Terrific (as always, but it needs to be said!). I am particularly taken by the sound of your Voice, which is conversationally written and melodic. Thank you! #WriteOnSister
Jen, this is fascinating stuff you are unearthing. I was hoping you'd say more about the new parties that formed in Chicago to try to fight the big ones, and why that was possible back in the 1800s, because you are pointing straight at a solution to our current woes: reviving fusion voting. See https://centerforballotfreedom.org/fusion-in-american-history/ for starters.
@Micah this is fascinating! I didn't know about fusion voting. The Socialist, Labor and Temperance parties were the most powerful "other" parties in Chicago, but yes some rose up just for one election, such as the "Fireproof party" in 1871 because Republican Joe Medill knew he wouldn't get elected as a Republican.
I get irked by conventional wisdom takes that a third party can never win nationally in a two-party system, because it wasn't always a two-party system, and certainly wasn't designated one by the Constitution, which would have preferred we avoid political parties altogether! (I'd hate to think of what the alternative would be, according to them.)
I'd love to do a deeper dive into why they were so vibrant in the 19th century and not so much now. My quick take is that our political system has gotten so sclerotic and tied to corporate interests that it is very very difficult to change, certainly at a national level. (Fingers crossed for ranked-choice voting though!) I just think political apparatuses were more nimble back then for all kinds of reasons.
As you may know, we do have a bit of what I guess should be called fusion voting here in Connecticut: The Working Families Party works to push Dems further to the left by offering its considerable organizing power when it endorses a candidate.
Terrific (as always, but it needs to be said!). I am particularly taken by the sound of your Voice, which is conversationally written and melodic. Thank you! #WriteOnSister
Thanks Tessa! It ALWAYS helps to hear, thanks! Otherwise, one does wonder at times if one is whispering into the void....
Jen, this is fascinating stuff you are unearthing. I was hoping you'd say more about the new parties that formed in Chicago to try to fight the big ones, and why that was possible back in the 1800s, because you are pointing straight at a solution to our current woes: reviving fusion voting. See https://centerforballotfreedom.org/fusion-in-american-history/ for starters.
@Micah this is fascinating! I didn't know about fusion voting. The Socialist, Labor and Temperance parties were the most powerful "other" parties in Chicago, but yes some rose up just for one election, such as the "Fireproof party" in 1871 because Republican Joe Medill knew he wouldn't get elected as a Republican.
I get irked by conventional wisdom takes that a third party can never win nationally in a two-party system, because it wasn't always a two-party system, and certainly wasn't designated one by the Constitution, which would have preferred we avoid political parties altogether! (I'd hate to think of what the alternative would be, according to them.)
I'd love to do a deeper dive into why they were so vibrant in the 19th century and not so much now. My quick take is that our political system has gotten so sclerotic and tied to corporate interests that it is very very difficult to change, certainly at a national level. (Fingers crossed for ranked-choice voting though!) I just think political apparatuses were more nimble back then for all kinds of reasons.
As you may know, we do have a bit of what I guess should be called fusion voting here in Connecticut: The Working Families Party works to push Dems further to the left by offering its considerable organizing power when it endorses a candidate.