
Howard Dean: How to Move Beyond the Two-Party System - mhb
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/opinion/howard-dean-how-to-move-beyond-the-two-party-system.html
======
hall_999
This would work well....until the Republicans start winning. Then the
Democrats will somehow deem it unfair.

It might make it somewhat easier to vote third-party, but the main reason
third-party candidates don't win is because they just don't have enough
support. Usually because they either don't have enough cash, connections, or
have views that are too esoteric.

It's the same reason why Walmart is the most popular, but your favorite,
better, local store is always scraping by.

It will also mean that third-party candidates can now be used as a tool to get
main candidates elected. They will be controlled.

------
ddingus
Had to login for this one.

I've seen something remarkable this year and I can't shake it. We have a core
fault line between those of means and those of little or no real means.

Money has a grip on our politics too. Many, and I submit a majority, are not
OK with that.

However, we have the system we have, and reforming it takes working with that
system to improve it. It's not like we can just reset.

This year, a lot of us pooled our money and dropped just south of a quarter
billion large on the idea of better politics. And it almost worked!

For sure, it gave us a lot of data on what ideas resonate, where they win,
etc... Over 60 percent of that funding came from people who are on a fixed
income or who currently are living at poverty level income too. This is
notable.

From where I stand, the answer to the two party system may well be to bind
along money lines. Say we do that again, and another roughly quarter billion
is made available for the mid-term elections.

In rough terms, that is enough money to fund up to a few hundred races for
Congress! If those races are run, those who fund them may well win half! A
third is very plausible at a minimum.

Perhaps the right answer here is to just compete full on. Post up the dollars,
build out infrastructure, organizations ( some in progress now), advocacy /
think tank type resources, and centralize things like production, copy, ADS,
and other tools.

If it were me, I would definitely point some of that money at a voter contact
system that exists apart from the party owned / establishment systems in place
today.

I also saw corruption runs very deep and broad in our government. It's more
than I realized.

So we run those races, and run on common ideas we know are winning ideas. We
know that from the data we have so far. And we win what we win.

From there, we will have secured some real power and leverage that can compete
with and participate on a peer basis with the powers that be today.

Say, we extend that just a bit further and keep it running on people money.
When our people win, and I'm using "our" here in the general "people who
supported Bernie" sense, we continue to fund them, and a part of that is doing
the work to secure their own local funding for the longer term.

Have you guys watched John Oliver on Congressional Funding? You should.

[https://youtu.be/Ylomy1Aw9Hk](https://youtu.be/Ylomy1Aw9Hk)

The trick here seems to be to avoid that mess. When our people aren't in that
call center, they can be out and among those who elected them, present. This
will present a nice contrast to the mess we have today.

And when those people win, they can form a bloc, caucus, or perhaps faction
within, or maybe even across the two parties, in essence, presenting as a
third with far less risks.

What may come from that is change, and or marginalization and take over of one
party, or perhaps both.

