Update, October 5: As I say, I was only channeling Sandy Levinson on this one. Sandy speaks for himself today, making the same points about the defective system, with a special focus on the Senate and Article V. But the point stands–Friedman (and others) err in focusing on the need for better individuals or parties to lead; the problem is structural and systemic.
Thomas Friedman writes today about the need for a meaningful third party in 2012. He writes:
We have to rip open this two-party duopoly and have it challenged by a serious third party that will talk about education reform, without worrying about offending unions; financial reform, without worrying about losing donations from Wall Street; corporate tax reductions to stimulate jobs, without worrying about offending the far left; energy and climate reform, without worrying about offending the far right and coal-state Democrats; and proper health care reform, without worrying about offending insurers and drug companies.
Jack Balk
Comments
In California, we have a structural problem as well, namely our super-majority voting rules: 2/3 vote in the legislature to pass a budget and 2/3 vote to raise revenues. And now there’s Proposition 25 on the November ballot to change this. And while in favor of this particular initiative, I’m not a fan of our ballot proposition process (a form of direct democracy) either, another structural nightmare. I don’t know Sandy’s views on this but I suspect he’d find the propositional process congenial because more (literally) “democractic.”
Posted by: Patrick S. O’Donnell | Oct 4, 2010 8:30:50 AM