One House Democrat said he spoke for others in the wake of the president’s stunningly feeble debate performance on Thursday: “The movement to convince Biden to not run is real.”

The House member, an outspoken defender of the president, said that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer should consider “a combined effort” to nudge President Joe Biden out of the race.

Crestfallen by the president’s weak voice, pallid appearance and meandering answers, numerous Democratic officials said Biden’s bet on an early debate to rebut unceasing questions about his age had not only backfired but done damage that may prove irreversible. The president had, in the first 30 minutes of the debate, fully affirmed doubts about his fitness.

A second House Democrat said “reflection is needed” from Biden about the way ahead and indicated the private text threads among lawmakers were even more dire, with some saying outright that the president needed to drop out of the race.

  • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    RCV will end the two party system. France uses runoff and they have more than two parties

    That said, I’m partial to the systems in Sweden and Germany, plenty of options to choose from.

    • Liz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago
      1. RCV and two-round runoff are very different in practice because the two round system encourages strategic voting, has a higher potential for spoilers (RCV has them too), and has an intermediate time where the advancing candidates have to fight over all the voters who didn’t pick them in the first round, which is meaningfully different from when they were a part of the pack.

      2. France has some amount of proportional representation at the local level.

      3. They’re not starting from an entrenched two party system.

      4. They’re honestly simply one of the big exceptions, it’s fairly well-established that single-winner methods tend towards two parties pretty much no matter what you do. Typically when you see more than two parties at the national level, it’s because there are regional pockets where only two parties are competitive, but it’s not always the same two parties. I’m not familiar with the details about the French political situation, but yeah, they’ve got a very unusual number of parties for a single-winner dominated structure. Compare them with Australia, who have proportional representation at the national level, and it should be pretty clear they’re just plain exceptional. If you need more evidence, Texas, Mississippi, and Georgia already use a two round system for their legislatures but they still have a two party system.

      I dunno how much you know about representation and voting systems, but the wiki article on two round systems is pretty good.

      • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Ah that makes sense. I guess any time you elect a single person, it ends up being a binary choice. Here in Sweden we have parliamentary PR, but the parties are divided into a social-liberal block and a conservative block, so voting for a party is either a vote for the socialdemokrat prime minister or the moderat prime minister.

        • Liz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Pretty much any power structure is going to coalesce into the “ruling” group and the “opposition” group, because doing so is strategically advantageous. But, proportional representation ensures that those two groups are made up of sub-groups that have to negotiate within themselves and can even threaten to change sides. Compared with an entrenched two party system, you end up with much a more reasonable government.