American Democracy in Crisis: Solutions

American democracy is certainly beginning to show its age and we could learn a thing or two from some of the newer democracies elsewhere in the world that have made improvements.

Here, I would like to offer what I believe are the two most important changes we can make to governance in the United States that will make government work better for all citizens and that will help reduce the polarization that is currently paralyzing our country.

#1 Publicly Financed Political Campaigns

Each accepted candidate for an elected political office should receive a designated amount of taxpayer-funded money for their campaign and not be allowed to accept donations from individuals, corporations, lobbyists, special interest groups, or any other entity. Key aspects of these publicly financed political campaigns would be

  • At each level of government (local, county, state, national) each candidate would need to receive an agreed-upon minimum number of nomination petition signatures in order to qualify for a run.
  • The amount of money each candidate receives depends on the office and the level of government, with national candidates receiving the most financial support.
  • There will be agreed-upon rules on how this money can be used and transparency into how it is used.
  • All candidates for a given political office receive the same amount of money to fund their campaigns.
  • Though each candidate is barred from accepting donations from other sources, they are free to take part in as many interviews and debates sponsored by other organizations as they wish.

#2 Ranked Choice Voting

Ranked Choice Voting (also known as instant runoff) allows each voter to vote for more than one candidate by selecting their first choice, second choice, and so on, if they wish. Ranked Choice Voting should be allowed at all levels of government (local, county, state, and national).

Here’s a simple example of how one method of ranked choice voting works.

Let’s say you have three candidates running for a particular political office: Candidate A, Candidate B, and Candidate C.

There are nine different ways a voter could vote in this election:

A only
B only
C only

First choice: A; Second choice: B
First choice: A; Second choice: C
First choice: B; Second choice: C
First choice: C; Second choice: B
First choice: C; Second choice: A
First choice: B; Second choice: A

Now, let’s say we have 8,764 voters who voted as follows:

A only: 182
B only: 361
C only: 880

A, then B: 718
A, then C: 1,366
B, then C: 1,336
C, then B: 1,815
C, then A: 489
B, then A: 1,617

Tallying up everyone’s first choice gives us:

Candidate A: 182 + 718 + 1,366 = 2,266 votes
Candidate B: 361 + 1,336 + 1,617 = 3,314 votes
Candidate C: 880 + 1,815 + 489 = 3,184 votes

We see that Candidate A received the fewest votes, so they are removed from further consideration. We now look at the second choice (if any) of all those who voted for Candidate A as their first choice, in addition to those who voted for Candidates B & C as their first choice.

Candidate B: 361 + 718 + 1,336 + 1,617 = 4,032 votes
Candidate C: 880 + 1,366 + 1,815 + 489 = 4,550 votes

You’ll notice the 4,032 + 4,550 = 8,582 votes, which is 182 less than the total number of voters (8,764). That’s because 182 voters voted only for Candidate A, and since they didn’t specify a second choice, when Candidate A was removed their contribution to the election is over at this point.

You’ll also notice that Candidate C wins the election with the majority of the votes (4,550 vs. 4,032).

Generalizing, if there are n candidates running then the number of ranked choices available is n-1. For example, for four candidates, there would be two rounds of elimination instead of only one as shown in the three-candidate example above.

Two candidates qualifying
Each voter chooses one and only one candidate

Three candidates qualifying
Each voter can choose a first choice and second choice candidate

Four candidates qualifying
Each voter can choose a first choice, second choice, and third choice candidate

And so on…

Ranked choice voting would encourage more than two viable political parties (and that would be a good thing, seeing as our current two-party system maximizes polarization), plus voters could vote for any candidate they truly support without fear of the spoiler effect, since they can specify a second choice should their first-choice candidate be eliminated because they received fewer votes than the other candidates.

It is unlikely that initiatives to adopt publicly financed political campaigns and ranked choice voting will come from either the Republican or Democratic parties (or their corporate and billionaire donors and lobbyists!) so it is up to us, the rank-and-file voters, to force these issues at a grassroots level. I would be interested in hearing from readers who have ideas on how best to accomplish this.

Where Voters Rejected Trump – II

Though Trump lost his 2020 re-election bid, the fact that he polled so well throughout the anything-but-United States clearly shows the “Party of Trump”—today’s Republican Party—is leading us towards something far more sinister. The Republican Party of our parents’ generation would never have elected such a damaged person to the highest office in our land. Trump’s narcissism, ineptitude, lying, corruption, nepotism, divisiveness, etc. has been an unmitigated nightmare these past four long years. If you haven’t watched it yet, I suggest you take the time to view the three-part documentary series Rise of the Nazis airing this month on PBS Wisconsin. There are parallels to what is happening in the U.S. today, and it is chilling.

As for the voters who continue to support this charade, we are witnessing in living color government by people who don’t believe in government—or good governance. The landscape looks pretty bleak in this country for progressives and intellectuals for the foreseeable future. Might want to leave while you still can.

Has the whole country gone mad? Well, not all of it. Here are the ten states where Trump and Trumpism were most soundly rejected in the 2020 election.

RankState% Voting for Trump
0.District of Columbia5.40%
1.Vermont30.67%
2.Maryland32.44%
3.Massachusetts32.49%
4.California34.24%
5.Hawaii34.27%
6.Rhode Island38.70%
7.Washington38.76%
8.Connecticut39.21%
9.Delaware39.78%
10.Illinois40.14%
States where Voters Most Rejected Trump in the 2020 Presidential Election

And here are the ten states you’ll probably want to think twice about moving to if you’re a progressive.

RankState% Voting for Trump
1.Wyoming69.94%
2.West Virginia68.63%
3.Oklahoma65.37%
4.North Dakota65.11%
5.Idaho63.81%
6.Arkansas62.39%
7.Alabama62.15%
8.Kentucky62.13%
9.South Dakota61.77%
10.Tennessee60.73%
States where Voters Most Supported Trump in the 2020 Presidential Election

Now, let’s return to the ten states that most soundly rejected Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Which county in each of these states had the smallest percentage voting for Trump?

State RankStateCounty% Voting for Trump
1.VermontChittenden County21.25%
2.MarylandPrince George’s County8.77%
3.MassachusettsSuffolk County17.8%
4.CaliforniaSan Francisco County12.72%
5.HawaiiHawaii County30.63%
6.Rhode IslandNewport County34.07%
7.WashingtonKing County22.22%
8.ConnecticutHartford County35.39%
9.DelawareNew Castle County30.72%
10.IllinoisCook County24.03%
Most Trump-Unfavorable Counties in States where Voters Most Rejected Trump in the 2020 Presidential Election

Polarization is tearing this country apart, but the blame does not equally fall on both sides. How do you talk with someone who all-too-willingly embraces conspiracy theories rather than reason, who derides science and scholars, who mistrusts or worse yet hates anyone who has a different spiritual viewpoint, let alone is a humanist, agnostic, or atheist? Who shows little or no interest in understanding perspectives other than their own?

May I submit for your consideration, the March 4, 1960 episode of The Twilight Zone, “The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street”.

The Monsters are Due on Maple Street

Figure One

Understand the procedure now? Just stop a few of their machines and radios and telephones and lawn mowers…throw them into darkness for a few hours and then you just sit back and watch the pattern.

Figure Two

And this pattern is always the same?

Figure One

With few variations. They pick the most dangerous enemy they can find…and it’s themselves. And all we need do is sit back…and watch.

Figure Two

Then I take it this place…this Maple Street…is not unique.

Figure One

[Shaking his head.] By no means. Their world is full of Maple Streets. And we’ll go from one to the other and let them destroy themselves. One to the other…one to the other…one to the other—

Narrator’s Voice

The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices—to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own for the children and the children yet unborn. [A pause.] And the pity of it is…that these things cannot be confined to…The Twilight Zone…

Written by Rod Serling