I agree wholeheartedly with all of this, AND I cannot fathom how any candidate for higher office would take the first step towards implementation. In order for laws to be passed to create these policies, politicians would have to actively hinder their short-term power. I can't see that happening...like ever.
Brilliant Sharon! Now I’m even more dismayed because we have solutions! But will anyone with authority to implement them even LISTEN??? How can we get this OUT THERE??? FAST?
I came to say this. I love everything about what you wrote Sharon, so how do we make it happen? We can’t rely upon the elected officials to do anything about it so what are WE going to do?
Yes. Tearful as this is also my question. I know what I can do personally. And I am trying my hardest to consistently do those things. I am unsure how to unify — how to mobilize — how to ‘get involved’ in something that moves the needle on these very important issues. Grateful for Sharon’s ideas and the community here. Curious how to bring this all forward. Willing to learn. 💜
Elections can’t be improved without diving deep into reforming the “who” and the “how”. Who’s allowed to run in this country and how do they get elected? So I’m more intrigued by what you left out vs what you included here (which all makes sense!). Like the crazy electoral college system? Or true “no loop-hole” caps on campaign spending (goodbye PACS)? Or requirements that cap a candidate’s age? Or mandatory release of tax returns? Or mandatory clean criminal history (felonies)?
Here’s how I’m feeling: how in the heck did France and the UK just manage to change their governments so quickly and so cleanly? We continue to look like a slow and messy democracy while they look like a nimble and responsive one. Are parliamentary systems really that much better?
I spoke to a professor who has been studying this issue for decades, and he says that yes, America should adopt a hybrid parliamentary system. Here’s the link if you want to listen: https://sharonmcmahon.com/podcast/reimagining-democracy-with-max-stearns (or just google “Sharon McMahon Mac Stearns” and you’ll get to the page.
Excited to listen to this interview. I am already captured by the intro blurb: "Many voters are familiar with this scene: You walk into a voting booth, review the options, and feel as though you’re voting between 'the lesser of two evils.' You might worry that voting third-party is wasting a vote, but you don’t feel represented by the main candidates. Sound familiar? If you’re like the majority of Americans, you probably find yourself frustrated with the two-party system and a historically unproductive Congress. What if it didn’t have to be that way?"
I would encourage our group to also learn more about Approval Voting. Because then a voter never has to feel like they are throwing their vote away. Approval Voting let's voters select all candidates they *approve of* for the position, and which ever candidate gets the most approval votes, wins!
So if you like a third-party candidate, you can vote third-party AND for a major candidate (to hedge your bets). Approval Voting makes it possible for voters to ALWAYS vote their favorite candidate(s). Also, consider a Primary election where there are 6+ candidates, Approval Voting means you no longer are "splitting votes" because if you like 3 (or more) of the 6+ candidates, you can vote for all three.
This method of voting actually *encourages competition* through *more choice*. Whereas, if you think about today's Primary landscape, candidates tend to drop out because they worry about splitting votes and having the least favored candidate win their party's nomination.
Also, because every voter could vote for ANY candidate, candidates would be encouraged to truly win over ANY voter, because it's no longer about *stealing votes* from another candidate, it becomes about simply appealing to voters. Voters don't have to be concerned with the tradeoffs of voting for one candidate and sacrificing a "winning" vote, they can just focus on whether they would approve of any candidate winning or not.
I am feeling SO grateful for this link. I’ve been wondering about this question for awhile and of course you’re on it and have been for a long time! You have so much great content - thank you for that!
Approval Voting actually *encourages competition* through *more choice*. Whereas, if you think about today's Primary landscape, candidates tend to drop out because they worry about splitting votes and having the least favored candidate win their party's nomination.
Also, because every voter could vote for ANY candidate, candidates would be encouraged to truly win over ANY voter, because it's no longer about *stealing votes* from another candidate, it becomes about simply appealing to voters. Voters don't have to be concerned with the tradeoffs of voting for one candidate and sacrificing a "winning" vote, they can just focus on whether they would approve of any candidate winning or not.
Yes, I expected electoral college to be number one, also. You suggest citizens’ councils as solutions to several problems. I love that idea, but how would the citizens be selected to serve, and ensured not to be self-serving?
This was my follow up question as well: how are the citizen groups formed so that they stay non-partisan and avoid making decisions based on self-interest?
Multipartisan make-up, but functionally non-partisan?
Similar to how separation of church and state is supposed to work. We are all free to practice our own religions privately, but are not allowed to favor one over the other in a public office.
Yes. All participants working to make things better for everyone. Folks would be there from all parties to ensure all views are represented but the goal being what is best for whole.
But how would they be chosen? Would that require an election process of some kind? Or would it be something like jury duty where part of people’s civic duties is to participate in a session of this group?
What if citizens apply and are required to pass a civics exam (similar to the one the candidates would have to pass)? These citizen groups could be chosen at random from this pool of applicants. It would be similar to jury duty but the application process would ensure these are people with basic knowledge and interest in the democratic process.
I like that they are qualified, but would still like to ensure there’s a balance of multi-partisanship. We don’t want another unbalanced SCOTUS situation as a result of “the luck of the draw.”
I think a selection system from a pool of candidates that have passed some sort of basic knowledge exam would still need to have a rotating group of members. Initially some people would need to be assigned longer terms so not everyone is leaving at the same time but then say after 5 years everyone’s term is only 3 years long or 12 months or however long seems the best method to prevent corruption but maintain continuity.
One of my favorite things about you is that you not only note the shortcomings but also provide potential solutions. I also would add that maybe a basics anatomy and sexual education course for those who seem to think it is their right to make decisions for women and girls.
This should be required reading for all elected officials. I’m particularly sensitive to Gerrymandering since I live in one of the states shown on the graphic… Love the idea of all candidates having the same amount of public funds and then limited to what one person can donate. It would be a huge change, but if everyone had to follow the same rules, it would be fair. And yes, shorter campaign cycles. I think we are all exhausted six months in. Well done Sharon!
In essence you are asking us to put country over party, principles over power. Human nature makes these solutions difficult since we (eg. the 2 parties) tend to seek what we think is best for ourselves. But they can happen. I feel like these are jobs for the exhausted majority tired of being run around by extremists. Term limits, ranked voting, and a constitutional convention overturning Citizens United… let’s do it!
Love your ideas. I immediately thought, who is going to select the citizens council? Random selection like jury duty? That could be problematic in that some may have zero interest and wouldn't put forth great effort. So much corruption around every corner, how do you select people that aren't being bought or influenced? One item I'd add to your list - convicted felons can't run for President. A speeding ticket when they were 19, ok you can run. Convicted for felonies? That would be a "NO".
Do it the way we do poll workers, sign up if you are interested. Simple requirements like must be eligible to vote, registered voters etc. Probably workers need some basic classes in who is eligible to run etc. (we have that now for poll workers to know what is and is not permitted surrounding election day) but then a specific number of people selected randomly from the worker pool, from each party.
I get what you're referencing here, but I think that there should be room for mistakes made / bad judgment, etc. and room for rehabilitation and making amends in any healthy democracy. Denying felons certain rights and privileges doesn't serve as a deterrent but it does limit future opportunities, which keeps people stuck in a dysfunctional cycle.
For the most part, I totally agree with you. However, The President of the United States of America should be held to a high standard. A standard that does not include felony convictions.
There’s so much goodness in what you’ve suggested but because the current system benefits the very people in power, it feels unlikely change will happen. They’re beginning to feel like gatekeepers to a more functional, vibrant United States. I’d add term limits for Congress and an age limit for President (we have a minimum age requirement so an age limit makes sense for a myriad of reasons, too). To the changes to primaries, I’d make all states “open primary” like I enjoy in Colorado as an Independent voter. I get to participate in primaries without declaring allegiance to one of two sides, which helps me vote “principle over party” even in primaries.
Ashely, I love the way you worded this, "Gatekeepers to a more functional, vibrant United States"! It does indeed feel that way a lot of the time, especially with members who are there for decades!
You can “both sides” this until the cows come home and we will get nowhere. Sharon can’t come right out and say it because her nonpartisan brand is everything and the reason why she is able to reach so many people. But the fact is, it’s the Republican Party that has perverted our democratic system into what it is today and that consistently blocks many of the ideas Sharon proposes. Because of Republican push for virtually unlimited campaign finance, Elon Musk, owner of X (formerly Twitter) will spend $45 million PER MONTH to elect Trump. Republicans have made bipartisanship and compromise into a mortal sin, starting with Mitch McConnell’s novel and then routine use of the Senate filibuster to thwart Obama’s agenda and grind congressional legislating to a halt. Republicans constantly hack away at the Voting Rights act and will fight to the death to retain minority rule through the Electoral College. The Republican majority Supreme Court has singlehandedly upended women’s rights over their own bodies, refused to allow limits on campaign finance or partisan gerrymandering, made corruption okay if the gifts come after the acts, completely blocked any enforceable ethics codes for itself and granted the president king-like powers. Every poll and study done on the subject shows that when policy proposals are presented without any party identifiers, Democratic proposals are popular with most Americans. So it follows that Republicans’ only way to stay in power is either change their policies or adopt tactics antithetical to a healthy democracy. They have chosen the latter approach. If you want to see Sharon’s vision for democracy realized, the simplest, most effective thing you can do is vote more Democrats into office. I was a Republican for decades. I haven’t changed that much over the last 25 years but aside from a principled few who have been driven out, the Republican Party certainly has.
I would also like to know how we can make these changes. I write my representatives all the time and rarely ever receive a response. We have to vote representatives out who do not listen and vote in new people who will actually make changes.
Sharon, you are brilliant. How can we get your voice heard all over the country?
I pray for our country to be better, safer, kinder every day?
I agree wholeheartedly with all of this, AND I cannot fathom how any candidate for higher office would take the first step towards implementation. In order for laws to be passed to create these policies, politicians would have to actively hinder their short-term power. I can't see that happening...like ever.
That is the scary truth
Brilliant Sharon! Now I’m even more dismayed because we have solutions! But will anyone with authority to implement them even LISTEN??? How can we get this OUT THERE??? FAST?
I came to say this. I love everything about what you wrote Sharon, so how do we make it happen? We can’t rely upon the elected officials to do anything about it so what are WE going to do?
Yes. Tearful as this is also my question. I know what I can do personally. And I am trying my hardest to consistently do those things. I am unsure how to unify — how to mobilize — how to ‘get involved’ in something that moves the needle on these very important issues. Grateful for Sharon’s ideas and the community here. Curious how to bring this all forward. Willing to learn. 💜
There is a new book out by Emily Amick called “Democracy in Retrograde” that has actionable ideas for people to get involved!
I feel the same way. Great ideas. How do we get this to happen when those in power never allow meaningful change to happen?
Elections can’t be improved without diving deep into reforming the “who” and the “how”. Who’s allowed to run in this country and how do they get elected? So I’m more intrigued by what you left out vs what you included here (which all makes sense!). Like the crazy electoral college system? Or true “no loop-hole” caps on campaign spending (goodbye PACS)? Or requirements that cap a candidate’s age? Or mandatory release of tax returns? Or mandatory clean criminal history (felonies)?
Here’s how I’m feeling: how in the heck did France and the UK just manage to change their governments so quickly and so cleanly? We continue to look like a slow and messy democracy while they look like a nimble and responsive one. Are parliamentary systems really that much better?
I spoke to a professor who has been studying this issue for decades, and he says that yes, America should adopt a hybrid parliamentary system. Here’s the link if you want to listen: https://sharonmcmahon.com/podcast/reimagining-democracy-with-max-stearns (or just google “Sharon McMahon Mac Stearns” and you’ll get to the page.
MAX Stearns 😊
Excited to listen to this interview. I am already captured by the intro blurb: "Many voters are familiar with this scene: You walk into a voting booth, review the options, and feel as though you’re voting between 'the lesser of two evils.' You might worry that voting third-party is wasting a vote, but you don’t feel represented by the main candidates. Sound familiar? If you’re like the majority of Americans, you probably find yourself frustrated with the two-party system and a historically unproductive Congress. What if it didn’t have to be that way?"
I would encourage our group to also learn more about Approval Voting. Because then a voter never has to feel like they are throwing their vote away. Approval Voting let's voters select all candidates they *approve of* for the position, and which ever candidate gets the most approval votes, wins!
So if you like a third-party candidate, you can vote third-party AND for a major candidate (to hedge your bets). Approval Voting makes it possible for voters to ALWAYS vote their favorite candidate(s). Also, consider a Primary election where there are 6+ candidates, Approval Voting means you no longer are "splitting votes" because if you like 3 (or more) of the 6+ candidates, you can vote for all three.
This method of voting actually *encourages competition* through *more choice*. Whereas, if you think about today's Primary landscape, candidates tend to drop out because they worry about splitting votes and having the least favored candidate win their party's nomination.
Also, because every voter could vote for ANY candidate, candidates would be encouraged to truly win over ANY voter, because it's no longer about *stealing votes* from another candidate, it becomes about simply appealing to voters. Voters don't have to be concerned with the tradeoffs of voting for one candidate and sacrificing a "winning" vote, they can just focus on whether they would approve of any candidate winning or not.
I am feeling SO grateful for this link. I’ve been wondering about this question for awhile and of course you’re on it and have been for a long time! You have so much great content - thank you for that!
Approval Voting actually *encourages competition* through *more choice*. Whereas, if you think about today's Primary landscape, candidates tend to drop out because they worry about splitting votes and having the least favored candidate win their party's nomination.
Also, because every voter could vote for ANY candidate, candidates would be encouraged to truly win over ANY voter, because it's no longer about *stealing votes* from another candidate, it becomes about simply appealing to voters. Voters don't have to be concerned with the tradeoffs of voting for one candidate and sacrificing a "winning" vote, they can just focus on whether they would approve of any candidate winning or not.
Thank you. I’ve never heard of this.
Yes, I expected electoral college to be number one, also. You suggest citizens’ councils as solutions to several problems. I love that idea, but how would the citizens be selected to serve, and ensured not to be self-serving?
This was my follow up question as well: how are the citizen groups formed so that they stay non-partisan and avoid making decisions based on self-interest?
They wouldn’t need to be non partisan, they would be a mix of people from all parties.
Multipartisan make-up, but functionally non-partisan?
Similar to how separation of church and state is supposed to work. We are all free to practice our own religions privately, but are not allowed to favor one over the other in a public office.
Yes. All participants working to make things better for everyone. Folks would be there from all parties to ensure all views are represented but the goal being what is best for whole.
That’s always my goal:
Find/Build Common Ground
Use Common Sense
Serve the Common Good
But how would they be chosen? Would that require an election process of some kind? Or would it be something like jury duty where part of people’s civic duties is to participate in a session of this group?
What if citizens apply and are required to pass a civics exam (similar to the one the candidates would have to pass)? These citizen groups could be chosen at random from this pool of applicants. It would be similar to jury duty but the application process would ensure these are people with basic knowledge and interest in the democratic process.
I like that they are qualified, but would still like to ensure there’s a balance of multi-partisanship. We don’t want another unbalanced SCOTUS situation as a result of “the luck of the draw.”
I think a selection system from a pool of candidates that have passed some sort of basic knowledge exam would still need to have a rotating group of members. Initially some people would need to be assigned longer terms so not everyone is leaving at the same time but then say after 5 years everyone’s term is only 3 years long or 12 months or however long seems the best method to prevent corruption but maintain continuity.
Love this, Sharon! I would add term limits for Congress.
Yes to term limits!!!
I vote Sharon to lead the citizen group! 😀
Could we form a citizens for political change group? Something big enough to get National attention?
One of my favorite things about you is that you not only note the shortcomings but also provide potential solutions. I also would add that maybe a basics anatomy and sexual education course for those who seem to think it is their right to make decisions for women and girls.
This should be required reading for all elected officials. I’m particularly sensitive to Gerrymandering since I live in one of the states shown on the graphic… Love the idea of all candidates having the same amount of public funds and then limited to what one person can donate. It would be a huge change, but if everyone had to follow the same rules, it would be fair. And yes, shorter campaign cycles. I think we are all exhausted six months in. Well done Sharon!
In essence you are asking us to put country over party, principles over power. Human nature makes these solutions difficult since we (eg. the 2 parties) tend to seek what we think is best for ourselves. But they can happen. I feel like these are jobs for the exhausted majority tired of being run around by extremists. Term limits, ranked voting, and a constitutional convention overturning Citizens United… let’s do it!
Love your ideas. I immediately thought, who is going to select the citizens council? Random selection like jury duty? That could be problematic in that some may have zero interest and wouldn't put forth great effort. So much corruption around every corner, how do you select people that aren't being bought or influenced? One item I'd add to your list - convicted felons can't run for President. A speeding ticket when they were 19, ok you can run. Convicted for felonies? That would be a "NO".
Do it the way we do poll workers, sign up if you are interested. Simple requirements like must be eligible to vote, registered voters etc. Probably workers need some basic classes in who is eligible to run etc. (we have that now for poll workers to know what is and is not permitted surrounding election day) but then a specific number of people selected randomly from the worker pool, from each party.
Love this idea!
I get what you're referencing here, but I think that there should be room for mistakes made / bad judgment, etc. and room for rehabilitation and making amends in any healthy democracy. Denying felons certain rights and privileges doesn't serve as a deterrent but it does limit future opportunities, which keeps people stuck in a dysfunctional cycle.
For the most part, I totally agree with you. However, The President of the United States of America should be held to a high standard. A standard that does not include felony convictions.
There’s so much goodness in what you’ve suggested but because the current system benefits the very people in power, it feels unlikely change will happen. They’re beginning to feel like gatekeepers to a more functional, vibrant United States. I’d add term limits for Congress and an age limit for President (we have a minimum age requirement so an age limit makes sense for a myriad of reasons, too). To the changes to primaries, I’d make all states “open primary” like I enjoy in Colorado as an Independent voter. I get to participate in primaries without declaring allegiance to one of two sides, which helps me vote “principle over party” even in primaries.
Ashely, I love the way you worded this, "Gatekeepers to a more functional, vibrant United States"! It does indeed feel that way a lot of the time, especially with members who are there for decades!
You can “both sides” this until the cows come home and we will get nowhere. Sharon can’t come right out and say it because her nonpartisan brand is everything and the reason why she is able to reach so many people. But the fact is, it’s the Republican Party that has perverted our democratic system into what it is today and that consistently blocks many of the ideas Sharon proposes. Because of Republican push for virtually unlimited campaign finance, Elon Musk, owner of X (formerly Twitter) will spend $45 million PER MONTH to elect Trump. Republicans have made bipartisanship and compromise into a mortal sin, starting with Mitch McConnell’s novel and then routine use of the Senate filibuster to thwart Obama’s agenda and grind congressional legislating to a halt. Republicans constantly hack away at the Voting Rights act and will fight to the death to retain minority rule through the Electoral College. The Republican majority Supreme Court has singlehandedly upended women’s rights over their own bodies, refused to allow limits on campaign finance or partisan gerrymandering, made corruption okay if the gifts come after the acts, completely blocked any enforceable ethics codes for itself and granted the president king-like powers. Every poll and study done on the subject shows that when policy proposals are presented without any party identifiers, Democratic proposals are popular with most Americans. So it follows that Republicans’ only way to stay in power is either change their policies or adopt tactics antithetical to a healthy democracy. They have chosen the latter approach. If you want to see Sharon’s vision for democracy realized, the simplest, most effective thing you can do is vote more Democrats into office. I was a Republican for decades. I haven’t changed that much over the last 25 years but aside from a principled few who have been driven out, the Republican Party certainly has.
These are all amazing and wise solutions but I want to know HOW - how can we as individual voters see that these things happen?
I would also like to know how we can make these changes. I write my representatives all the time and rarely ever receive a response. We have to vote representatives out who do not listen and vote in new people who will actually make changes.
I love this, agree 100%! Sharon, you should be our president😉🩵
And I would add to get rid of the electoral college; let each vote count like it does for all other elections.