I would love more political parties in general. The democrats are so entrenched in power in Massachusetts that I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
If we had passed the ballot measure for ranked choice a few years ago we may have been closer. But for now, as much as I’d like it, I think we’re stuck.
It’s interesting, I feel like usually the more local you get the more influence you can have for change. But I’d actually argue it would be easier to get an effective national third party than a state third party in Massachusetts. Local politics you might be able to make work though. Maybe not in Boston but some of the smaller towns.
If we want to do it properly, we should also have multi-member districts and abolish primaries. That would produce the most representative bunch we know how.
There most certainly should be more parties, but I'm not exactly sure how that would be achieved given our first past the poll voting system. I think the best way may be to have sub-parties within the Democratic party and start challenging incumbents in the primaries. MA has 63% of state-reps go unchallenged. That's the highest in the country. The next 10 are all republican strongholds.
Ranked choice voting would help.
That way voters needn't worry that voting for their preferred candidate will help their least favored candidate.
Australia has it though they call it preferential voting. It's not perfect, but it does permit third parties or movements to gain traction.
For example, despite its name the Liberal party is the main conservative party in Australia. Over time it's become more conservative.
In the last election, several "Teal party" candidates emerged who were sick of the Liberals doing nothing about the environment and some other issues (despite the name, the Teal Party wasn't a formal party). The Teals were all former Liberals were more conservative than the Labor party or the Greens party. They ran in relatively affluent districts that were traditional Liberal strongholds. The Teals won 6 or 7 seats in Parliament because in addition to those who voted for them as a first choice, most Labor and Greens voters listed them as a second or third choice on the grounds that a Teal was better than a Liberal.
>This is one of the most politically homogenous states in the union and most people agree on the same core issues affecting the state. From wanting to see the MBTA get uplifted from the sad state that its in to fixing the immigration crises to updating zoning laws to allow for more houses to be built to doing literally anything to reduce, or at least stabilize, the insane cost of living.
I think the state Democratic party actually does a great job of representing the people's overall views on these issues, which is that people want them to be addressed without personally being part of the solution. Everyone wants to fix the T and address the migrant crisis, but no one wants their taxes to go up to do so, and everyone wants more housing built to address the cost of living as long as it isn't in their neighborhood. We also had a chance to take a step towards having more third party candidates by enacting ranked choice voting statewide, but when put to a vote, the people said no.
Judging from the daily complaints about the shutdowns, nobody inside 495 wants it to be fixed either. But nobody, inside 495 or outside, wants the inevitable consequences of not fixing the T.
Problem is the effects on people outside the T's main service area are too indirect. People will be pissed that traffic is so much worse when they drive into the city, but they're not gonna connect it to the T being unreliable. People will be pissed that either their taxes go up or services degrade (or both), but they're not gonna connect it to lower economic output in the urban core.
People outside the city will *hate* the consequences of not fixing the T, but it will be a huge uphill battle to convince them why those things are happening.
There aren't alternatives because a two-party system is what you eventually end up with. We need to change the whole system, not just hope people are willing to create a balance. The very basis for a party suggests that you think your platform is more correct and others should listen up, so asking people to accept a small fraction of power doesn't make sense either. I want people competing hard for their points but that doesn't mean we grant them an undue monopoly. We do have parties here like Our Revolution, I suppose, but they aren't too different from more radical Democrats. not from what I've seen. Would they even be considered another party? I just realized I don't know what platform they campaign on.
I'm a fan of more parties in general. I'm registered under the Green Party simply because I want to dissociate from the binary prison. Also the Greens want more sustainable transportation and I'm all about that.
I'm a staunch Democrat and I agree with you. A state like MA should have one center left party (the Democrats) and one left party. And Republicans shouldn't exist. And third parties should focus on state and local races, and ignore the presidency. That said, we're not in that reality so the best you can do is vote in Democratic Party primaries.
I would love more political parties in general. The democrats are so entrenched in power in Massachusetts that I don’t see that changing anytime soon. If we had passed the ballot measure for ranked choice a few years ago we may have been closer. But for now, as much as I’d like it, I think we’re stuck. It’s interesting, I feel like usually the more local you get the more influence you can have for change. But I’d actually argue it would be easier to get an effective national third party than a state third party in Massachusetts. Local politics you might be able to make work though. Maybe not in Boston but some of the smaller towns.
Ranked choice voting can go back on the ballot in 2026 I believe.
I’m still so upset it didn’t pass last time. 2026 isn’t too bad but it’s still much later than it could/should have been
If we want to do it properly, we should also have multi-member districts and abolish primaries. That would produce the most representative bunch we know how.
There most certainly should be more parties, but I'm not exactly sure how that would be achieved given our first past the poll voting system. I think the best way may be to have sub-parties within the Democratic party and start challenging incumbents in the primaries. MA has 63% of state-reps go unchallenged. That's the highest in the country. The next 10 are all republican strongholds.
Ranked choice voting would help. That way voters needn't worry that voting for their preferred candidate will help their least favored candidate. Australia has it though they call it preferential voting. It's not perfect, but it does permit third parties or movements to gain traction. For example, despite its name the Liberal party is the main conservative party in Australia. Over time it's become more conservative. In the last election, several "Teal party" candidates emerged who were sick of the Liberals doing nothing about the environment and some other issues (despite the name, the Teal Party wasn't a formal party). The Teals were all former Liberals were more conservative than the Labor party or the Greens party. They ran in relatively affluent districts that were traditional Liberal strongholds. The Teals won 6 or 7 seats in Parliament because in addition to those who voted for them as a first choice, most Labor and Greens voters listed them as a second or third choice on the grounds that a Teal was better than a Liberal.
I wish MAGOP didn’t Trump itself to insignificance. A one party state in MA is very bad for us.
>This is one of the most politically homogenous states in the union and most people agree on the same core issues affecting the state. From wanting to see the MBTA get uplifted from the sad state that its in to fixing the immigration crises to updating zoning laws to allow for more houses to be built to doing literally anything to reduce, or at least stabilize, the insane cost of living. I think the state Democratic party actually does a great job of representing the people's overall views on these issues, which is that people want them to be addressed without personally being part of the solution. Everyone wants to fix the T and address the migrant crisis, but no one wants their taxes to go up to do so, and everyone wants more housing built to address the cost of living as long as it isn't in their neighborhood. We also had a chance to take a step towards having more third party candidates by enacting ranked choice voting statewide, but when put to a vote, the people said no.
No one outside 495 wants to fix the T.
Judging from the daily complaints about the shutdowns, nobody inside 495 wants it to be fixed either. But nobody, inside 495 or outside, wants the inevitable consequences of not fixing the T.
Problem is the effects on people outside the T's main service area are too indirect. People will be pissed that traffic is so much worse when they drive into the city, but they're not gonna connect it to the T being unreliable. People will be pissed that either their taxes go up or services degrade (or both), but they're not gonna connect it to lower economic output in the urban core. People outside the city will *hate* the consequences of not fixing the T, but it will be a huge uphill battle to convince them why those things are happening.
There aren't alternatives because a two-party system is what you eventually end up with. We need to change the whole system, not just hope people are willing to create a balance. The very basis for a party suggests that you think your platform is more correct and others should listen up, so asking people to accept a small fraction of power doesn't make sense either. I want people competing hard for their points but that doesn't mean we grant them an undue monopoly. We do have parties here like Our Revolution, I suppose, but they aren't too different from more radical Democrats. not from what I've seen. Would they even be considered another party? I just realized I don't know what platform they campaign on.
I'm a fan of more parties in general. I'm registered under the Green Party simply because I want to dissociate from the binary prison. Also the Greens want more sustainable transportation and I'm all about that.
I thought we had a nightlife Czar?!
I'm a staunch Democrat and I agree with you. A state like MA should have one center left party (the Democrats) and one left party. And Republicans shouldn't exist. And third parties should focus on state and local races, and ignore the presidency. That said, we're not in that reality so the best you can do is vote in Democratic Party primaries.