got no incentive to change. The same with some parties in some states where they've engineered the situation that a party can win a supermajority with approx 35% of the votes?
"Fourth - your last sentence is the clincher: You write that you're looking for reforms that 'all parties would want to see'. And frankly, in the current setup this is not going to happen. Because the current situation - or let's be blunt the current mess - is of benefit to some established politicians. They've become comfortable in uncompetitive constituencies/districts, they've got no incentive to change."
Sure but this is far from new in the US and, as fucked up as this seems, it is not even close to being as bad as it was in our past.
The People are the sovereign here. Districts are non-competitive because of gerrymandering but also because of failures by candidates outside of the majority to even run in those districts. Ideological purity tests (on all sides) often drive these disparities as well. The "incentive to change" has to come from the voters in the district(s); it must be bottom up in that way to succeed and it has been this way in our past.
I thought I'd add one other snippet of (useless?) information: You mention that in the USA the people are sovereign.
Did you know, that there is a difference in sovereignty between England/UK and Scotland? In Scotland the people are sovereign. In England/UK it's parliament or more accurately the crown in parliament which is sovereign.
Which is probably the reason why the UK has got no written constitution.
Absobloodylutely!! The impetus has to come from the people, they have to change their voting behaviour.
I also fully agree, that there should be no election which is uncontested. Have you come across @Jess Piper? She's on Substack and she writes about the trials and tribulations of supporting Dems in a very red, very rural area. She's a cracking writer, I'd really recommend you looking her up.
States write the election laws and conduct the elections for Congress, unless Trump manages to nationalize them as he wants to:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. (Art 1 Sec 4).
The problem is not necessarily a national-level (US Constitution level) problem requiring an amendment to the US Constitution. It is a state level thing. Probably not as hard to change in many places.
Congress could also (see above) simply override state law in that regard as the Constitution does give them that power.
Of course, expecting legislaturists to write laws against their personal interests in this regard is probably a bit of an ask.
There are also concerns and plenty of unsettled law on Proportional Representation here in the US that regarding the "one man, one vote" principle set forth in the Voting Rights Act of 1964.
For State elections, States could do this. For Congress or the POTUS, it would probably require an Amendment (granting that right exclusively to the States outside of Congress) or at least an Act of Congress like the Voting Rights Act of 1964 that would have to pass Constitutional muster.
R, sure but you are not putting as much emphasis on the second equal clause of the Article starting with, "but the Congress..."
From the website of the US Congress:
"State authority to regulate the times, places, and manner of holding congressional elections has been described by the Court as the ability "to enact the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental rights involved."8 The Court has upheld a variety of state laws designed to ensure that elections are fair and honest and orderly.9 But the Court distinguished state laws that go beyond "protection of the integrity and regularity of the election process," and instead operate to disadvantage a particular class of candidates10 or negate the need for a general election.11 The Court noted that the Elections Clause does not allow states to set term limits, which the Court viewed as "disadvantaging a particular class of candidates and evading the dictates of the Qualifications Clause,"12 or ballot labels identifying candidates who disregarded voters’ instructions on term limits or declined to pledge support for them.13 In its 1995 decision in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, the Court explained: "[T]he Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints."14
The Supreme Court has held that Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, provides for Congress, not the courts, to regulate how states exercise their authority over Senate and House elections,15 although courts may hear cases concerning claims of one-person, one-vote violations and racial gerrymandering.16"
I like the ‘what is the solution?’ Inquiry. It begs the need to find footing and make use of this trauma rather than just sinking through endless levels of online outrage which, for all the ways in which it calls out the performance art aspect of this current charade, is-in the end just a toxic symptom, when not accompanied by ACTION of some kind of having allowed oneself to be traumatized by this into a form of Stockholm Syndrome where you’re actually depending on and ‘friending’ the perpetrators to keep the ‘juice’ (koolaid) coming that you’ve come to believe is inevitable to keep you thinking you’re really in the game, when-in the spirit if all play and no work also makes one a dull person-you’re not. Really, it all just becomes a form of ‘Dancing With The Stars’ entertainment but far more dangerous.
In short-I hope Bryan will respond to your question…
"The people in that room were not at risk. That is the point. No one behaved as though they feared consequence."
Trump won't fire Bondi. Republicans won't impeach Bondi.
Most of the Representatives on that committee will not lose their next election (because of gerrymandering and Citizens United and the glacial pace of the legal system - pick your villain).
The two-party system has failed now that one of the two parties has morphed into an Authoritarian Party. At bottom, the Constitution has failed.
While there is perhaps empathy and agreement with portions or lines in the post, what are we to conclude!? So we just give up!? Congress continues to allow these traitors to wreck the country in real time. The typical " response" is words and outrage. Where is the coalition for action to hold these idiots to account!? Where is our collective moral courage to do the hard but needed yes for Democracy!?
I think there are good Democrats but you have made a point. They missed an opportunity. They should have ceded their time to one person who had been prepared by the best, most clever, prosecutor in America to ask her real questions preparatory to her criminal prosecution.
Thank you for pointing this out. I get so frustrated by their questioning and feel that it hurts more than it helps. I wish there had been one person who read out loud some of the most aggregious portions of the Trump files, and asked her why she wasnt investigating.
A response asked what are your ideas of solutions?
Your article is insightful & thought provoking, because too often events such as yesterday’s scream-fest hearing become like a WWF match-bad entertainment. Bondi, to me, is like a badly failed operatic coloratura, whose voice is like nails being dragged down a blackboard. Her skills have not gained her admission to any real form of the art she professes so stridently to be “A NUMBER ONE” at and so she’s on this endless treadmill of performing the Mad Scene from Donizetti’s ‘Lucia di Lamermoor’ backwards as a schtick to gain attention and make people look. Trouble is, that-havibg been suckered into meetization, and being induced into a nonstop state of ‘WTAF-itude’, the detachment and discernment needed for ACTION to counter and end this shit are pre-excluded. Bondi & the whole cult know this and are riding this hobbit horse to the bottom of the trench-screeching louder, like the suffocating coal mine canaries they are-all the way. Her pain and self hatred writ large are not good theater. pam Bindi is one of the most extreme forms of the girl who cried ‘WOLF!!!!’ after allowing her soul to be eaten, digested and shat out by the wolves that she’s still addicted to being mind-fucked by that I’ve ever seen in my life….
Some day, somewhere, someone will write a tome on the psychology of the women at the center of and in the grip of this cult. Bondi is a type that has emerged along with Noem, Gabbard, Leavitt, Wiles, the movie star, Lara-the list is endless….who are more all in on defending the indefensible than the male and, yes, even ‘non-binary’ contingent that are providing a dam for this that is disintegrating more every minute.
Anyways-hope you’ll respond to the question. Thanks!
I agree with most of this, but with one comment: its not on Bryan or any one person or political party to figure it all out, though I do welcome their ideas. Ultimately, its on us as the body politic to work together on this or allow the slide to continue.
The majority of the hearing may have been theatrics, as much of the practice of politics has been since the Sophists, but the fact that Bondi had Congressional members' search history of the unredacted Epstein files conducted in the DOJ-secured facility is beyond alarming. The blatent criminal acts of the administration must be actually investigated with impeachments and convictions to follow.
From Heather Delany Reese:
"While Bondi was reading from her notes, the press caught a glimpse of what was on the page. It was a printed list tracking Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s personal search history, exactly what she had looked up while reviewing the unredacted Epstein files. That search happened on a DOJ-owned computer, inside a secure DOJ facility, with DOJ staff present. Bondi wasn’t supposed to have that information. And the fact that she brought it with her, read from it in public, and then used it to try to discredit a sitting member of Congress tells us everything."
What I read here from Brian DelMonte is, as with all (imo) his writing well put and not totally encouraging. I think that’s the point. Should it be encouraging? With all the screaming and yelling today I frankly didn’t see or hear much to be encouraged about as m, for example, the ‘unredacted’ files are still way over 50% redacted, nothing’s being done to prosecute the perpetrators up to & including Trump, victims of horrendous crimes can’t even get wink let alone a nod acknowledging their existence. A lead perpetrator has openly stated that her silence is for sale. Thats just for starters.
Anyhow, someone commenting previously on this column here mentioned complacency. That’s where I, as a ‘baby boomer’ get on board with the idea that this exchange isn’t some clear cut black and white thing.
History will have its’ way with this nation and the rain will be falling even more on ALL of us. Some of the same people who put this administration together by their appeasement are the ones trying to scream the very tsunami they helped create out of existence. It is complicated in ways that are inconvenient to any attempt at simple a simple solution.
Believe me, I hope I live to see Bondi and this entire MAGA cult cesspool tried, convicted, and hung out to dry in the glare of the disgrace they’ve so richly earned and deserve. I also hope the sane fir those I the party I’ve supported being thrown out of office svd never allowed near public service again for their tone-deaf arrogance and entitlement that’s rolled out the welcome mat for this.
Every event such as today’s is a step towards an ending brought about by action & inaction (which is an act of not acting) coming to consequence. Again: rain already falling will be falling EVERYWHERE.
My more specific sense is that if the current meddling with election rights goes full tilt, if it isn’t already, and results in that door closing then the ‘game’ that’s going to be ‘on’ in this country may make the Civil War look like the picnic that the fools who politely observed Gettysburg on a hillside sipping Sherry and nibbling cucumber sandwiches with their linen napkins neatly tucked in were thinking it would be. That misunderstanding will be tiny in comparison.
Bryan DelMonte’s words are not fast food. They are thought provoking and remind me again that this is not just some blip that we’re going do away with as an inconvenient bump on the road towards ‘business as usual’, because what I’m hearing is a proposition that we way not know what the fuck business IS any more let alone what ‘USUAL’ might mean other than the barrage that we are collectively struggling with: it’s a round peg into which we’re trying to ram into the square peg of normal.
And I’d say that whatever unseemly alliteration that image might apply seems to be a shoe that fits oh so many aspects of this mess pretty well right now.
I agree that Bryan's comments are thoughtful and thought provoking.
As a response to a different comment in this thread, I wrote some ideas, maybe they'd give some other food for thought? I come to this debate from a very different angle, maybe you'd find it interesting?
Appreciate your response and with all due respect, I think we're long past the point in the US where adjusting the way we vote will be sufficient to address the problems we have. If we are lucky enough to come through this era and remain a true democracy, then we should thoughtfully evaluate and reform institutions and processes across the board.
I fully agree, I think the USA could do with a proper overhaul of the constitution. There are a number of issues, which I think need addressing, but this is the one which I think is the most important: There should be a special section which sets out the rights people have. Not spread across umpteen amendments, just bundle them all together into an eg preamble.
That should put a stop to all of those people who were arguing that rights were only for certain people and that other people (eg immigrants) were not entitled to rights, even something as basic as the right to due process.
The US constitution was a good one - when it was drafted. But we have had lots more history since then where we have seen what has worked as far as constitutions are concerned and what is a bit meh. It would behove Americans to study some of the documents eg the Paulskirche constitution for its ideas on federalism, the ECHR regarding how to spell out the entitlement to human rights, the EU for its QMV voting system, which is an attempt to make decisions where some states are really big and others are minnows. There are lots of good ideas.
Entertaining Ourselves to Death, by Neil Postman. On a similar timeline as 1984, what was in its infancy when written, became clear fact after thirty years. There was no Internet when Postman wrote, nor electronic espionage when Orwell wrote. Like our panic about AI, the problem is not technology but our goddamned short-sightedness, same as when the story of the Tower of Babel was written.
I’ve watched many Congressional Kabuki Theater hearings but this one has a dark and onerous tone unlike previous ones. I agree with your assessment and realize that we are in late-stage capitalism with democracy failing at solutions to ward off the oligarchs who will pick up the pieces through co-opting our government. Bondi and her ilk are setting the table for more unaccountable actions that ignore our constitution and the rule of law. Remember every thing done in Germany after 1934 was legal.
With all due respect, I disagree in part and point out that this sort of posturing has always been a part of politics. Did Hamilton, Jefferson, or Madison really shock anyone with the arguments they made considering their positions? Lincoln or Douglas? The Black Panthers or the NAACP? "Don't ask, don't tell" folks or "Same Sex Unions Now" folks? This kind of "normalization" in arguments is as old as the ideas of self-rule and Republics. Exposure was dangerous then and it is still dangerous now but only if the sovereigns of this system make it so. We've done so for the last 250 years and can again.
Systems neither send invitations nor control weather or not windows are opened or closed. The people working and living in those systems control that, especially in a place where "the People" are the actual sovereigns. Ideas need to be put forth and then taken to the public for action. I agree that the shit that happens online is a masquerade that pretends to do this but I think that it continues because far too many of us are told that there is no real way to make it stop.
I'd argue that a part of the reason why we got to this place in our body politic is through the complacency of the People as sovereigns. I'd also argue that continually telling them that nothing matters and leaving them with unabashed nihilism as the only and predestined outcome in argument after argument is one of the reasons why, even though our ideas have broad popularity, the left and center-left lose so often in this country.
I leave by asking a question for Mr. Del Monte and do so sincerely: what is the solution? You've been there; how do we fix it in both the immediate and in the long run? Instead of just leaving us with a sense of "nothing matters," how about leaving us with a, "but if we do this, this, and this, then we can..." sort of answer.
I was 19 when the Cold War ended and I've spent much of my adult life watching good ideas fail because the folks who sell them to the public (and that's why it is called "the marketplace of ideas") do a shit job of selling them and then far too often insult the very public that they are trying to help. Let's get over that shit and actually try to fix things.
If your question about what can be done is a serious one, then I can offer one suggestion. It won't be a complete solution, but it will go some way towards ameliorating the problem.
Let me just set out what I think (one of) the problem is: It's the strict demarcation into two parties. Normally, i.e. in many other 'normal' countries, the political spectrum would be covered by a number of parties. But in the USA, you've only really got two, the blues and the reds. That's it.
One other factor which is really prevalent in the USA is the fact that many constituencies (districts) are not competitive. (#Gerrymandering). Which means that the actual political competition is not the general election but the primary. Which in turn means that politicians have to play to their local base, i.e. the local party. And they will reward hyper-partisanship and punish any efforts at co-operation with others.
Having laid out (one of) the problem in the paragraphs above, I will now offer a solution: A change from FPTP voting system to a PR-style one. In a FPTP system, it is really really difficult for other, newer parties to emerge. Plus it practically asks for massive gerrymandering to occur. (FPTP = First past the post)
Now if you consider a PR-style voting system, the composition of the legislature reflects the vote shares the parties are achieving. Often this leads to coalition-type agreements and arrangements. This changes the tone of politics. It requires politicians to be (reasonably) civil to other politicians, after all there is a real probability that there'll be a requirement for co-operation or even a coalition in the future.
In our parliament we use a hybrid system, which has proven to be really good. We still have constituencies which directly elect MSPs, but the overall make-up of our legislature corresponds to the vote shares at the election. It works well.
Where? Scotland. It's called the Holyrood voting system, have a look at either the Wiki or even better the BBC Bitesize.
Claudia,
Thanks for the response and it was a serious question indeed (which is why I put the word "sincerely" in the question).
I agree that two parties can lead to problems but throughout our history, this dynamic has been there and we still somehow worked our way through it by finding a way to gain consensus. Proportional Representation is interesting but we'd need to pass a Constitutional Amendment to make it happen so that would have to be something that was thoroughly debated in each State and then put up for a larger series of votes in order to pass. Those usually take years to make happen and I don't think that we could get there right now in this age of hyper-division.
I think that attacking Gerrymandering would be easier to accomplish here if that came with some election reforms that all parties would want to see.
Addendum - have you looked at the Holyrood system? Do you like it? Yes? No?
Thank you.
Claudia, I have looked at it and there are parts that I like but more that I have a tendency to dislike, partially because of the complexity and partially because I generally agree with the winner take all approach to elections, win or lose.
I would like to learn more about it than the WIKI (I watched some of the Party videos from Scotland and they were interesting).
I generally think that elections should be as simple as possible and that the vast majority of folks in the US are already ignorant of how the primary system works and how election law differs from State to State. My fear with making a drastic change like this is that it would keep more people home and make more of the US subject to "stolen/rigged" election claims because of the seeming complexity of all of it.
Let me try and make it very simple - our Holyrood parliament has got approx 125 MSPs (Members of the Scottish Parliament). Roughly half are elected directly, i.e. the person who will become the MSP for Auchtershoogle North is the person who will get the highest number of votes in that constituency.
The other half of MSPs are selected from lists, which the parties have set up. The number of ‘List’ MSPs each party gets is dependent on the actual vote share in the election, the intention is that the make up of the parliament reflects the voteshares each party achieves.
On a practical level, when you walk into a polling station in Auchtershoogle North, you are handed a ballot paper with TWO columns on it. The first column lists all the candidates, Joe Bloggs, Jane Doe, Jack Green, Jim McNulty, Jared Smith and so on. You get to make ONE cross in that column, this will decide who the MSP will be.
The second column lists all the parties, Progress for Scotland, Scottish Worker Party, Scotland’s Prosperity, Scottish Democrats, the Environment Party …. you get to make ONE cross in that column. This is the vote which will determine whether any of the parties get any MSPs and how many. It is the more important of the votes.
That’s it. It’s actually fairly easy to understand.
There is one other detail, there is not one party list for the whole of Scotland, the 'party list' has been broken into regional sections. Trying to explain this makes the Wiki a bit more complicated than it really needs to be.
Some explanations also go into the system which is used to compute seat allocation and cram the d'Hondt or the Niemeyer method into the article as well.
Voters don't actually care about d'Hondt/Niemeyer*, they care that our parliament reflects our votes.
(* I have very dim memories of one of our teachers valiantly trying to explain d'Hondt and Niemeyer to us - I didn't really care then and I don't care now. I care that my vote matters.)
I appreciate that you’ve responded. And I appreciate that you looked into the system. I am happy to provide a bit more information or context - or just my opinion. (It’ll likely be split into a number of bits, that way it’ll be easier to respond.).
Let me first of all provide a bit of context: The Westminster (UK) parliament has got approx 650 MPs, elected by FPTP. At the last election the Labour party achieved 65% of seats on a 35% voteshare. (I’m quoting from memory, apologies if I’m marginally out.). It is important to stress that this result is not due to gerrymandering (constituency boundaries are set by an independent commission) but due to the fact that there are now candidates of 5 or 6 ‘main’ parties standing for election. Which means that on current trends the next government is likely to be elected on an even smaller voteshare, theoretically a majority of MPs on a voteshare of 20% or thereabouts are possible.
Outcomes like this stretch my idea of democracy beyond breaking point!
I guess another issue that I have here is the amount of MPs throughout the UK. 650 is a ton of representatives to someone Stateside where our entire number of Federal reps is 535 for a space and population that is 5 times larger than the UK as a whole.
New York State has 18 million people with 213 total reps (in the Assembly and Senate). Scotland is 125 for just under 6 million people.
That's a ton of folks who are elected. Ironically, we have many very active Parties in NY with minor parties that tip tons of elections statewide (Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives, Working Family, Greens, and others) in much the same way that Scotland does.
I'm interested in how this difference effects registration and turnout.
Do you have any insights on that?
A quick Google search shows that NY has a larger percentage of the population that is registered to vote but turnout in both places is 59% of registered voters.
It seems like we have the same problem...not enough people show up on Election Day.
Quote: "My fear with making a drastic change like this is that it would keep more people home and make more of the US subject to "stolen/rigged" election claims because of the seeming complexity of all of it."
I'd like to make a counter argument: I think a PR-style voting system encourages people to go and vote. Because no vote is wasted.
Let's look at an example: It is likely that there will be 6 'main' parties putting up candidates in the upcoming elections (there will be Holyrood elections in May): SNP (Scottish National Party), Labour, Liberal Democrats, Greens, Conservatives and Reform (the party of Nigel Farage). The person winning the seat in Auchenshoogle North potentially won with as little as 20% of the votes. That's ok, they're going to be the duly elected MSP for that constituency.
In our example the results for the 'second' votes for Scotland could be something along the lines of SNP 45%, Labour 15%, Greens 12%, LibDems 12%, Conservatives 7%, Reform 7%. In a classic FPTP system all the votes cast for the non-winning party is lost, the majority of votes are wasted votes. But in the Holyrood system every vote counts. Because the make-up of parliament will reflect ALL the votes, not just the winning ones in any constituency.
I guess one of our main differences here is I don't see a vote for the non-winning party or person to be a "wasted" vote. It counted. It counted fairly. It wasn't wasted at all. It was a vote cast in an election.
Why should we assume the reflection of all of the votes is good? I think of fringe parties like American Communists and the Segregationists in our past as examples here. They lost and lost because they represented ideas that were rejected by most people. I don't want them having a role in government at that point I'm not sure that it would be good to give them a role or a seat.
The only wasted votes are votes not cast.
I guess that I like the protections of a majority rule and that is why I prefer a system with a separate executive (again, partly because of what I know) over a Parliamentary system.
A few points - first of all thank you for your response.
Second - is a constitutional amendment actually required? Does the constitution spell out FPTP as a required voting system?
Third - I'd actually suggest that PR-style systems could be and should be implemented in states first. Eg Wyoming strikes me as a great place to have a Holyrood-style voting system. (And a unicameral parliament, there's an easy win there.)
Fourth - your last sentence is the clincher: You write that you're looking for reforms that 'all parties would want to see'. And frankly, in the current setup this is not going to happen. Because the current situation - or let's be blunt the current mess - is of benefit to some established politicians. They've become comfortable in uncompetitive constituencies/districts, they've got no incentive to change. The same with some parties in some states where they've engineered the situation that a party can win a supermajority with approx 35% of the votes?
Thank you for the continued discussion...
"Fourth - your last sentence is the clincher: You write that you're looking for reforms that 'all parties would want to see'. And frankly, in the current setup this is not going to happen. Because the current situation - or let's be blunt the current mess - is of benefit to some established politicians. They've become comfortable in uncompetitive constituencies/districts, they've got no incentive to change."
Sure but this is far from new in the US and, as fucked up as this seems, it is not even close to being as bad as it was in our past.
The People are the sovereign here. Districts are non-competitive because of gerrymandering but also because of failures by candidates outside of the majority to even run in those districts. Ideological purity tests (on all sides) often drive these disparities as well. The "incentive to change" has to come from the voters in the district(s); it must be bottom up in that way to succeed and it has been this way in our past.
I thought I'd add one other snippet of (useless?) information: You mention that in the USA the people are sovereign.
Did you know, that there is a difference in sovereignty between England/UK and Scotland? In Scotland the people are sovereign. In England/UK it's parliament or more accurately the crown in parliament which is sovereign.
Which is probably the reason why the UK has got no written constitution.
I did know that Scotland was sovereign in the UK but I did not know that they rooted that sovereignty in "the People."
If I ever decide to move to the UK, Scotland just got another advantage for me (and it already has St. Andrews and Carnoustie!)
Absobloodylutely!! The impetus has to come from the people, they have to change their voting behaviour.
I also fully agree, that there should be no election which is uncontested. Have you come across @Jess Piper? She's on Substack and she writes about the trials and tribulations of supporting Dems in a very red, very rural area. She's a cracking writer, I'd really recommend you looking her up.
I'll do that!
Uncontested elections are the worst!
States write the election laws and conduct the elections for Congress, unless Trump manages to nationalize them as he wants to:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. (Art 1 Sec 4).
The problem is not necessarily a national-level (US Constitution level) problem requiring an amendment to the US Constitution. It is a state level thing. Probably not as hard to change in many places.
Congress could also (see above) simply override state law in that regard as the Constitution does give them that power.
Of course, expecting legislaturists to write laws against their personal interests in this regard is probably a bit of an ask.
There are also concerns and plenty of unsettled law on Proportional Representation here in the US that regarding the "one man, one vote" principle set forth in the Voting Rights Act of 1964.
For State elections, States could do this. For Congress or the POTUS, it would probably require an Amendment (granting that right exclusively to the States outside of Congress) or at least an Act of Congress like the Voting Rights Act of 1964 that would have to pass Constitutional muster.
Either way, it would be a heavy lift.
R, sure but you are not putting as much emphasis on the second equal clause of the Article starting with, "but the Congress..."
From the website of the US Congress:
"State authority to regulate the times, places, and manner of holding congressional elections has been described by the Court as the ability "to enact the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental rights involved."8 The Court has upheld a variety of state laws designed to ensure that elections are fair and honest and orderly.9 But the Court distinguished state laws that go beyond "protection of the integrity and regularity of the election process," and instead operate to disadvantage a particular class of candidates10 or negate the need for a general election.11 The Court noted that the Elections Clause does not allow states to set term limits, which the Court viewed as "disadvantaging a particular class of candidates and evading the dictates of the Qualifications Clause,"12 or ballot labels identifying candidates who disregarded voters’ instructions on term limits or declined to pledge support for them.13 In its 1995 decision in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, the Court explained: "[T]he Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints."14
The Supreme Court has held that Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, provides for Congress, not the courts, to regulate how states exercise their authority over Senate and House elections,15 although courts may hear cases concerning claims of one-person, one-vote violations and racial gerrymandering.16"
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S4-C1-2/ALDE_00013577/
I think you're spot on.
I like the ‘what is the solution?’ Inquiry. It begs the need to find footing and make use of this trauma rather than just sinking through endless levels of online outrage which, for all the ways in which it calls out the performance art aspect of this current charade, is-in the end just a toxic symptom, when not accompanied by ACTION of some kind of having allowed oneself to be traumatized by this into a form of Stockholm Syndrome where you’re actually depending on and ‘friending’ the perpetrators to keep the ‘juice’ (koolaid) coming that you’ve come to believe is inevitable to keep you thinking you’re really in the game, when-in the spirit if all play and no work also makes one a dull person-you’re not. Really, it all just becomes a form of ‘Dancing With The Stars’ entertainment but far more dangerous.
In short-I hope Bryan will respond to your question…
Thank you….
I hope that he responds as well and I thank you for your response!
👍🏻
Bryan wrote:
"The people in that room were not at risk. That is the point. No one behaved as though they feared consequence."
Trump won't fire Bondi. Republicans won't impeach Bondi.
Most of the Representatives on that committee will not lose their next election (because of gerrymandering and Citizens United and the glacial pace of the legal system - pick your villain).
The two-party system has failed now that one of the two parties has morphed into an Authoritarian Party. At bottom, the Constitution has failed.
While there is perhaps empathy and agreement with portions or lines in the post, what are we to conclude!? So we just give up!? Congress continues to allow these traitors to wreck the country in real time. The typical " response" is words and outrage. Where is the coalition for action to hold these idiots to account!? Where is our collective moral courage to do the hard but needed yes for Democracy!?
The headline should read, "Bondi taunts Congress and laughs at elected representatives"
She is disgusting.
So I guess we ride this plane into the ground just to see if we survive.
I think there are good Democrats but you have made a point. They missed an opportunity. They should have ceded their time to one person who had been prepared by the best, most clever, prosecutor in America to ask her real questions preparatory to her criminal prosecution.
Thank you for pointing this out. I get so frustrated by their questioning and feel that it hurts more than it helps. I wish there had been one person who read out loud some of the most aggregious portions of the Trump files, and asked her why she wasnt investigating.
Good Morning:
A response asked what are your ideas of solutions?
Your article is insightful & thought provoking, because too often events such as yesterday’s scream-fest hearing become like a WWF match-bad entertainment. Bondi, to me, is like a badly failed operatic coloratura, whose voice is like nails being dragged down a blackboard. Her skills have not gained her admission to any real form of the art she professes so stridently to be “A NUMBER ONE” at and so she’s on this endless treadmill of performing the Mad Scene from Donizetti’s ‘Lucia di Lamermoor’ backwards as a schtick to gain attention and make people look. Trouble is, that-havibg been suckered into meetization, and being induced into a nonstop state of ‘WTAF-itude’, the detachment and discernment needed for ACTION to counter and end this shit are pre-excluded. Bondi & the whole cult know this and are riding this hobbit horse to the bottom of the trench-screeching louder, like the suffocating coal mine canaries they are-all the way. Her pain and self hatred writ large are not good theater. pam Bindi is one of the most extreme forms of the girl who cried ‘WOLF!!!!’ after allowing her soul to be eaten, digested and shat out by the wolves that she’s still addicted to being mind-fucked by that I’ve ever seen in my life….
Some day, somewhere, someone will write a tome on the psychology of the women at the center of and in the grip of this cult. Bondi is a type that has emerged along with Noem, Gabbard, Leavitt, Wiles, the movie star, Lara-the list is endless….who are more all in on defending the indefensible than the male and, yes, even ‘non-binary’ contingent that are providing a dam for this that is disintegrating more every minute.
Anyways-hope you’ll respond to the question. Thanks!
I really liked that line 'I watched an hour of it. That was sufficient. I am not a masochist.'
Great!
This was more discouraging than insightful, sorry to say
I agree with most of this, but with one comment: its not on Bryan or any one person or political party to figure it all out, though I do welcome their ideas. Ultimately, its on us as the body politic to work together on this or allow the slide to continue.
I've provided some ideas in a response to a comment. Maybe you'll find my thoughts interesting?
The majority of the hearing may have been theatrics, as much of the practice of politics has been since the Sophists, but the fact that Bondi had Congressional members' search history of the unredacted Epstein files conducted in the DOJ-secured facility is beyond alarming. The blatent criminal acts of the administration must be actually investigated with impeachments and convictions to follow.
From Heather Delany Reese:
"While Bondi was reading from her notes, the press caught a glimpse of what was on the page. It was a printed list tracking Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s personal search history, exactly what she had looked up while reviewing the unredacted Epstein files. That search happened on a DOJ-owned computer, inside a secure DOJ facility, with DOJ staff present. Bondi wasn’t supposed to have that information. And the fact that she brought it with her, read from it in public, and then used it to try to discredit a sitting member of Congress tells us everything."
https://open.substack.com/pub/heatherdelaneyreese/p/the-presidents-condition-is-deeply
Theater of the Absurd
https://youtu.be/DcJKxrDczSo?si=HUTmVBj11EouZJcr
What I read here from Brian DelMonte is, as with all (imo) his writing well put and not totally encouraging. I think that’s the point. Should it be encouraging? With all the screaming and yelling today I frankly didn’t see or hear much to be encouraged about as m, for example, the ‘unredacted’ files are still way over 50% redacted, nothing’s being done to prosecute the perpetrators up to & including Trump, victims of horrendous crimes can’t even get wink let alone a nod acknowledging their existence. A lead perpetrator has openly stated that her silence is for sale. Thats just for starters.
Anyhow, someone commenting previously on this column here mentioned complacency. That’s where I, as a ‘baby boomer’ get on board with the idea that this exchange isn’t some clear cut black and white thing.
History will have its’ way with this nation and the rain will be falling even more on ALL of us. Some of the same people who put this administration together by their appeasement are the ones trying to scream the very tsunami they helped create out of existence. It is complicated in ways that are inconvenient to any attempt at simple a simple solution.
Believe me, I hope I live to see Bondi and this entire MAGA cult cesspool tried, convicted, and hung out to dry in the glare of the disgrace they’ve so richly earned and deserve. I also hope the sane fir those I the party I’ve supported being thrown out of office svd never allowed near public service again for their tone-deaf arrogance and entitlement that’s rolled out the welcome mat for this.
Every event such as today’s is a step towards an ending brought about by action & inaction (which is an act of not acting) coming to consequence. Again: rain already falling will be falling EVERYWHERE.
My more specific sense is that if the current meddling with election rights goes full tilt, if it isn’t already, and results in that door closing then the ‘game’ that’s going to be ‘on’ in this country may make the Civil War look like the picnic that the fools who politely observed Gettysburg on a hillside sipping Sherry and nibbling cucumber sandwiches with their linen napkins neatly tucked in were thinking it would be. That misunderstanding will be tiny in comparison.
Bryan DelMonte’s words are not fast food. They are thought provoking and remind me again that this is not just some blip that we’re going do away with as an inconvenient bump on the road towards ‘business as usual’, because what I’m hearing is a proposition that we way not know what the fuck business IS any more let alone what ‘USUAL’ might mean other than the barrage that we are collectively struggling with: it’s a round peg into which we’re trying to ram into the square peg of normal.
And I’d say that whatever unseemly alliteration that image might apply seems to be a shoe that fits oh so many aspects of this mess pretty well right now.
I agree that Bryan's comments are thoughtful and thought provoking.
As a response to a different comment in this thread, I wrote some ideas, maybe they'd give some other food for thought? I come to this debate from a very different angle, maybe you'd find it interesting?
Appreciate your response and with all due respect, I think we're long past the point in the US where adjusting the way we vote will be sufficient to address the problems we have. If we are lucky enough to come through this era and remain a true democracy, then we should thoughtfully evaluate and reform institutions and processes across the board.
I fully agree, I think the USA could do with a proper overhaul of the constitution. There are a number of issues, which I think need addressing, but this is the one which I think is the most important: There should be a special section which sets out the rights people have. Not spread across umpteen amendments, just bundle them all together into an eg preamble.
That should put a stop to all of those people who were arguing that rights were only for certain people and that other people (eg immigrants) were not entitled to rights, even something as basic as the right to due process.
The US constitution was a good one - when it was drafted. But we have had lots more history since then where we have seen what has worked as far as constitutions are concerned and what is a bit meh. It would behove Americans to study some of the documents eg the Paulskirche constitution for its ideas on federalism, the ECHR regarding how to spell out the entitlement to human rights, the EU for its QMV voting system, which is an attempt to make decisions where some states are really big and others are minnows. There are lots of good ideas.
Entertaining Ourselves to Death, by Neil Postman. On a similar timeline as 1984, what was in its infancy when written, became clear fact after thirty years. There was no Internet when Postman wrote, nor electronic espionage when Orwell wrote. Like our panic about AI, the problem is not technology but our goddamned short-sightedness, same as when the story of the Tower of Babel was written.
I’ve watched many Congressional Kabuki Theater hearings but this one has a dark and onerous tone unlike previous ones. I agree with your assessment and realize that we are in late-stage capitalism with democracy failing at solutions to ward off the oligarchs who will pick up the pieces through co-opting our government. Bondi and her ilk are setting the table for more unaccountable actions that ignore our constitution and the rule of law. Remember every thing done in Germany after 1934 was legal.
suitably poetic