Third Party or Seize the Democratic Party?

The United States needs more democracy and proportional representation. But a slew of democratic reforms are needed first, before we can get there. The most important reforms are:

  • Ranked Choice Voting
  • Publicly-Funded Elections
  • Abolish the Electoral College

Meanwhile, progressives struggle between trying to support third parties, like the Green Party, or taking over the existing neoliberal Democratic Party. Which pathway will be most effective at building democracy, or even possible?

Historian and talk radio host Thom Hartmann makes an argument for “seizing the Democratic Party.” Whether you agree with his analysis or not, his piece provides invaluable background. The article covers:

  • Pertinent American History
  • The barriers to third parties
  • Strategy to infiltrate the Democratic Party

Take a read. It’s succinct, only a 5-8 minute read. Tell us what you think.

Why Don’t More Progressives Get That Seizing the Democratic Party is Our Best Chance to Power? | The Hartmann Report

Published by JoAnn Chateau

Website owner and administrator of “Progressive Graffiti.”

3 thoughts on “Third Party or Seize the Democratic Party?

  1. Second only to ranked choice voting as key reforms would be the replacement of winner-take-all districts with multi-winner districts. In other words, one super district would have three to five members who are elected via ranked choice voting. This method would give most citizens of the district representation for their diverse political views. Under the current single winner system, up to 49.9% of the citizens of a district have no representation. Multi-winner districts would also make gerrymandering impossible. Gerrymandering is only possible with single winner districts.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I forgot to mention that winner-take-all districts are not required by the Constitution but only by a ’60s era federal law which could be easily repealed. In the ’60s when there was little to no representation for racial minorities, single winner districts looked like a good solution, but now we know that solution was a two-edged sword. With single winner districts came gerrymandering with its techniques for cracking and packing minority populations which ultimately weaken the political power of racial minorities.

      One might also wonder, why have districts at all? Three to five representatives per district make for a manageable number of candidates from the voter’s point of view. Trying to evaluate all the candidates for districts with more seats than that is too onerous. Also, the percentage of votes required to win a seat in a three to five winner district is sizeable enough to keep candidates with very extreme views and little support from being elected.

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: