Thanks for another thoughtful article Joel. As you know, I've been working in the reform movement for over 5 years now. Along the way, I've met hundreds of fellow reformers and not a single one is anti-party. Even as a fierce independent centrist, I understand the importance of political parties. And yet, it's now becoming popular for many academics to oppose reforms because they are not "party-centric." This is a dangerous and unnecessary false dichotomy. I hope you would agree that we can be BOTH pro-voter reformers and pro-party voters. We need parties to play their right-sized role as organizers who thoroughly vet well-aligned candidates. However, our two major parties receiving public welfare for their primary elections, and then telling independent voters to "pick a team" is unfair and unamerican. The Alaska model offers "proof of concept" and real hope for a multi-party future. I don't see any way that Top-4 / Final-5 voting hinders the ability of new parties to form and compete on a more level playing field. This movement is too young and too small for any of us to be spreading false dichotomies about reforms that are absolutely better than the status quo. Because their are no "silver bullet" solutions, we need to grow this ecosytem of effort, together. Onward & Forward, we go...
Thank you, Eric! I totally agree and have tried to be careful about not saying party-centric reform is the only way - just the way that I find most compelling for my personal work, and a critical part of the broader New Way ecosystem. I cheer for and support my fellow reformers wherever I can. It is certainly frustrating to me when people snipe at each other about the "most important reforms" and I think it's unproductive. I'll be mindful of that as we build together.
Thanks for another thoughtful article Joel. As you know, I've been working in the reform movement for over 5 years now. Along the way, I've met hundreds of fellow reformers and not a single one is anti-party. Even as a fierce independent centrist, I understand the importance of political parties. And yet, it's now becoming popular for many academics to oppose reforms because they are not "party-centric." This is a dangerous and unnecessary false dichotomy. I hope you would agree that we can be BOTH pro-voter reformers and pro-party voters. We need parties to play their right-sized role as organizers who thoroughly vet well-aligned candidates. However, our two major parties receiving public welfare for their primary elections, and then telling independent voters to "pick a team" is unfair and unamerican. The Alaska model offers "proof of concept" and real hope for a multi-party future. I don't see any way that Top-4 / Final-5 voting hinders the ability of new parties to form and compete on a more level playing field. This movement is too young and too small for any of us to be spreading false dichotomies about reforms that are absolutely better than the status quo. Because their are no "silver bullet" solutions, we need to grow this ecosytem of effort, together. Onward & Forward, we go...
Thank you, Eric! I totally agree and have tried to be careful about not saying party-centric reform is the only way - just the way that I find most compelling for my personal work, and a critical part of the broader New Way ecosystem. I cheer for and support my fellow reformers wherever I can. It is certainly frustrating to me when people snipe at each other about the "most important reforms" and I think it's unproductive. I'll be mindful of that as we build together.