Why this book: I’m in a reading group in which one of the members works for the governor in the state of Missouri and is considering running for office.  When we asked him why he would want to submit himself to such a losing proposition, he suggested this book.  For those of us who’ve become cynical, it provides some light at the end of the tunnel in how our political system works, or doesn’t.  

Summary in 3 Sentences: The authors represent both Democratic and Republican perspectives explaining why the current political system favors the extremes and keeps moderate and middle of the road candidates out of the system.  They speak of the Democrat-Republican “duopoly” which has a vested interest in the system as it currently functions, even though it doesn’t serve the interests of the majority of Americans very well- and the party bosses are quite OK with the frustration of the many, as long as they retain their power and prerogatives.  And then the authors suggest a practical means for changing and improving the system to give the majority of voters a greater voice in who represents them in government – and they note how their recommendations are gaining momentum across the country.

My Impressions.  I really liked and was inspired by this book.  This book explains why our political system, as it is set up now, benefits what they call the established “duopoly” of Democrats and Republicans – and how the “powers that be” in each party are invested in a system that they understand how to manipulate to keep themselves in power – though it is certainly not optimal for serving the interests of the majority ofAmericans.   They explain how the current primary systems in most states serve the established parties and the candidates the party bosses want to run and win, while discouraging or prohibiting candidates who the public may prefer, but who may not be willing to toe the party line and advocate for positions that the power brokers in the parties want. 

They offer example after example of how popular and middle of the road candidates were pushed out of the electoral process, or marginalized, on both Republican and Democratic sides, because they didn’t appeal to the fully engaged and more radical extremes of their party faithful, or because they may have advocated for positions that key financial donors to the parties opposed. And if such a candidate fails to win the party’s primary, many states have “sore loser” laws which prevent people who fail to win their party’s primary from running as independents or write-in candidates in the general election.  These “sore losers” often appeal to independents and others who did not participate in the primary, and the party bosses don’t want them to bleed votes away from their selected candidate.

The authors are fair – they represent both Republican and Democratic perspectives – For every example of perfidy by one party, they also offer a similar example of such an action by the other party, proving their point – BOTH parties are invested in the current system, which inhibits innovation, inhibits partisan and non-partisan collaboration, and serves the interests of the power brokers in each party, rather than the electorate.  If you, like me and so many of my friends, are frustrated with what our political system is giving us for representatives, you’ll find this book insightful as to why, and positive in offering a means to “fix” the system, so that the system isn’t “fixed” like it seems to be now.

The authors point out how states who elect the candidate with the plurality of votes often get a “representative” who much of the electorate can’t stand. For example they gave an example in which a state  elected a governor who won something like 35 percent of the votes, where the other 65 percent was split among 2 or 3 other candidates.  The reality was that close to 60 percent of the voters couldn’t stand the candidate who was elected, but the candidate’s party had been able to rally 35 percent of the state to vote for their preferred candidate. As a result, the state was stuck with a very unpopular governor.  

The authors make a strong case for open primaries – not party primaries – to determine which candidates go on the ballot in the general election. The open primary gives the voters a chance to choose from a wide variety of candidates.  Open primaries do not require a party affiliation to to be considered to be put on the general election ballot.  After an open primary the candidates with the most support get on the ballot, whichever party they come from, which could mean that more than one candidate from a party may be on the ballot for the general election. California has an open primary and the top 2 get on the ballot; Alaska has a top 4 process. Maine and Alaska are the only two states with both open primaries and Ranked Choice Voting.  There are strong movements in other states to move in this direction.

The authors advocate for top 5 or top 4 candidates getting on the general ballot and that voters then rank their choices. This is called Rank Choice Voting (RCV) .  They describe it in detail in their book, but here is a simple explanation from the website  Ballotpedia   which provides an excellent explanation of this process.  Voters rank the candidates for a given office by preference on their ballots.

1. If a candidate wins an outright majority of first-preference votes (i.e., 50 percent plus one), he or she will be declared the winner.
2. If, on the other hand, no candidates win an outright majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated.
3. All first-preference votes for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots.
4. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won an outright majority of the adjusted voters.
5. The process is repeated until a candidate wins a majority of votes cast.

The movement toward open primaries and RCV is gaining momentum and a google search will offer a lot of options to explore it, notably Ballotpedia and fairvote.org

This is an excellent primer into how our political system functions, but doesn’t “work” to express the needs of most Americans. It’s short – I listened to it and in only about 7 hours. As a result I’ve chosen to get involved in the process of advocating for Open Primaries and Ranked Choice Voting.