The goal of the criminal justice system should be protection of the innocent and preservation of society.
Repeat violent offenders, offenders who use firearms in the commission of crimes, convicted felons caught in the possession of firearms, and probation violators should be locked up for life with no possibility of parole.
Non violent drug offenders shouldn't even go to prison.
As I read this article my first thought was why would #45 support this? I immediately came to the conclusion that he wants better conditions for his family and friends. Oh and most importantly himself.
1
How about we put the money we spend on prisons and put that into education. There is a direct correlation between lack of education and crime.
Credit should go to Marc Levin of Right on Crime for his input 1st in Texas and later as an advisor to Jared Kushner about this issue.
I've personally been advocating for prison reform for 35 years. Since this whole nonsense started!
When I was 23, I worked as a civil engineer for FEMA during the a winter storm in NJ. As a result, I was on the inspection team for the NJ state prison system. I was in and out of almost every prison except Trenton State. I had to undergo a background check and give highly personal identifying details of my body so that it could "be identified in case of prison riot." I had to sign a statement saying that I understood that I could be gang raped and murdered. Needless to say, I was terrified. I was cautioned never to reveal that I was a woman, else the prisoners would harass me. No one did. I went in and out of every prison in the system: the cafeterias, the barns, the shockingly ill-equipped law libraries, the guard towers, the offices and conference rooms, the visiting rooms, the parking lots, the fence lines, the elevators, the roofs, even the Super Max.
What struck me, most forcefully, was that the prison population was at least 80% black. I knew then, viscerally... *something* was so seriously wrong that any person who saw it could not fail to speak. I spent time doing what I could speaking, writing, and supporting politicians who believed what I did: that racism was wrong and prisons needed reform.
You have only to step on a prison roof to see it. This is wrong. This has to change.
1
Of course, we need to radically overhaul the criminal justice system. But I'm not holding my breath. First, we need to have gun control. Second, we need a stronger mental health system. Third, we need to address the problem that many towns--at least here in California--survive because of prisons. And prison guards have a very strong union that works hard to save jobs, and create new ones.
This article appears to have left out the biggest contributor to our massive criminal justice system. We must never forget that Reagan's zero tolerance "War on Drugs" was designed to give law enforcement the ability to disrupt and arrest anyone for nothing more than smoking a joint. The enabled them to break up the Black and Left communities at will and arrest the opposition - and take away their right to vote. The kicker was using the incarcerated numbers to enhance Congressional representation in these rural areas. It was a very clever plan - legal disenfranchisement. To blame this progression on Bill Clinton is misleading, at best.
I suspect the Right is finally embracing criminal justice reform one because they can see it is unsustainable.
2
The head of the Trump Cartel is simply acting in his own interest. Surprise? It appears too many people in his orbit are going to prison and it may be just a matter of time before the self proclaimed King and his family could find themselves in locked up, as well.
1
I think we should acknowledge that criminal justice reform advocacy pre-dates the actions of Texas. There were *tons* of people advocating it for decades, before the Reagan-era push on drugs. I said "people" and not a specific political party intentionally.
I'm a liberal and I think it's wrong to push for these reforms on the basis of costs, it turns my stomach to think this is what motivates people rather than not wanting to destroy lives, but take your allies where you can get them. I said to a friend, "This might be the only area where I back what Trump is doing.", but here we are.
Let us also remember that it's taken us decades to get into this situation and it will take decades to get out and any reforms that happen today are undoubtedly only the first steps of what we need to do.
13
If you're suspicious of the Koch brothers' motives in the prison-reform movement, you have every reason for it. They have plans for a for-profit prisoner-rehabilition industry. Something like a Trump University for former felons.
https://www.thenation.com/article/beware-of-big-philanthropys-new-enthusiasm-for-criminal-justice-reform/
Reality check best deterent to crime is the pently . Prison should be sentance in place no one wants to go . Send all criminals to china prisons to serve there time. Means the death to crime would cease to exist in usa people arnt that stupid . Problem is criminal justice ssytem depends on prisons for income. I doubt democrats or republicans will do anything meanfully to end crime in usa if means lost millions jobs depend on crime .
Koch brothers support it to improve their image on a policy with no effect on their bottom line in polluting the planet.
I'm all in favor of criminal justice "reform" and reducing the number of people in jail. The fact that the unions representing prison guards oppose reform is a good argument in its favor.
But I'm not optimistic about the results. Even President Obama found few candidates for clemency when he was in office. I suspect that very few people are in prison for mere possession of drugs. That may be what the sentence said, but in most cases the sentence was plea bargained down from more serious offenses.
In the end it will be minority neighborhoods that will benefit or suffer from lower rates of incarceration. Sending fewer people to jail will leave (or release) more black males into their communities. Whether violence increases or decreases in those communities remains to be seen.
Bravo! The author did miss one associated tailwind with this initiative...the legalization of cannabis now cascading across the US. I wonder what the improvement on today's GDP would be if we didn't have the drag of the last 45 years of failed drug policy in the US? What's the cost to our economy today after millions served time, lost jobs, lost families, and were indoctrinated into an ongoing life of crime? And what about the trillions of dollars that have poured out of the US, destined for criminals abroad?
What about the for-profit, private prison industry? Republicans won't abandon that. There's money in locking people up and keeping them there. Way too much money is being made off this exclusively made-up, leech-money-out-of-the-government "industry" to do away with it.
yet they scream,"lock her up!"
how much of this was ever about making society safer, and how much vindictive punishment of society's sinners? how much was a play on fear to actually manipulate populations for political advantage?
and then it comes down to, well, it worked okay as a ploy, it messed up politics and people's lives, but, gosh darn, it's turning out to be just too expensive.
Trump will absolutely not, never sign a bill reducing sentences. this is a stunt to gain votes, the votes of black mothers with sons in prison, the votes of minorities hopeful that Trump's attitude toward them is changing. It is not.
I am hopeful this is could small step in a better direction. A far-reaching bill such as this, with bipartisan support, could provide a much needed salve for the herpetic, partisan outbreak afflicting our wonderful country.
It is right to closely scrutinize any such bill however and allow time for complete, thorough review. We only need to look at the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the rhetoric, prognostication surrounding the bill at the time, and its unintended consequences to see why.
Take the three-strikes rule for example.
In 2012 I moved from New Hampshire to Louisiana, a place I am now happy and grateful to call home. Beautiful as this state and its people are, it is not without its own problematic (read: life-ruining) legal antiquities.
To this day, the Louisiana State Penitentiary is more commonly known as Angola.
Originally a plantation; it was named after the homeland of its former slaves. It traced its origins as a prison back to 1880, when inmates were housed in the old slave quarters and worked on the plantation. In those years, a private firm ran the state penitentiary.
While it is now "state-run," many of it's residents are serving out life sentences for non-violent crimes. They perform *free* labor for the state, with no light at the end of the tunnel.
Change is sorely needed. Let's focus on the details, not the bluster, and get it right.
4
"An Issue That Unites the Left, the Right, the Kochs, a Kardashian and Trump"
I suspect this is just the begging. After his sound defeat in the midterm election, Mr. Trump could be trying a different approach to increase his chances to win the presidential election in 2020.
This may actually constitute an effective, rather positive, Republican strategy: for the next 2 years, table bills that Democrats have been trying to legislate for the last 50 years, one after another. Of course, he will be putting Republican's spin on them, and call for bi-partisan efforts to pass them through Congress.
That would be hard for Democrats to resist. If they comply, that should keep them busy to the point that they will not have enough time to drag Mr. Trump to courts for using his office for personal/family gain, subpoena his tax returns, etc. But, if they choose to ignore his olive branch and go after him, then they will appear uncooperative and unreasonable.
If Democrats go along, come 2020 election, Mr. Trump will be able to claim that he has been bi-partisan, moved things forward, been presidential and has unified the country. More importantly, he will be taking credit for any bill that the Congress passes in that period.
I'd like to think science has a hand in this. People can be prey to their genes and upbringing, but can be helped by therapy and guidance. Prison only causes more harm.
But my skeptical nature makes me wonder if some of these sudden altruists are more concerned about locking up too many among our potential labor force. That is, money.
1
So the republicans are finally walking back one of their many many outrages. And all it took was a blue wave in the house that is still choking the GOP,
What's next. is Trump going to legalize the weed?
3
@Rick
With Jefferson Disregard Sessions no longer federal AG, that just might be on the table, if only because of the federal tax that could be added to sales.
It is a good article, but for the title, as Space policy (and authorization of funding) is bi-partisan too, and has been for the last 60 years.
1
Decent article but still trying to blame both sides. Clinton's crime bill didn't increase incarceration. Rates slowed and fell afterwards. Dems have argued for change the a decade, including Obama and Hillary, but they couldn't get it through Congress.
Trump signing on is really important for this reason.
2
Everything is about profit, profit, profit...
2
I’ve been cured of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Wish he had done this before the CNN “invasion” tantrum, the Kavanaugh character assassination, and the midterms.
I think i could even get used to loving my country. Oh my! Could even be a nationalist?
2
This article unacceptably neglects to report on how the Kochs and their right wing cohort will make money from decarceration:
https://www.thenation.com/article/beware-of-big-philanthropys-new-enthusiasm-for-criminal-justice-reform/
2
@common sense advocate
Of course it does. The Koch's wanted it that way and used their leverage.
The Koch's are NEVER openly on board unless they stand something to gain AND there's a possibility that everyone agrees.
When there's a possibility that everyone will not agree, they're still there, but no one dares mention their name or reveals their influence.
This shows the power of what we are capable of when we work together. History teaches us that groups who work together succeed and those that don't are doomed. It feels good to see our Congress actually doing the people's work.
6
Are the powers that be making way for the criminal invasion known as the 'Caravan'? Trump has advised us in unequivocal terms about the crime wave that will wash over our country in a matter of days!
Also, this article makes no mention of the role of the for profit prisons across our land. Surely, the big money therein has some clout in DC.
I am all for reform of the criminal justice system. First off, for profits prisons have to go. If the government passes the sentence, the government should be in charge of the prisons. Profit has no place in this equation.
It certainly is a strange mix of political interests. If it sticks, then more power to them to work for needed changes.
4
Soon-to-be ex-Governor Scott Walker campaigned by demonizing his Democratic opponent Tony Evers for wanting "to cut Wisconsin's prison population in half, a dangerous plan that today would mean releasing thousands of violent criminals back into our communities." I have zero faith Republicans will abandon their strategy of fear that has served them so well since at least the Nixon era.
5
These reforms probably are a good thing overall, but it comes as no surprise that the Kochs are in favor of this privatization of corrections/rehabilitation so they can potentially profit.
2
Hum, between the lines is many people with much of the power but they have someone~maybe self~with a conviction they just could not get out of. So this pleases them.
I hope for all that have a criminal record uses the restoration of some rights, especially voting, to become contributing citizens. Are there not programs to give them a hand up? This is a start.
Soft on Crime, kill one innocent get 10 years, kill two get 15 years, kill one convict get $500
Silly but is that what soft on crime means? More realistically we need Federal sentencing guidelines for every court to follow so a convicted felon gets the same term in every state. Every day we hear convicted murderers get 15, 20, 50, multiple life sentences depending on the state they live, the ability of defenders and prosecutors, bleeding heart judges, and juries deciding if a crime was truly heinous or simply bad. Should it matter if an innocent person was murdered by a quick painless blow or tortured to death over several hours?
It's a slippery slope once the justice system goes soft.
3
It would be great if this could happen. One thing that needs to happen right a way is an end to for profit prisons.
6
I wish this piece also included mention of Michelle Alexander's recent oped on the new dangers and injustices imposed by using electronic monitoring to restrict the movement of former prisoners. Follow the money people. When the reforms eliminate private companies making millions from the Prison Industrial Complex then I'll believe they're serious. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opinion/sunday/criminal-justice-reforms-race-technology.html
3
This is a good article EXCEPT for the headline. The NYT is playing into the narrative that Congress is completely dysfunctional.
Yet they HAVE passed bipartisan laws recently: The Opiod Crisis Response Act of 2018, The FAA re-authorization law (complete with 5 year plan), Defense appropriations bill, and the water infrastructure bill (soon to be passed; Dems have been calling on infrastructure spending for years!).
Sure we can do better, but there are many areas of agreement between Dems and Republicans (and Trump).
Please NYT - don't fall prey to sensationalism with headlines like this and please report both sides of every story.
More facts:
- There's also some minor laws listed here: https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/29/politics/president-trump-legislation/index.html
- And this snippet from Axios: "By the numbers: 23.4% of bills introduced by the House have been bipartisan — the highest since the 2005-06 Congress. In the Senate, 25.7% of proposed bills have cut across the aisle — the highest since 07-08. And it's not just proposed bills that are bipartisan. 3.85% of all proposed bipartisan bills have been enacted, also the highest number since 07-08."
4
@deedubs 25%? 3.85%? The years you cite are also telling. How democratic of the Republicans to allow Democrats a voice every now and then.
2
As usual, the Republicans are late to the table, The Dems have been pushing for criminal justice reform for the past decade. Conversely, the Reps obfuscated and obstructed, with their familiar litany of: it's a state, not a federal issue; we don't want to create and fund any any federal oversight programs; let's privatize the prisons; etc.
Now suddenly they hijack the issue, only because now that the Black Guy is out of office, they can claim credit for doing it.
And of course, Trump now contradicts his "tough on crime" stance of his campaign. Let's lock up Hillary (but let out the drug dealers)? Immigrants are sending us their worst criminals (but let's let ours go free)?
Who needs prisons, when we can simply encourage everyone to own a gun and take justice into their own hands?
Let's underfund our public schools and social programs in poor neighborhoods; but we'll make up for it with rehabilitation programs after they get thrown in prison!
Of course, this has nothing to do with John Boehner reversing himself, and wanting to legalize pot. Or perhaps Trump wants to start a new pot trade war with Canada?
Hey, let's pardon Sheriff Arapaio! Let's promise pardons to all my friends and family before they're even indicted; we can save money by skipping that step! Heck, I can even pardon myself, since I'm above the law!
Republicans are all hypocrites; lock them all up! (We'll have plenty of empty space available in our prisons.)
4
Still trying to work out how all this Federal sound and fury affects the states. Is this more or less money for policing at the state level? Is there any money involved or are we just seeing a lot of breast-beating that, while it may have a significant impact on the relatively small number of Federal felons, isn't going to do much for the state offenders whose cause the NYT champions with such earnest vigor? Why no mention of direct effects on the states in this article?
Remember: this is a Federal Republic. What makes news in DC wraps fish in Poughkeepsie.
2
"....improve prison conditions and lower some sentences."
Maybe President Trump is thinking about the Mueller Investigation and the swamp of his own creation he finds himself navigating through, now seeming more like a quagmire, as he heads into his second and, most likely, final two years of his presidency.
How can President Trump not be looking over his shoulder wondering just who Mueller has in his crosshairs?
2
What a novel idea. Giving judges latitude.
6
It's time for Rod Blagojevich of Illinois to have his sentence commuted. A commutation leaves the conviction intact but wipes out the punishment.
With the sentence commuted he can't own a gun, run for public office or vote. He can't practice law.
He doesn't need to be pardoned, just commuted. Just commute his sentence and him go home to his family and dye his hair black again.
If this is nonpartisan, a Republican President can commute a Democratic ex-governor.
2
Don’t see a halo over the heads of Republicans on this. Of course they want to spend less on prisons, it’s a money issue. And most crime happens in places they don’t live anyway. If it’s one of their friends who gets arrested for swindling a billion or two he goes to Federal tennis camp for six months.
1
Democrats could have passed this legislation quickly during Obama's first two years in office. They had unstoppable majorities in Congress. They could have also given citizenship to everyone who managed to sneak into the US and opened the borders. That would have greatly increased the Democratic voting base. I wonder what they were working on instead without help from any Republicans.
Elected officials should remember 2 things. First, they must represent the rights of the victims of crime and remember that even victims of non-violent crimes have been violated—so the offenders must be prosecuted and punished appropriately. Secondly, they must remember that the dramatic decrease in crime in US cities didn’t just happen. It was in part because criminals were taken off the streets and so kept from further criminal activity. If we put more convicted criminals on the streets, the crime rate will increase.
4
@ehillesum
Except this isn't being done without regard to public safety or the type of crime. Many crimes, like drug use, are victimless (or, from another perspective, the victim is the criminal himself). They're not talking about releasing Willie Horton. They're talking about being smart, humane, and responsible about how we manage crime, addiction, and imprisonment.
Read the entire article. Study the bill itself.
Don't bring comic book arguments to real world problems. That's how we made this mistake to begin with.
1
@ehillesum The correlation between locking people up and the drop in crime is very weak. For an interesting take on why crime has dropped, check out the lead & crime hypothesis which correlates the removal of lead from our environment traces a very strong correlation to the drop in crime.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/what-caused-the-crime-decline/477408/
It's amazing that it took so long to realize what is plainly obvious. Prisons that can't be staffed adequately, but are bursting at the seams with ever more inmates...
It would be possible to make drastic reductions just by not criminalizing minor offenders further. I.e. the crushing fees and penalties that follow small convictions often are the real culprit in eliminating any chance of rehabilitation. The majority of which are not due to convictions, but rather to pay back the for-profit prison system.
Also, using prisons as fallback solution for not having any mental health provisions or dealing with youths from broken homes, is contributing to a problem that shouldn't really exist in the first place.
Any improvements to this mess are surely needed, and it appears to be a great opportunity for both parties to work together.
16
One of the biggest problems when addressing "crime" is the definition of "crime", itself.
For many years, even the slightest amount of marijuana in one's possession would commit a person, if caught with it, to a lifetime of being designated a "criminal", with long prison sentences attached.
A huge amount of the present prison population is just such a designation.
This should be among the very first issues addressed -- and the release of persons so designated from prison.
In so doing, I suspect nearly half of the prison population would be freed - and thereby allowing those persons to fulfil a fruitful and productive life.
4
Of course money is the top reason Republicans support this, no matter, if it achieves the objective .
Willie Horton ads are still alive: Trump demonizing the immigrant who killed a woman as part of his fear campaign .
And don’t count on Trump’s support. He’s done this before. He’ll have to check with Sean Hannity first.
I hope that this accord returns the right to vote to those who have served their time. The right to vote being an essential element of citizenship cannot be limited by states.
2
I'm all for bipartisanship and am thrilled to be able to support something that Trump seems to also support. I have to point out though that even with this Trump seems to have gone out of his way to link the current situation back to Bill Clinton's crime law, which while partly correct ignores the GOP role in not making progress here.
Even supporting a worthy bipartisan initiative, Trump can't keep from blaming the Democrats and making himself look like the one hero in America. I like to think true bipartisanship means more than that.
4
So, just to be clear, Trump attacked Democrats for months, with zero evidence, about being soft on crime and releasing dangerous criminals, but after the midterms are over he's fine with reducing sentences?
21
@Astute There is a big difference between being lenient on street gangs and not doing enough to rein in violence in Chicago(which Dems are failing at) and opposing the extraordinarily harsh sentences that are imposed for selling crack as opposed to cocaine even for first time offenders.
Trump rails against the Dems on the first.He agrees,or rather Democrats agree with his party because Republicans are the ones who have been supporting prison reforms all along on the second.
2
Long overdue sentencing reforms will reduce the outrageous percentage of Blacks both in prison & with felony records that have ruined their lives even furthur. If Trump wants to "MAGA" this is one positive thing he can do.
2
Not one mention of Jared Kushner and his well documented involvement in making this happen
3
Republican support for more intelligent law enforcement is not new. It simply took time to develop.
1
I thought the private prison industry had a stake in increasing the prison population, and had big money lobbyists. But they weren't even mentioned in the article. Interesting that they are not a player in all of this.
23
@George Campbell I agree. Follow the money. The Prison Industrial Complex is shifting their profits to the technology used in home incarceration (which the prisoners are charged for). Prison population decreased, so they save money . . . and then make even more on e-carceration.
Follow the money.
There is no way that the, for profit, prison system, and the current Republicans leaders that support it, will be meaningfully reformed. It would lose too much profit for them.
18
The one thing traditionally that is bipartisan effort is the annual raising of the military spending budget! This year it was raised by a whopping $100 billion, and was easily passed by both Democrats and Republicans. It's the biggest budget the Pentagon has ever seen: $700 billion. That's far more in defense spending than America's two nearest competitors, China and Russia, and will mean the military can foot the bill for thousands more troops, more training, more ships and much more. Next year the budget would rise to $716 billion. ---- Did you ever wonder why the two parties cannot come together on infrastructure repair of 100 year old bridges that are inspected weekly because they are in critical shape, or a big project like updating our 1950's railway that carries both passengers and freight and is considered a growing danger? Or send our kids to two years of college to improve the intelligence and skills of our future generations? But they come together like clockwork every year to pass spending that is larger than the combined spending of all other nations. That is one of the biggest reasons that young people (75% of all Democratic-voters under age 50) were for Senator Bernie Sanders in 2016, and never Hillary Clinton. It might be how other young people interpreted "America First," because Libertarian hero Ron Paul has always stressed reduction of the 800 US military bases all over the world, and a serious reduction in military industry spending.
2
@mjpezzi
Rand Paul is no liberatarian "hero" though he is right about military spending. And the reason Democrats agreed to increased military spending last time around is because they got pretty much everything else they wanted, when they might have seen draconian cuts in the safety net. They cut a deal, which is not the same as saying they liked what they got.
I hope to god these criminal reforms are passed, but I also hope they don't get loaded up with other parts of the Republican wish list.
2
Trump only agreed to support this because he was assured it would never reach his desk. Just you watch.
2
I agree there should be more employment assistance once criminals are out of prison, but in return I want much, much longer sentences for anyone who intentionally physically harmed another person while committing a crime.
2
Democrats are Republicans in sheep's clothing. They are the "good cops" to the Trumpian "bad cops". In concert with the R's, they are always searching for new and creative ways to send young people to wars we don't need and that go on forever. Ask Hillary. They also work hard at cutting the tax rate for the rich and shoveling money in the direction of Wall Street and the banks. They spin the laughable yarn/fable that there is a difference between the two parties. Government is a valet service for the rich. Same as it ever was...
1
Now that we have lots of immigrants to put in detention, the Republicans can take care of their buddies in the private sector. in addition, the people getting out of prison can now vote in many states, so Republicans can no longer continue to suppress their vote by putting people in jail. Yes the writing was on the wall, wasn't it?
I'll believe it when I see it.
Trump changes his mind every ten minutes and he loves to lead people on with apparent sanity, just before he decides to blow up the deal.
17
The title is tongue in cheek, perhaps, but as a liberal Democrat I find at least a few things that I agree with Republicans about. I hope we do not institutionalize this "we will never agree" attitude. Free yourself up and see if you can something good from "the other side."
1
Let's face it, this is just another attempt by 'Tiny Don', what some women who have had past intimate entanglements with our president have come to call him, to lure some people of color into his 'base'.
Like someone, as the expression goes, 'Late to the Fair', he's hoping to win a few 'kewpie-dolls' as he reaches out to people of color as if expressing his empathy in this demonstration of fairness.
But it does fly in the face of his past expressions of outright prejudice against blacks like when he denied them living space in his real estate ventures in the 70's, and more recently, continually referring to Senator Maxine Waters as 'low IQ Maxine Waters, and his recent verbal assaults of Abby Phillip and Yamiche Alcindor.
Trump is quite adept at attemting to opportunistically 'Etch-a-Sketch' away moments in his past. But not this time. 'History' has him too firmly in its grasp, thus preventing him this most recent ploy.
4
The US needs a Constitutional Amendment forbidding the existence of private operation and/or ownership of jails, prisons, and juvenile detention centers. This privatization creates a dubious profit motive that creates market pressure to increase incarceration rates. A few years ago, here in Pennsylvania, a couple of judges went to jail when it was discovered that they were incarcerating innocent teens in private detention centers in exchange for kickbacks from those companies. Jailing people should never create a net profit for any government or corporate entity; it should be a necessary evil that has a societal cost. This concept, to me, is a fundamental cornerstone of any honest judicial system in a constitutional republic.
61
Should we outlaw prison guard unions too? They also have an interest in higher prison populations.
2
@Ambrose Rivers
Actually, no, they don't. Unions don't work to expand their industries in order to grow. That's what corporations do. Unions work to make sure that the working environment, pay and benefits are not abused by profit-seeking corporations. For example, by asking too few prison guards to work in an overcrowded prison, creating a potentially dangerous situation.
Can you see the difference?
4
Huh. Not what I expected. I thought the one thing R's & D's agree on is that they will do everything in their power to ensure that there will never be a viable political party that is NOT called "Republican" or "Democrat".
15
@jgp There is no doubt that there is a bipartisan effort to fight off ideas like Open Primaries in all 50 states, or heaven forbid, a ranked-choice approach to voting that would allow voters to build up other political parties, without "spoiling" a two-party election. We should pay attention to the states that have ranked-choice voting. They may be paving the way in very needed Election Reform, just as many states have made changes to their own criminal justice systems to prove that reducing sentencing laws, and reducing the mass incarceration numbers in their states, has not contributed to a rise in crimes. In fact, "the view that punishment is too harsh, and rehabilitative measures too scarce, is broadly supported in public opinion polls, especially as crime has hovered at at a 20-year low."
6
Aside from the glib comment, what have you done within your power to pursue an alternative?