The socioeconomic quagmire we find ourselves in can't be escaped without sacrifice. Alas, I fear inconvenience is the enemy of progress, and without dynamic leadership, we are dead in the water.
I am a paid subscriber because you always provide ample evidence to support your analysis. I look forward to your insights because YOU MAKE IT MAKE SENSE!
The problem (and embarrassment) with Substack is that paying each writer individually would be more expensive than many of us could manage, even if they are well worth the expense and deserve the support. Suppose one reads ten authors per day, at $5.00 each per month each. That totals $50.00 per month, or $600.00 per year. We read in Substack about inflation; the cost of gas, groceries, and housing; and the difficulty of changing this with Trump and his fools in office, backed by the do-nothing Republicans in Congress with a partisan Supreme Court allowing their crimes. Not everyone has that $600.00.
I sometimes wish that like-minded authors would band together into single publications, and wonder if an increased volume of sales of these collected subscriptions could offset the hypothetical loss of each author not receiving the entire $5.00 that they well deserve and many of us want to give. Ironically, the premier platform for discussing Democracy is ill suited to being funded by subscriptions to its own writings.
There used to be these things called newspapers, despite that some changed to a fully electronic format for distribution. They offered many writers for prices that — sound familiar? — many saw as too high, yet that were in expensive in comparison, yet vastly lower priced on a per-author basis.
In the future the USA 🇺🇸 will benefit greatly if it moves to a multiparty system, rather than the two we have now. It would have also helped us remove a tyrannical government much more faster or at least easier. To find out how it will be beneficial, please read below. THE MORE YOU KNOW. 📚🤓⬇️⬇️
Transitioning to a multiparty system would reduce extreme political polarization, offer voters a wider spectrum of policy options, and increase legislative compromise. It would also make elections more competitive, forcing parties to form cross-cutting coalitions rather than relying on partisan attacks to win. Key Benefits of a Multiparty System.
Reduced Polarization and Extremism: Because a multiparty system usually requires coalition building to govern, candidates are incentivized to seek broader consensus rather than catering to the most extreme fringes of their base.
Greater Policy Diversity: Voters are no longer forced to choose the "lesser of two evils" between two centrist umbrella parties. Additional parties can represent nuanced views on the economy, climate, and social issues that currently get lost in the standard two-party platform.
Increased Voter Turnout: People who feel alienated by the Democratic and Republican parties may be more likely to vote if they have candidates who align closely with their personal values.
Elimination of Spoiler Effects and Gerrymandering: A multiparty system often goes hand-in-hand with alternative voting methods like Ranked Choice Voting or Proportional Representation, which mathematically prevent third-party candidates from "spoiling" elections and significantly reduce the impact of gerrymandered districts.
Improved Government Resilience: Instead of the rigid gridlock that can happen when two parties control all of Washington, multiparty systems require fluid, flexible alliances that can adapt to changing societal needs. The Institutional Hurdle Realizing these benefits in the United States requires more than just creating new parties. Because of the "winner-take-all" nature of single-member districts and the Electoral College, smaller parties are historically disadvantaged. To learn more about how electoral reforms are trying to shift this dynamic, check out the resources at FairVote.
Australias system is by no means perfect, but we have 4 main things which make a helluva difference to the results, and to the trust held by the populace.
1. compulsory voting. Means every jane, joe, and jack has to have their say. This reduces the polarity, because not just the rabid are voting.
2. Preferential voting. I vote for party a, if they dont get in the vote goes on, its like having several votes rolled into one and means we can vote for who we like, not just whos most likely to get in. Minor parties win here.
3. Handwritten ballots. Nuf said.
4. Minor parties, if they get enough seats the govt has to negotiate keeping them in line.
5. No godlike president.
6. We vote on saturdays.
7. Democracy sausage.. bbqs at all major voting centres.
Sounds good to me. USA 🇺🇸 needs to get with the program. Our system is so antiquated and outdated, it's not doing us Americans any good. This is why we find ourselves in this situation today.
I can understand your argument and we do need to recognize this political quagmire of corporate politics.
Perhaps the Canadian or European systems might be better. But first we must remove the big money men out of the daily work of government.
Can we do it under the current two party system? We did it before in 1932 when the American voters, battered by the 1929 economic crisis, had enough of rampant capitalism and its political tentacles.
But then again, Republicans have spent every minute of the past 94 years working hard to dissolve all those economic and social gains.
What can we do? Will multiple smaller political parties be able to form coalitions? Can we successfully remove big money from politics when half the voters like it when it benefits them personally?
Please continue to help us understand what might work. And how to make it happen.
Trust me, I would love to be able to subscribe to you and a few other substackers I follow. And if anything ever works out for me I will!! Thank you for continuing to make your work available regardless, because I really love your pieces. You see things clearly and analyze them honestly.
Thank you for your kind words. Please don’t think I was aiming to make anyone feel bad, I just get frustrated sometimes when I get the bill for all the various research resources I subscribe to. Proves I’m human and not AI 🤣
I appreciate your support and you can rest assured I’ll NEVER put my work behind a paywall. - Martin
I couldn't agree more. Paying people what they should be paid would eliminate the need for food stamps, and other governmental assistance for most people.
First, you’ve just guilted me into becoming a paid subscriber because we must all recognize by now that corporate news is a bag of lies and secret manipulation of readers.
Second, it is important to me to continue to hear from those who remain committed to the American form of capitalism. But Trump has do corrupted what was already both unfair and unethical, especially in a nation that now proudly calls itself a “White Christian Nation.”
Until we accept and agree that as a nation we can solve hunger and poverty in what we continue to claim to be “the greatest nation of all time,” we are no better than Russia or Iran.
We need to emulate Norway and Sweden and Finland: universal healthcare, free education with high academic standards, and a general sense of equality we talk about but don’t achieve ourselves.
Keep writing. We need good ideas to get us out of this quagmire.
Thank you Mary, your support is greatly appreciated, but only for as long as you can afford it. If a time arrives when you can’t, don’t hesitate to make the saving, my analysis will ALWAYS be free to access.
That is so good to hear - do you have a way i can buy you a coffee or make a one off contribution? Im in Australia so have to balance my international and domestic media subscriptions, but id love to support your good work
I disagree with your statement “The true tragedy is that there has never been a better time to deliver transformative change than now”
The pivotal time was “then” in 2008. Obama chose to play safe. Banks over people. Trump is the consequence of Obama’s failure to deliver on the promise of change. Heritage Democrats in power led the charge into the barn. It is Now Americans are finally breaking out.
I am a paid subscriber because you always provide ample evidence to support your analysis. I look forward to your insights because YOU MAKE IT MAKE SENSE!
Thank you so much for being a critical part of covering the ever increasing cost of research Juliette, I appreciated you. - Martin
The problem (and embarrassment) with Substack is that paying each writer individually would be more expensive than many of us could manage, even if they are well worth the expense and deserve the support. Suppose one reads ten authors per day, at $5.00 each per month each. That totals $50.00 per month, or $600.00 per year. We read in Substack about inflation; the cost of gas, groceries, and housing; and the difficulty of changing this with Trump and his fools in office, backed by the do-nothing Republicans in Congress with a partisan Supreme Court allowing their crimes. Not everyone has that $600.00.
I sometimes wish that like-minded authors would band together into single publications, and wonder if an increased volume of sales of these collected subscriptions could offset the hypothetical loss of each author not receiving the entire $5.00 that they well deserve and many of us want to give. Ironically, the premier platform for discussing Democracy is ill suited to being funded by subscriptions to its own writings.
There used to be these things called newspapers, despite that some changed to a fully electronic format for distribution. They offered many writers for prices that — sound familiar? — many saw as too high, yet that were in expensive in comparison, yet vastly lower priced on a per-author basis.
I could not agree more, there needs to be a better solution. - Martin
I agree. But I count the money I now save by no longer subscribing to the NYT and WaPo.
Loved the article and your explanation/introduction of a Democratic Candidate who could just get me to vote Democrat again.
I'm tired of the DNC, Democratic party parading out Republican light choices to vote for.
We need a message, a platform to vote for that isn't " were better than they are"! I'm not buying it.
I'm third party no matter what if we get the same old same old.
Your introduction to Jon give me that hope!
Thank you for your kind words Bryan, I appreciate it. I’m glad my feature on Jon provided some hope. - Martin
In the future the USA 🇺🇸 will benefit greatly if it moves to a multiparty system, rather than the two we have now. It would have also helped us remove a tyrannical government much more faster or at least easier. To find out how it will be beneficial, please read below. THE MORE YOU KNOW. 📚🤓⬇️⬇️
Transitioning to a multiparty system would reduce extreme political polarization, offer voters a wider spectrum of policy options, and increase legislative compromise. It would also make elections more competitive, forcing parties to form cross-cutting coalitions rather than relying on partisan attacks to win. Key Benefits of a Multiparty System.
Reduced Polarization and Extremism: Because a multiparty system usually requires coalition building to govern, candidates are incentivized to seek broader consensus rather than catering to the most extreme fringes of their base.
Greater Policy Diversity: Voters are no longer forced to choose the "lesser of two evils" between two centrist umbrella parties. Additional parties can represent nuanced views on the economy, climate, and social issues that currently get lost in the standard two-party platform.
Increased Voter Turnout: People who feel alienated by the Democratic and Republican parties may be more likely to vote if they have candidates who align closely with their personal values.
Elimination of Spoiler Effects and Gerrymandering: A multiparty system often goes hand-in-hand with alternative voting methods like Ranked Choice Voting or Proportional Representation, which mathematically prevent third-party candidates from "spoiling" elections and significantly reduce the impact of gerrymandered districts.
Improved Government Resilience: Instead of the rigid gridlock that can happen when two parties control all of Washington, multiparty systems require fluid, flexible alliances that can adapt to changing societal needs. The Institutional Hurdle Realizing these benefits in the United States requires more than just creating new parties. Because of the "winner-take-all" nature of single-member districts and the Electoral College, smaller parties are historically disadvantaged. To learn more about how electoral reforms are trying to shift this dynamic, check out the resources at FairVote.
Thank you for your comprehensive contribution to the conversation and you will get no pushback from me on the points you make.
I concur that the current two party system as it stands are corrosive I’m afraid.
There needs to be competition for ideas and values, and a multiparty system could unquestionably help. - Martin
Absolutely. 💯 👍😊
Australias system is by no means perfect, but we have 4 main things which make a helluva difference to the results, and to the trust held by the populace.
1. compulsory voting. Means every jane, joe, and jack has to have their say. This reduces the polarity, because not just the rabid are voting.
2. Preferential voting. I vote for party a, if they dont get in the vote goes on, its like having several votes rolled into one and means we can vote for who we like, not just whos most likely to get in. Minor parties win here.
3. Handwritten ballots. Nuf said.
4. Minor parties, if they get enough seats the govt has to negotiate keeping them in line.
5. No godlike president.
6. We vote on saturdays.
7. Democracy sausage.. bbqs at all major voting centres.
Sounds good to me. USA 🇺🇸 needs to get with the program. Our system is so antiquated and outdated, it's not doing us Americans any good. This is why we find ourselves in this situation today.
Okay so that was 7, not 4.. lol
I can understand your argument and we do need to recognize this political quagmire of corporate politics.
Perhaps the Canadian or European systems might be better. But first we must remove the big money men out of the daily work of government.
Can we do it under the current two party system? We did it before in 1932 when the American voters, battered by the 1929 economic crisis, had enough of rampant capitalism and its political tentacles.
But then again, Republicans have spent every minute of the past 94 years working hard to dissolve all those economic and social gains.
What can we do? Will multiple smaller political parties be able to form coalitions? Can we successfully remove big money from politics when half the voters like it when it benefits them personally?
Please continue to help us understand what might work. And how to make it happen.
Ww fight toward getting the multiparty system. We always have to fight for change. History shows it.
Trust me, I would love to be able to subscribe to you and a few other substackers I follow. And if anything ever works out for me I will!! Thank you for continuing to make your work available regardless, because I really love your pieces. You see things clearly and analyze them honestly.
Thank you for your kind words. Please don’t think I was aiming to make anyone feel bad, I just get frustrated sometimes when I get the bill for all the various research resources I subscribe to. Proves I’m human and not AI 🤣
I appreciate your support and you can rest assured I’ll NEVER put my work behind a paywall. - Martin
I couldn't agree more. Paying people what they should be paid would eliminate the need for food stamps, and other governmental assistance for most people.
First, you’ve just guilted me into becoming a paid subscriber because we must all recognize by now that corporate news is a bag of lies and secret manipulation of readers.
Second, it is important to me to continue to hear from those who remain committed to the American form of capitalism. But Trump has do corrupted what was already both unfair and unethical, especially in a nation that now proudly calls itself a “White Christian Nation.”
Until we accept and agree that as a nation we can solve hunger and poverty in what we continue to claim to be “the greatest nation of all time,” we are no better than Russia or Iran.
We need to emulate Norway and Sweden and Finland: universal healthcare, free education with high academic standards, and a general sense of equality we talk about but don’t achieve ourselves.
Keep writing. We need good ideas to get us out of this quagmire.
An important leaning, difficult truths made palatable.
It will take time for many a career-politician to step aside…most unwilling, as they are.
Spot on analysis, as always. Thank you, Martin. I will be a paying subscriber for as long as possible. Your words always resonate with me.
Thank you Mary, your support is greatly appreciated, but only for as long as you can afford it. If a time arrives when you can’t, don’t hesitate to make the saving, my analysis will ALWAYS be free to access.
That is so good to hear - do you have a way i can buy you a coffee or make a one off contribution? Im in Australia so have to balance my international and domestic media subscriptions, but id love to support your good work
Dems are wet paper tigers soaked their own incompetent jabberwocky cantonic state 🗿🗿🗿🗿🗿🗿🗿🗿expect nothing from them
I’m not big on sweeping generalisations, but I do see where you’re coming from Charlie. - Martin
I disagree with your statement “The true tragedy is that there has never been a better time to deliver transformative change than now”
The pivotal time was “then” in 2008. Obama chose to play safe. Banks over people. Trump is the consequence of Obama’s failure to deliver on the promise of change. Heritage Democrats in power led the charge into the barn. It is Now Americans are finally breaking out.
Thanks. I also liked the video. The idea that tax cuts for the rich have never paid for themselves is something I need to think about more.
Or maybe it’s the idea that taxing the rich again is insufficient action to balance economy
Algerie Francais 1957?
💯 agreed