Could Changing how we Vote Make us Less Polarized? — BCB #105
Could Changing how we Vote Make us Less Polarized? — BCB #105
Also: a glossary of biased language, and moderation requires a rebellious attitude
Kansans want to try a new voting system on for size
Recently, Kansas officially recognized a new political party: the United Kansas Party, which aims to overcome political divides and focus on shared interests, in part by introducing a fusion voting system. Changing how we vote, the party says, could be the key to ushering in “a new era of collaborative politics that will transcend traditional party lines.”
Fusion voting has a long history in the U.S. Under this system, third party-nominated candidates won’t just appear on the ballot under the new party, but also as either a Democrat or a Republican. Voters can only vote once, but when votes are tallied, these candidates’ results will include those from both ballot lines. Same as always, the candidate with the most votes wins.
United Kansas’s hope is that electing officials through this system will help achieve their stated goals of “multi-party dialogue” and inclusive growth and reverse a pattern of single-party dominance in the state. As the Kansas City Star explains:
Modern fusion voting supporters say it exerts a moderating effect on elections. Voters who have a difficult time casting their ballot for a Democrat or Republican candidate may be more likely to vote for that person under a third-party ballot line. And candidates elected with the help of fusion votes know they must pay attention to the concerns of fusion voters to continue enjoying their support.
We’ve previously written about how voting systems have the potential to either foment or defuse polarization. Fusion voting has gotten attention in recent years as a potential new way to alleviate two-party gridlock in elections and elevate the profiles of more moderate candidates who don’t necessarily traffic in extremes. In states like New York and Connecticut, which have the system in place, it can be a useful tool for people who “want to send a signal that they are a different kind of candidate,” according to R Street Institute president Eli Lehrer.
As of 2023, fusion voting is legal in five states. But even in New York, one of the only places uses this system regularly, it’s not entirely clear to what extent fusion voting delivers on its promises. What’s more, United Kansas may well have to fight in court to have their system implemented, something Party leaders say they’re prepared for.
Still, the advent of this new party strikes us as a net positive. Many Americans are clearly souring on our two-party system. Fusion voting may may not alleviate the many problems we’re facing, but trying something new—especially something that encourages voters to think beyond party lines—seems worthwhile.
Words to avoid when talking politics
If you want to avoid unintentionally escalating political conflict, you probably need to know what words are going to set people off. AllSides recently published a helpful list of polarizing terms to be mindful of avoiding this election season. Some apply to Red and some to Blue, but most of the expressions they single out actually apply to everyone.
Take, for example, the terms “extremism” and “far left” or “far right.” These are generally used to sensationalize or discredit another group. But, AllSides points out:
As polarizing terms get flung around to discredit one side or another, their definitions become somewhat arbitrary. What one person feels is extreme, bad, outside the bounds of acceptability, or uncouth, another may feel is completely acceptable or even normal. This depends not only on culture, values, and political affiliations, but also filter bubbles, bias, and basically everything but the kitchen sink. Perhaps the terms themselves are the greatest threats of all to this pivotal presidential election.
Other terms they encourage both sides to watch out for include “authoritarian,” “cult,” and “media elite.” They encourage Blue speakers to be careful with “Christian nationalism,” “MAGA Republicans,” and “Never Trumpers.” And on the other end of the spectrum, Red folks would do well to steer clear of terms like “immigration invasion” and “cultural Marxism.”
AllSides also maintains the Red Blue Translator, a glossary that explains how each side thinks and speaks about controversial issues. See, for example, their entries on “transgender” and “liberty.” “Controversial terms tend to shut down dialogue because they mean different things to different people,” the site points out. “The AllSides Red Blue Translator cuts the confusion by revealing how people across the political spectrum think and feel differently about the same term or phrase.”
Rules for radical moderates
In a recent interview, political science professor Aurelian Craiutu takes up hand-wringing over the death of liberalism (people have been doing this for the last 150 years) and how to navigate through an uncertain political future. Craiutu argues that a path of moderation is the way to move forward, but this doesn’t mean being inactive or tuning out. Being a “radical moderate,” he argues, is the ideal way to synthesize the many loud, extreme, and disparate views that make up our national political landscape.
In Craiutu’s book Why Not Moderation? he portrays two fictional interlocutors, young people who disagree politically but agree that the liberal project is exhausted (a view that many Americans share). These characters, like many of us, fundamentally misunderstand what it means to be “moderate”:
I define moderation as a muscular virtue. It’s a virtue for courageous minds. It’s a virtue in principle open to everyone, but not everyone is capable of living life with moderation or acting with moderation. It’s also something that requires a rebellious attitude. Moderates have the courage to challenge conventional norms and ideas when it’s appropriate and stand for them when it’s appropriate.
I think that all of those things go against the current image of moderation. I’ve said that moderation is a muscular virtue: It’s a fighting creed and a rebellious and firm attitude. Most people define moderation by the opposite, which is that it’s a weak virtue, not muscular. It’s not willing to fight. It’s willing to compromise—wishy-washy compromise. It’s not rebellious; it’s a form of succumbing to the hierarchy, to the status quo.
How should one cultivate this kind of radical moderation? The best place to start, Craiutu says, is how you treat the other people in your life on a daily basis. He calls out organizations that will be familiar to many BCB readers—Braver Angels and More in Common, for example—for their work at the grassroots level. He encourages people to seek balance—or “trim,” to use a nautical metaphor—between the competing priorities of those on the extremes. And he urges people to not get offended too easily, and to be willing to reevaluate their own beliefs.
Perhaps the most apparent throughline of Craiutu’s commentary is that moderation can and should be an effort to actively break from dogma rather than to bow out of civic life. For instance, he urges people to “resolve firmly to think politically rather than ideologically”:
Moderation is not a fixed ideology. … Moderation prevents us from thinking or trying to interpret reality in the light of a single value: liberty or justice or equality.
You have to have all of this. You have to have a mix of this. This is what thinking politically is. You have to apply one value more than others in certain circumstances and then other values more than others in other circumstances.
Quote of the Week
We try to retain the good sides of the reforms that have worked and try to eliminate the bad sides. That’s the strength of liberalism. It’s a work in progress. It’s based on trial and error. It’s not the recipe for success all the time.