Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

How a Justin Amash presidential bid could help the cause of democracy reform

Rep. Justin Amash
Bill Pugliano/Getty Images
Griffiths is a contributor to Independent Voter News, where an earlier version of this piece first appeared.

Michigan's Justin Amash has a storied history as a political outsider in Washington. Although he's won five terms in Congress with an "R" next to his name, he often bucked the establishment and party line on issues such as spending, war, government surveillance and marijuana legalization.

He quit the Republican Party 10 months ago and is the only member listed as an independent on the official House roster. And on Tuesday he announced he would explore a run for the Libertarian Party's nomination for president – which would mean putting his rebellious streak on the national line by mounting a longshot challenge to the flawed ways the two major parties monopolize our democratic system.

Here is a little background: Amash was the only GOP member of the House to come out in favor of impeaching President Trump, almost a year ago. By then he had established a reputation as one of the few Republicans to consistently speak out against the president.

Amash's support for impeachment drew the ire of the group in which he was once a prominent figure: the House Freedom Caucus. It was a decision that also put a major target on his back.

On the Republican side, the party would no doubt run well-funded challengers to oust him in the primary. On the other side, Democrats saw an opportunity to flip his seat. So, Amash was feeling pressure from both parties to get out of Congress.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Instead, he dropped the GOP party label last July and declared himself an independent, which made his path to reelection much more challenging given how the current system emphasizes a limited choice for voters — red or blue, Republican or Democrat.

Now, Amash looks to be headed up or out. He announced in April that he had stopped actively campaigning for reelection — although he still remains in the race. And on Tuesday night he went onTwitter to unveil a new website, "Amash for America," that strongly signaled his intent to run for president.

"We're ready," the homepage says, for "an end to cronyism" and "an honest, principled president who will defend the Constitution and put individuals first."

A third party contender who has built the sort of public profile Amash has could shake up the race — drawing votes from both sides of the aisle and bringing in independents. However, this means he would immediately be scapegoated as a spoiler. And, no matter the outcome, he would be blamed by the losing major party for its defeat in November.

Kurt Couchman, who used to work in Amash's Washington congressional office, penned an op-ed for CNN.com in July 2019 describing how Amash could change the electoral landscape in 2020. But he also noted that, to avoid the spoiler effect, presidential elections needed a reform such as ranked-choice voting.

"To ensure that the ultimate victor has a mandate … Congress and the States should enact ranked-choice voting without delay," he wrote. "The stakes for 2020 are incredibly high, and the American people need clear outcomes."

But, to the potential benefit of those who want pro-voter reform, the choose-one voting method is not the only flaw in our current system that would be brought front and center should Amash run.

He would also raise awareness to the fact that:

  • The presidential nomination process disproportionately focuses on candidates of the two major parties for the entire year, instilling the idea that voters only have two choices.
  • As a result, it is impossible for a third party or independent candidate to make the presidential debate stage under the rules for inclusion. This is mainly because of the Commission on Presidential Debates' rule that to participate a candidate must poll above 15 percent in five polls of the commission's choosing.
  • Third party candidates have to spend all their money and resources just to get on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical chance at an Electoral College majority, and even then they face possible legal challenges from the major parties.
  • The nation's campaign finance laws overwhelmingly support the major parties, allowing them longer periods of time to raise money and unlimited gateways to funnel money between parties and campaigns. This makes it impossible for outside candidates to raise anywhere near as much as major party candidates.
  • Thus, Amash's candidacy would further highlight the reality that the system makes it impossible for meaningful competition to exist in presidential elections.

A high-profile independent or third party presidential campaign, whether people support it or not, would provide pro-voter reformers further evidence why the United States desperately needs to rethink its political system and transform its electoral process nationwide.

It could build on the tremendous momentum the reform community continues to see.

Visit IVN.us for more coverage from Independent Voter News.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less