A pretty radical system is being proposed. Ill hold my opinion for now. But I would be curious to hear your thought on if this can fix the presidential system
Indeed radical. It takes a while to figure out what they are actually proposing, which is that we effectively have two presidents, one “center right” and one “center left”, although technically there is just one. These two presidents would “agree to govern as a team. All decisions and appointments will be made jointly in the interests of the American public”.
I don’t see why they don’t just suggest nominating a single, “center center” candidate rather than one center right and one center left. Isn’t that going to be the same thing, but with less potential for disagreement?
the plan includes a fail-safe: if, at a carefully chosen point prior to the General Election, the Unity Ticket has no viable path to the White House, the candidacy will be suspended.
Ok. Who makes that decision again? Hmmm.
This scenario is one that an overwhelming majority of Americans would prefer.
And the very real possibility stands open before us.
Or maybe not…
- Their appearances seem to largely be in conservative spaces. (His recent highlights were Tucker Carlson and members of the “Intellectual Dark Web”) Even if the ticket is ideologically balanced, if they only appear in conservative spaces, they will only ever win conservative voters. Which means that
First, by bridging the center-left and center-right, the Unity Ticket disempowers both major parties rather than empowering one or the other.
this statement is wrong, since they will only be splitting conservative voters as long as they only stay in conservative spaces.
- Their claims are very vague.
Massive protests reveal the depth of frustration, but these outpourings of genuine anger are all too easily co-opted and attention diverted away from root causes — while working class Americans demonize each other, those who captured our system and hoarded opportunity continue to flourish at our expense.
What do they think the “root causes” are versus what are mere distractions? Depending on whom you ask you will get very different answers to this question.
- I have some issues with their take on the current media environment.
With the rise of social media, grassroots commentary, and citizen journalism, corporate media monopolies no longer control the bounds of political discourse.
Trust in traditional news media is at an all-time low. 61% of people say that the media frequently and intentionally ignores important stories. Citizens’ awareness is now largely decentralized. People source their news from peers and channels that have bootstrapped their way into the public consciousness. The mainstream media can pretend the duopoly is sound, but it can no longer silence challenges to their legitimacy.
People consider local media more trustworthy than national media outlets. But local journalism is getting increasingly scarce. An increasing number of communities have no local media coverage. What remains is increasingly consolidated under national firms. This decline is hugely problematic because it means that local officials can do whatever they want because no one’s watching, and that should matter to a campaign that hopes to
unify against corruption
The idea that “social media, grassroots commentary, and citizen journalism” can make up for that is absurd. I know someone who ran a local news blog in my city, who had to quit when they were sued by the owner of a local business for sharing a critical article. Individual “citizen journalists” won’t be able to do anything truly hard-hitting if they’ll wind up having to lawyer up every time.
I heard this a while back, and I personally thought the notion seemed naive, idealistic, and not very well-thought-out. Who is making these nominations? What are the candidates running on? Where will their support come from? If they are not beholden to a party, then who or what are they beholden to? The public who elect them? Unlikely. The organizations that propelled their election? Possibly. They will probably be most beholden to the Congress, which leaves us back at square one. The fact is that the president can’t really accomplish all that much without the cooperation or subversion of the whole system, and often things that do get done, and that some people actually want to get done, will be undone in short order. I have a hard time believing that even a centrist president alone could unify the partisan legislature. Our senators and representatives are still beholden to the parties that supply them with security regarding re-election.
Additionally, even if such a team of people ever did make it to the forefront of media coverage, I would be extremely skeptical, and I doubt I would be alone. I don’t think it’s a reasonable solution or that people at large would buy into it. Even if they did, I can only imagine the hypothetical duo serving as a spoiler with the current system in place. No offense intended, the idea mostly seems like lazy armchair philosophizing—simple solutions usually do not solve complex problems, otherwise those problems wouldn’t exist for very long. Partisan politics has existed in the United States for well over 200 years.
I personally think this kind of plan distracts from the most toxic issues pervading politics in the U.S., and I think public enemy number one is FPTP voting.
Just my opinion!
OK, it seems everybody agrees that this is a BS proposal.
I do however disagree with @Marylander that this organization or the IDW is on the right. The organizer of this, Bret Weinstein, is a democrat and the IDW has many people clearly on the left like Steven Pinker, John Haidt and Sam Harris. They are all mostly near the center but are both are left or right.
Anyway, the reason why I brought up this idea is that it has lots of power and media attention. Maybe we could influence them with a better plan. They seem to have the correct intentions and the means to accomplish something but absolutely no good idea about what that something is.
The lean of the host is less important than the lean of the audience.
Don’t be just a presidential campaign? The best case scenario for something like that was Ross Perot in 1992. His political relevance declined fairly quickly after that. His Reform Party’s only significant win was when Jesse Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota. On the other hand, there are hundreds of uncontested state legislative seats that they could try to put in play.
So you are saying that the far right is more interested in listening to centerists like Burkean conservatives and classical liberals than the far left. That might actually be true at least until you go far enough right to get into devout religious ideology or Hegelian philosophy. I think what this implies is that the views of the enlightenment hold more sway as you go to the left than the right. You do not need to go very far left before you run into Marxism or postmodernism and that is incompatable with enlightenment thought. Interesting but for another discussion.
What I was getting at was trying to get them to push electoral reform. The page says a number of times things like “don’t worry this wont split the vote” or “we will drop out if unviable”. Why do we not approach them to say that there would not be such problems if the electoral systems was not choose use plurality? They have a loud voice, or at least louder than ours. Maybe we could get them to push a good solution as a component of their naive solution.