|
John --
Last
month our politics were consumed by what to do about unidentified flying objects (remember that?) and the debt ceiling (that’s still going on actually). This week, it’s all about how to
handle the Silicon Valley Bank collapse and whether to approve the Willow Project. Complicated issues all, with plenty of
disagreement to go around. As expected, partisans have taken
sides.
Disagreement isn’t the problem though, even in Congress.
Disagreement is normal—even beneficial—and our democratic system was designed to deal with
it in a civil way.
Accepting that we’re going to disagree is the first step in the
process of turning respectful dialogue into building consensus and,
ultimately, taking action.
Where
we’ve gone wrong is stopping at disagreement, doubling down, and
demonizing those who think differently from us. Sadly, some of our
leaders in government are the worst offenders.
There’s
rarely one right way to do things, especially in a large, pluralistic
country like ours with multiple complex problems. But the two major
parties would have you believe there is, and they’d rather halt
progress altogether than give the other team a win. Their hubris hurts us all.
We don’t
believe it’s up to politicians or political parties to tell you how to
think in order to “belong.” Honestly, that's pretty weak. At Forward,
we welcome differences, because we know they make us
stronger.
OTHER NEWS &
VIEWS
Connecticut debates merits of
RCV
Connecticut
legislators heard public testimony on ranked-choice voting on Monday.
Four bills introduced this session would implement RCV in the state
for various elections: HB 5133, HB 5087, HB 5701, and SB 389. Teran
Loeppke, organizer of Common Cause in Connecticut, which supports the
legislation, said that RCV motivates “historically disenfranchised
voters to participate in American democracy.” Loeppke added that
choose-one elections can cause harm by contributing to “toxic campaign
cycles” and advancing a candidate in an election that does not have
majority support. —CT Mirror
More ranked-choice voting
news:
Nebraska could get nonpartisan
statewide elections
Nebraskans could decide in 2024 whether the state’s
constitutional officers, such as the governor or secretary of state,
should be elected on a nonpartisan basis. Legislative Resolution 3CA,
proposed by State Sen. John Cavanaugh, would provide that the top two
vote-getters for governor, attorney general, secretary of state,
auditor of public accounts, and state treasurer advance to the general
election, regardless of party. If the Legislature approves the bill,
voters would have the final say in 2024. “It has worked well for the
Nebraska Legislature for nearly 90 years,” Cavanaugh said. “It’s time
that we gave our voters the choice to make our statewide elections
nonpartisan as well.” Hear, hear! —Nebraska Examiner
More open primaries
news:
What Forwardists like you are
saying…
“Kudos to the
Forward Party for taking on the idea of another party to challenge
what we have always had and what is not working anymore. I firmly
believe that, at this point in time, Americans are voting just to stop
the other guy from winning because they don't like that choice, rather
than voting for someone they like. It’s a game of
keep-that-person-out. Whatever happened to likable, respectful
candidates who don't lose their direction once they are in power?
Happens every time. And we the people are now turned off by this.”
—K.L., a Forwardist reader
We’ll be
in Phoenix this weekend for the Arizona Forward Together event. We can’t wait to party with some
Southwestern Forwardists and celebrate our progress in the Grand
Canyon State! We’ll tell you all about it next week. See you
then.
All the
best,
The Forward Party Team
|
