What do you think?
Rate this book
The Politics Industry: How Political Innovation Can Break Partisan Gridlock and Save Our Democracy
Leading political innovation activist Katherine Gehl and world-renowned business strategist Michael Porter bring fresh perspective, deep scholarship, and a real and actionable solution, Final Five Voting, to the grand challenge of our broken political and democratic system. Final Five Voting has already been adopted in Alaska and is being advanced in states across the country.
The truth is, the American political system is working exactly how it is designed to work, and it isn't designed or optimized today to work for us—for ordinary citizens.
Most people believe that our political system is a public institution with high-minded principles and impartial rules derived from the Constitution. In reality, it has become a private industry dominated by a textbook duopoly—the Democrats and the Republicans—and plagued and perverted by unhealthy competition between the players. Tragically, it has therefore become incapable of delivering solutions to America's key economic and social challenges. In fact, there's virtually no connection between our political leaders solving problems and getting reelected.
In The Politics Industry, business leader and path-breaking political innovator Katherine Gehl and world-renowned business strategist Michael Porter take a radical new approach. They ingeniously apply the tools of business analysis—and Porter's distinctive Five Forces framework—to show how the political system functions just as every other competitive industry does, and how the duopoly has led to the devastating outcomes we see today.
Using this competition lens, Gehl and Porter identify the most powerful lever for change—a strategy comprised of a clear set of choices in two key how our elections work and how we make our laws. Their bracing assessment and practical recommendations cut through the endless debate about various proposed fixes, such as term limits and campaign finance reform. The true political innovation.
The Politics Industry is an original and completely nonpartisan guide that will open your eyes to the true dynamics and profound challenges of the American political system and provide real solutions for reshaping the system for the benefit of all.
THE INSTITUTE FOR POLITICAL INNOVATIONThe authors will donate all royalties from the sale of this book to the Institute for Political Innovation.
The truth is, the American political system is working exactly how it is designed to work, and it isn't designed or optimized today to work for us—for ordinary citizens.
Most people believe that our political system is a public institution with high-minded principles and impartial rules derived from the Constitution. In reality, it has become a private industry dominated by a textbook duopoly—the Democrats and the Republicans—and plagued and perverted by unhealthy competition between the players. Tragically, it has therefore become incapable of delivering solutions to America's key economic and social challenges. In fact, there's virtually no connection between our political leaders solving problems and getting reelected.
In The Politics Industry, business leader and path-breaking political innovator Katherine Gehl and world-renowned business strategist Michael Porter take a radical new approach. They ingeniously apply the tools of business analysis—and Porter's distinctive Five Forces framework—to show how the political system functions just as every other competitive industry does, and how the duopoly has led to the devastating outcomes we see today.
Using this competition lens, Gehl and Porter identify the most powerful lever for change—a strategy comprised of a clear set of choices in two key how our elections work and how we make our laws. Their bracing assessment and practical recommendations cut through the endless debate about various proposed fixes, such as term limits and campaign finance reform. The true political innovation.
The Politics Industry is an original and completely nonpartisan guide that will open your eyes to the true dynamics and profound challenges of the American political system and provide real solutions for reshaping the system for the benefit of all.
THE INSTITUTE FOR POLITICAL INNOVATIONThe authors will donate all royalties from the sale of this book to the Institute for Political Innovation.
287 pages, Kindle Edition
Published June 23, 2020
224 people are currently reading
2804 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 141 reviews
June 7, 2024
For those readers lamenting the continuing political bickering, Gehl and Porter provide unique insights to the problem and the resolution.
Their central thesis expresses the viewpoint of big money dwarfing the meaning of individual votes. To assure their ideas are accurately portrayed, I quote them, “The Politics Industry has two currencies: some customers pay with votes; some pay with money.”
“The currency of votes has consistently less relative value than money. … Said another way, money in politics gets a great return on investment (ROI) – votes, not so much.”
Recent research supports their conclusions about customer power. For example, in 2014, researchers Martin Gilens at Princeton University and Benjamin Page at Northwestern University examined congressional action on 1779 policy issues. Their finding: “When the preferences are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule near-zero, statistically non-significant impact on public policy.”
Their perspective hits the target of much of the electorate’s discontent. Polling reveals we are not happy with the nation’s direction, in part because polling shows we have lost trust in our leaders.
We vote in the ballot box, but someone else gets the benefit.
The book doesn’t just identify the challenges, it provides numerous avenues to get a better selection of candidates. Non-partisan voting is a big idea, and it is one the founding fathers would love as their dislike for ‘factions,’ their word for political parties creating big problems during the early Republic.
The ballot box may not solve the voters’ candidate dilemma this fall, but it does provide a pathway from the anger pervasive in politics.
Check it out. You will be glad you did. -Tom L.
Their central thesis expresses the viewpoint of big money dwarfing the meaning of individual votes. To assure their ideas are accurately portrayed, I quote them, “The Politics Industry has two currencies: some customers pay with votes; some pay with money.”
“The currency of votes has consistently less relative value than money. … Said another way, money in politics gets a great return on investment (ROI) – votes, not so much.”
Recent research supports their conclusions about customer power. For example, in 2014, researchers Martin Gilens at Princeton University and Benjamin Page at Northwestern University examined congressional action on 1779 policy issues. Their finding: “When the preferences are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule near-zero, statistically non-significant impact on public policy.”
Their perspective hits the target of much of the electorate’s discontent. Polling reveals we are not happy with the nation’s direction, in part because polling shows we have lost trust in our leaders.
We vote in the ballot box, but someone else gets the benefit.
The book doesn’t just identify the challenges, it provides numerous avenues to get a better selection of candidates. Non-partisan voting is a big idea, and it is one the founding fathers would love as their dislike for ‘factions,’ their word for political parties creating big problems during the early Republic.
The ballot box may not solve the voters’ candidate dilemma this fall, but it does provide a pathway from the anger pervasive in politics.
Check it out. You will be glad you did. -Tom L.
April 11, 2020
If you weren’t disgusted enough with politics in America, here are Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter to put parameters on exactly how pathetic it all is. In The Politics Industry, they look at parties as if they were a for profit industry, using Porter’s famous and standard Five Forces. They find the industry not just unresponsive, but with the worst customer service anywhere. Think airlines on steroids.
The reason is simple. They’re in it for themselves, for the power and the money. Citizens are merely an inconvenience every couple of years. The rest of the time, it’s all about them. They have a business to run – their own. They have modified the rules of government to suit their needs. They have zero desire to solve problems, because problems allow them to complain about the other party and make themselves indispensable. And just exactly like Trump and his loyalty fetish, total adherence to the party is an unshakeable requirement. Doesn’t matter how bad the bill is, you vote the way you’re told, or they will see to it you never come back. This is American democracy at work.
The authors call the two parties a duopoly, a textbook case from Porter’s experience. In the real world, Porter says, an entrepreneur would see this as a market inefficiency and therefore opportunity and compete the hell out of them. But this is America. Third parties face impossible obstacles. The duopoly always wins, and Americans always lose, the authors say. It is a highly profitable industry. $16 billion poured in for the 2016 election alone. Donald Trump ran the first profitable presidential campaign in history. It is all totally divorced from government of for and by the people.
Competition is forbidden. Independents face much harder requirements to get on ballots than party members. Anyone who loses a primary is forbidden by law from running in the election in most states. (They call it the Sore Loser law.) Even the presidential debates are under their full control. They used to be run as a public service of the League of Women Voters, but the parties took over and regulate every detail from the angle of the desks to the bland and banal questions that don’t get answered anyway. Some 42% of Americans register as independents because parties offer them no quarter and no choice. Party voters check straight ticket without ever even knowing who the candidates are. “American politics is an industrial-strength, nation-crippling perversion of competition,” the authors say.
The political-industrial complex views action as a threat. It wants problems to fester. They keep the donations flowing. The amount of donations raised by electeds determines their personal success, position, and promotion. The party in power spends most of its time gathering power, refusing to allow debates, refusing to allow votes, and ensuring issues do not get resolved on their watch. It’s all about perpetuating power. It’s no different than Russia or China that Americans love to criticize for their singleminded pursuit of control.
The absurd primary system ensures only the most extreme candidates win. Moderates have no place. “Party primaries create an eye-of-the-needle through which no problem-solving politician can pass.” In many states, only those registered to the party can vote in the primary, and that is the real election, because gerrymandering ensures the party will take that district regardless. (In the district next to ours, the Democrats often don’t even bother with a candidate, so if you don’t vote in the primary, you get no vote at all.) Even Harvard Business Alumni think America’s greatest competitive weakness is its political system.
Compromise is vilified. Cooperating across the aisle is treason. Moderates will be primaried out of a job. Electeds are there to do the party’s bidding, no matter how damaging or counter-intuitive, and certainly without regard to constituents’ needs. They too are just cogs in the duopoly machine running amok.
What to do? The authors have two big ideas. First, make elections about the top five votegetters from the primaries. Next, make the election Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). In RCV, if the top votegetter doesn’t have 50% + 1, they eliminate the lowest candidate and reassign his or her votes among the others. Because everyone gets five votes: first, second third fourth and fifth choice among the five candidates. For once, the winner will actually have a majority, every time. Today, 35% can take the prize. It’s called plurality, not majority, and it’s a leftover from the British system that has proven so unfortunate in say, the Brexit vote.
The other idea is what amounts to a constitutional convention on structure – which is not in the US constitution, so rules can be modified, just as the duopoly has been doing all along. They call it the Legislative Machinery Innovation Committee and somehow it will be made up of experts and not special interests. Good luck with that. It will work on the principle of zero-based budgeting, from Porter’s experience in business consulting. Unfortunately, government doesn’t work like business, as Trump is finding out to his huge frustration. Deficit spending is actually impossible to avoid with the dollar as strong as it is, and interest rates as low as they are. Surpluses are damaging to the economy. So that’s not going very far, either, I’m afraid.
The thing that really annoys me about this book is that it has the exact same conclusion as a dozen other books I have reviewed on dysfunctional US government. You, dear reader, are the answer. You have to get involved. You are more powerful than you think. You have your own network, your own locality, your local media, and your own influence. You can volunteer, post online, join a movement, and donate money. It’s all in your own hands. Americans have come to this sad point before, notably in the Gilded Age, when equality and corruption were actually worse. But bottom up, scattered efforts by people just like you pulled the country back from the abyss. So your hard work can save us again, for a while.
The message has become tiresome, but in the specific case of multiple primary winners, there is real movement to report. Several states have begun implementing RCV and/or multiple candidates out of the primaries. The duopoly absolutely hates that. Both Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and Republican leader Kevin McCarthy are on record as hating it. So it must be right. This alone makes it worth pushing for.
On the other hand, why settle for complex voting procedures? The simplest solution is to go back to Ancient Greece where it all started. Political office is an obligation, a service like jury duty. It was not meant to be a lifelong career where electeds get rich. So one term only. No need to raise PAC money. No need to bow to pressure. One term means parties can’t threaten electeds if they don’t vote right, if they don’t raise enough money for the party, or if they co-operate with the other party. Lobbying becomes all but impossible. It means solving problems. All by setting term limits to one. The authors don’t go this far.
At least some states allow citizen initiatives. When the RCV referendum is put to voters, and it wins, the duopoly sues to prevent it becoming law. How sick is this, the authors do not say. But if the court has not been packed by the duopoly, the citizens can win. It is now a well-trodden path, and the playbook works. In other words, it is still possible to have free and fair elections, even in America, if voters are willing to fight against their own elected representatives for it.
The duopoly is the coronavirus. It infects and damages everyone. But it is nonetheless fragile. Gehl and Porter’s proposals are simple handsoap to break the bonds of the coronavirus - the parties that threaten us all.
David Wineberg
The reason is simple. They’re in it for themselves, for the power and the money. Citizens are merely an inconvenience every couple of years. The rest of the time, it’s all about them. They have a business to run – their own. They have modified the rules of government to suit their needs. They have zero desire to solve problems, because problems allow them to complain about the other party and make themselves indispensable. And just exactly like Trump and his loyalty fetish, total adherence to the party is an unshakeable requirement. Doesn’t matter how bad the bill is, you vote the way you’re told, or they will see to it you never come back. This is American democracy at work.
The authors call the two parties a duopoly, a textbook case from Porter’s experience. In the real world, Porter says, an entrepreneur would see this as a market inefficiency and therefore opportunity and compete the hell out of them. But this is America. Third parties face impossible obstacles. The duopoly always wins, and Americans always lose, the authors say. It is a highly profitable industry. $16 billion poured in for the 2016 election alone. Donald Trump ran the first profitable presidential campaign in history. It is all totally divorced from government of for and by the people.
Competition is forbidden. Independents face much harder requirements to get on ballots than party members. Anyone who loses a primary is forbidden by law from running in the election in most states. (They call it the Sore Loser law.) Even the presidential debates are under their full control. They used to be run as a public service of the League of Women Voters, but the parties took over and regulate every detail from the angle of the desks to the bland and banal questions that don’t get answered anyway. Some 42% of Americans register as independents because parties offer them no quarter and no choice. Party voters check straight ticket without ever even knowing who the candidates are. “American politics is an industrial-strength, nation-crippling perversion of competition,” the authors say.
The political-industrial complex views action as a threat. It wants problems to fester. They keep the donations flowing. The amount of donations raised by electeds determines their personal success, position, and promotion. The party in power spends most of its time gathering power, refusing to allow debates, refusing to allow votes, and ensuring issues do not get resolved on their watch. It’s all about perpetuating power. It’s no different than Russia or China that Americans love to criticize for their singleminded pursuit of control.
The absurd primary system ensures only the most extreme candidates win. Moderates have no place. “Party primaries create an eye-of-the-needle through which no problem-solving politician can pass.” In many states, only those registered to the party can vote in the primary, and that is the real election, because gerrymandering ensures the party will take that district regardless. (In the district next to ours, the Democrats often don’t even bother with a candidate, so if you don’t vote in the primary, you get no vote at all.) Even Harvard Business Alumni think America’s greatest competitive weakness is its political system.
Compromise is vilified. Cooperating across the aisle is treason. Moderates will be primaried out of a job. Electeds are there to do the party’s bidding, no matter how damaging or counter-intuitive, and certainly without regard to constituents’ needs. They too are just cogs in the duopoly machine running amok.
What to do? The authors have two big ideas. First, make elections about the top five votegetters from the primaries. Next, make the election Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). In RCV, if the top votegetter doesn’t have 50% + 1, they eliminate the lowest candidate and reassign his or her votes among the others. Because everyone gets five votes: first, second third fourth and fifth choice among the five candidates. For once, the winner will actually have a majority, every time. Today, 35% can take the prize. It’s called plurality, not majority, and it’s a leftover from the British system that has proven so unfortunate in say, the Brexit vote.
The other idea is what amounts to a constitutional convention on structure – which is not in the US constitution, so rules can be modified, just as the duopoly has been doing all along. They call it the Legislative Machinery Innovation Committee and somehow it will be made up of experts and not special interests. Good luck with that. It will work on the principle of zero-based budgeting, from Porter’s experience in business consulting. Unfortunately, government doesn’t work like business, as Trump is finding out to his huge frustration. Deficit spending is actually impossible to avoid with the dollar as strong as it is, and interest rates as low as they are. Surpluses are damaging to the economy. So that’s not going very far, either, I’m afraid.
The thing that really annoys me about this book is that it has the exact same conclusion as a dozen other books I have reviewed on dysfunctional US government. You, dear reader, are the answer. You have to get involved. You are more powerful than you think. You have your own network, your own locality, your local media, and your own influence. You can volunteer, post online, join a movement, and donate money. It’s all in your own hands. Americans have come to this sad point before, notably in the Gilded Age, when equality and corruption were actually worse. But bottom up, scattered efforts by people just like you pulled the country back from the abyss. So your hard work can save us again, for a while.
The message has become tiresome, but in the specific case of multiple primary winners, there is real movement to report. Several states have begun implementing RCV and/or multiple candidates out of the primaries. The duopoly absolutely hates that. Both Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and Republican leader Kevin McCarthy are on record as hating it. So it must be right. This alone makes it worth pushing for.
On the other hand, why settle for complex voting procedures? The simplest solution is to go back to Ancient Greece where it all started. Political office is an obligation, a service like jury duty. It was not meant to be a lifelong career where electeds get rich. So one term only. No need to raise PAC money. No need to bow to pressure. One term means parties can’t threaten electeds if they don’t vote right, if they don’t raise enough money for the party, or if they co-operate with the other party. Lobbying becomes all but impossible. It means solving problems. All by setting term limits to one. The authors don’t go this far.
At least some states allow citizen initiatives. When the RCV referendum is put to voters, and it wins, the duopoly sues to prevent it becoming law. How sick is this, the authors do not say. But if the court has not been packed by the duopoly, the citizens can win. It is now a well-trodden path, and the playbook works. In other words, it is still possible to have free and fair elections, even in America, if voters are willing to fight against their own elected representatives for it.
The duopoly is the coronavirus. It infects and damages everyone. But it is nonetheless fragile. Gehl and Porter’s proposals are simple handsoap to break the bonds of the coronavirus - the parties that threaten us all.
David Wineberg
June 30, 2020
Thinking about US politics like an industry with two mega-powerful companies (Democrats and Republicans) really helped me grapple with the systemic issues our country faces and how we might hope to solve them. Usually, when I learn about politics, I get so frustrated because it doesn't seem like we can do anything to change the status quo. This book not only offers helpful solutions but actually shows how we, as a country, have made sweeping systemic reforms before. Did you know that before the 17th Amendment was passed in 1913, US senators were appointed by state legislators, not voters? Learning about how we've done it before makes me think there's a small chance we can do it again.
July 1, 2020
I think The Politics Industry is a much needed ray of hope in today’s dismal political culture. The authors use industry competition analysis to diagnose what is wrong with the American political system and prescribe a cure. This book helped me envision an America where politics is no longer plagued by hyper-partisanship and special interests. In order to make this a reality, they propose specific changes that encourage problem-solving and accountability.
One of my favorite parts of the book is right at the beginning, where the authors share an analogy about fish not being able to see the water around them. The Politics Industry inspires us to stop accepting our divisive electoral systems and gridlocked government as a given. Their call to action focuses on systemic change, what they refer to as the “rules of the game.”
Prior to reading this book, I believed polarizing politicians and tribalistic parties were to blame for the government dysfunction we are so tired of. This book made me realize the true issue stems from electoral systems that prevent competition and moderation, as well as the fact that those in charge of maintaining the electoral systems (the parties) benefit from the current arrangement.
I was astounded by the meaningful change that can come out of simply changing the way we vote. Gehl and Porter’s conception of “Final Five Voting,” a combination of open top-five primaries and ranked-choice voting in the general, would increase space for competition from third parties/independents, encourage positive and issue-based campaigning, and free legislators from the constraining influence of hyper-partisan voters and interests.
The Politics Industry provides an unprecedented way of thinking about American politics. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in history, politics, business, or simply big ideas.
One of my favorite parts of the book is right at the beginning, where the authors share an analogy about fish not being able to see the water around them. The Politics Industry inspires us to stop accepting our divisive electoral systems and gridlocked government as a given. Their call to action focuses on systemic change, what they refer to as the “rules of the game.”
Prior to reading this book, I believed polarizing politicians and tribalistic parties were to blame for the government dysfunction we are so tired of. This book made me realize the true issue stems from electoral systems that prevent competition and moderation, as well as the fact that those in charge of maintaining the electoral systems (the parties) benefit from the current arrangement.
I was astounded by the meaningful change that can come out of simply changing the way we vote. Gehl and Porter’s conception of “Final Five Voting,” a combination of open top-five primaries and ranked-choice voting in the general, would increase space for competition from third parties/independents, encourage positive and issue-based campaigning, and free legislators from the constraining influence of hyper-partisan voters and interests.
The Politics Industry provides an unprecedented way of thinking about American politics. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in history, politics, business, or simply big ideas.
January 10, 2021
If you don’t like how our government is working, are tired of polarization, wonder if your vote counts, and feel helpless, read this book. The authors not only diagnose how, not for the first time in US history, the rules and laws surrounding our two-party system keep government from solving the problems we need solved—but they have solutions based on what is working elsewhere. Grounded in their HBR report, they propose two major, doable solutions if citizens band together: ranked choice voting, which many municipalities are already finding success with, and a change to primaries that would put forth five candidates so that incumbents who chose to “work across the aisles” can’t be undone by party politics in primaries that often have voter turnouts as low as 6% but determine who is on the general ballot.
Citizen groups are starting all over the country and the authors are providing ways readers can find these groups as well as resources and plans of action. They point out that whatever your biggest concern—climate, education, health care, social justice, infrastructure or any other big concern that Congress is failing to solve—the best way to make progress on it is to change the incentives in place for our elected officials.
Read for yourself and see if their diagnosis and solution is worth our effort.
Citizen groups are starting all over the country and the authors are providing ways readers can find these groups as well as resources and plans of action. They point out that whatever your biggest concern—climate, education, health care, social justice, infrastructure or any other big concern that Congress is failing to solve—the best way to make progress on it is to change the incentives in place for our elected officials.
Read for yourself and see if their diagnosis and solution is worth our effort.
July 2, 2020
This book was a Best of the Best for July 2020, as selected by Stevo's Book Reviews on the Internet and Stevo's Novel Ideas. Find more reviews and recommendations by searching for me on Google.
May 26, 2021
Someone elsewhere said this was a five-star idea in a three-star book (or something like that). I beg to differ. It's a four-star idea in a one-star book.
First, the good: I agree with Gehl and Porter that the combination of final five and rank-order voting would have a net positive impact. That's it for the good.
Otherwise, the prose is overly simplistic and frustratingly redundant. The argument they make is so poorly constructed that it is hard to draw a direct link between the problem and the solution. Basically, they (i) provide a bunch of examples that everything related to politics is bad and (ii) offer up a good idea that they think will help and that they also think is achievable. However, during interviews with the authors I have seen, when they are confronted with alternative problems (money, media, etc.) to the kinds of issues they outline in the first three chapters, they admit that the idea they present is merely meant to be an incremental improvement. I wish this was more prominently stated in the book, but, in order to do that, they would have had to draw a stronger link between the specific problem and the specific solution.
And don't get me started on their solution for fixing the legislative process. Basically, their solution is to create an innovation commission to fix the problem. After spending a significant amount of the book talking about the problems with the legislative process, it seems like a non-answer. It's kind of like answering a question on a Calculus final by suggesting the creation of a commission to answer the problem and expecting an A+.
Overall, it was a frustrating read for someone that agrees with (part of) what they are (poorly) arguing for.
First, the good: I agree with Gehl and Porter that the combination of final five and rank-order voting would have a net positive impact. That's it for the good.
Otherwise, the prose is overly simplistic and frustratingly redundant. The argument they make is so poorly constructed that it is hard to draw a direct link between the problem and the solution. Basically, they (i) provide a bunch of examples that everything related to politics is bad and (ii) offer up a good idea that they think will help and that they also think is achievable. However, during interviews with the authors I have seen, when they are confronted with alternative problems (money, media, etc.) to the kinds of issues they outline in the first three chapters, they admit that the idea they present is merely meant to be an incremental improvement. I wish this was more prominently stated in the book, but, in order to do that, they would have had to draw a stronger link between the specific problem and the specific solution.
And don't get me started on their solution for fixing the legislative process. Basically, their solution is to create an innovation commission to fix the problem. After spending a significant amount of the book talking about the problems with the legislative process, it seems like a non-answer. It's kind of like answering a question on a Calculus final by suggesting the creation of a commission to answer the problem and expecting an A+.
Overall, it was a frustrating read for someone that agrees with (part of) what they are (poorly) arguing for.
July 26, 2020
Very digestible, short read with some incredible arguments.
I'm sold.
The core thesis of the book is that American politics has been hijacked by a private duopoly (Democrats and Republicans) that tacitly collude to rig the political system to their benefit at the expense of the American people.
The book is actionable, and I like the suggested proposal of ranked-choice voting and the final five primaries.
I'm going to make these efforts my nights and weekends project.
I'm sold.
The core thesis of the book is that American politics has been hijacked by a private duopoly (Democrats and Republicans) that tacitly collude to rig the political system to their benefit at the expense of the American people.
The book is actionable, and I like the suggested proposal of ranked-choice voting and the final five primaries.
I'm going to make these efforts my nights and weekends project.
February 27, 2021
At last, a concrete do-able path to getting back to a government that works on behalf of its citizens, not big money, not entrenched parties. It will invite more people into the system and encourage collaboration without fear of being "primaried" for voting for what is the common good. The analysis of why we have gridlock makes so much sense. I have the feeling non-partisan primaries and final five "ranked choice voting" will be embraced by legislatures throughout this country.
January 24, 2021
Everyone has their opinion about what's broken in our political system. Not everyone can offer a clear, practical, achievable path toward improvement; of those who do, few can document their recommendations with hard data and historical context.
Gehl and Porter waste not a word on Citizens United nor right-wing propaganda channels nor social media. Perhaps they see those battles as unwinnable? More likely, since they're both economically minded, they prefer to focus on the best ROI. Which, as they see it, is: (1) changing the Primary system to be open and nonpartisan, in which the Top Five (or Four) vote getters are guaranteed a place on the electoral ballot, then (2) Ranked Choice Voting in actual elections.
Will it work? I don't know, obviously: I'm just a cog. There's reason to be optimistic, though: California has had a watered-down version for some years and has seen great results. Alaska just recently (November 2020) passed Four-Way primaries (which of course the two-party system will do everything in their power to try to undo); and Maine voters have sent a big fuck-you to the parties who have been trying to nullify the voters' RCV decision in 2016. IMO anything that both parties fear so much has to have a lot going for it.
The book itself: a tad long, and uncomfortably breezy/chatty at times. I couldn't figure out if they were writing for a scholarly audience, for politicians, or for lay people. I learned some history, paused often to reflect; and even if I'm not 100% sold, I'm sold enough to make efforts toward this goal. I'll be talking to some people I know.
(If you're interested: I recommend starting by listening to the Freakonomics podcast. If watching videos is more your thing, Gehl and Porter have some video links on their web site. If you'd like to borrow my copy, just ask).
Gehl and Porter waste not a word on Citizens United nor right-wing propaganda channels nor social media. Perhaps they see those battles as unwinnable? More likely, since they're both economically minded, they prefer to focus on the best ROI. Which, as they see it, is: (1) changing the Primary system to be open and nonpartisan, in which the Top Five (or Four) vote getters are guaranteed a place on the electoral ballot, then (2) Ranked Choice Voting in actual elections.
Will it work? I don't know, obviously: I'm just a cog. There's reason to be optimistic, though: California has had a watered-down version for some years and has seen great results. Alaska just recently (November 2020) passed Four-Way primaries (which of course the two-party system will do everything in their power to try to undo); and Maine voters have sent a big fuck-you to the parties who have been trying to nullify the voters' RCV decision in 2016. IMO anything that both parties fear so much has to have a lot going for it.
The book itself: a tad long, and uncomfortably breezy/chatty at times. I couldn't figure out if they were writing for a scholarly audience, for politicians, or for lay people. I learned some history, paused often to reflect; and even if I'm not 100% sold, I'm sold enough to make efforts toward this goal. I'll be talking to some people I know.
(If you're interested: I recommend starting by listening to the Freakonomics podcast. If watching videos is more your thing, Gehl and Porter have some video links on their web site. If you'd like to borrow my copy, just ask).
June 29, 2021
One of the quickest reads I've had recently, this book diagnoses systemic problems and proposes (relatively) simple solutions. It is not a tale of political nihilism, but an ode to compromise, pragmatism, and populism. This is a work of populism in its purest form, supported by the facts. Right now, people's votes don't count for much, but they can: that is the medicine this work prescribes.
There are absolutely negative things one learns about. This book introduced me to the awful concept of the "sore loser law" that exists in most states, which says that if you lose in the primary you cannot run in the general election – even as an independent. It's a dark system right now, corrupted all the way to the top. But as the authors recognize, criticism without solutions is worthless.
This should be a bipartisan or nonpartisan work. It is a book that could help preserve our republic. I read almost exclusively political nonfiction these days, but I recommend this work to all Americans. Let us build a world of real solutions: thank you to the authors for giving us the blueprint.
There are absolutely negative things one learns about. This book introduced me to the awful concept of the "sore loser law" that exists in most states, which says that if you lose in the primary you cannot run in the general election – even as an independent. It's a dark system right now, corrupted all the way to the top. But as the authors recognize, criticism without solutions is worthless.
This should be a bipartisan or nonpartisan work. It is a book that could help preserve our republic. I read almost exclusively political nonfiction these days, but I recommend this work to all Americans. Let us build a world of real solutions: thank you to the authors for giving us the blueprint.
October 31, 2020
“We are not powerless in this Democracy. We are the makers.”
Our country is in dire need of political innovation. The spirit of “of the people, by the people, for the people”, has been corrupted by a power-hungry two-party system that has little incentive to reform. A political candidate can have two-thirds of the population vote against them and still “win” an elected seat. The process is anything but representative democracy.
In The Politics Industry, Kathern Gehl and Michael Porter have crafted a straightforward overview of some of our most egregious political processes plaguing our electoral process and better yet have detailed a blueprint to go forward with proven ideas, such as rank choice voting.
Tired of useless attack ads? Has the political divide left you feeling overwhelmed and discouraged? Feeling pressured to pick between two mediocre self-interested candidates? Want change and not sure where to start? Start here. Educate yourself and vote.
Highly recommend the read.
Our country is in dire need of political innovation. The spirit of “of the people, by the people, for the people”, has been corrupted by a power-hungry two-party system that has little incentive to reform. A political candidate can have two-thirds of the population vote against them and still “win” an elected seat. The process is anything but representative democracy.
In The Politics Industry, Kathern Gehl and Michael Porter have crafted a straightforward overview of some of our most egregious political processes plaguing our electoral process and better yet have detailed a blueprint to go forward with proven ideas, such as rank choice voting.
Tired of useless attack ads? Has the political divide left you feeling overwhelmed and discouraged? Feeling pressured to pick between two mediocre self-interested candidates? Want change and not sure where to start? Start here. Educate yourself and vote.
Highly recommend the read.
October 21, 2024
This was a great read, though somewhat depressing because we are so far away from any legitimate change.
Very informative/urgent throughout, but I didn’t 100% agree with the summary “action items”. Pushing for ranked choice voting, and organizing locally both sound great… but encouraging a mass 3rd party protest vote in the name of ‘democracy’, especially this year, just doesn’t make sense to me. (I guess this was written before 2020 but still??)
“The American political system is perfectly designed to serve the private interests of this political-industrial complex: to grow its power and revenues and to protect itself from threats. It’s not designed so well to serve citizens – those who should, by rights, be the most important customers of the industry.”
Very informative/urgent throughout, but I didn’t 100% agree with the summary “action items”. Pushing for ranked choice voting, and organizing locally both sound great… but encouraging a mass 3rd party protest vote in the name of ‘democracy’, especially this year, just doesn’t make sense to me. (I guess this was written before 2020 but still??)
“The American political system is perfectly designed to serve the private interests of this political-industrial complex: to grow its power and revenues and to protect itself from threats. It’s not designed so well to serve citizens – those who should, by rights, be the most important customers of the industry.”
October 24, 2020
This short book brings business strategy analysis into the public sector. Much has been written about making Government more like business (new public management), including the challenges of this since the processes and goals are so different. This book takes one part of that agenda: the importance of results accountability, or performance orientation. It also uses an analytical model made for business to analyze the public arena. The core argument is that beginning in the 1960s in the US, the two political parties became increasingly internally focused on keeping themselves in power, and less on delivering results that benefit the majority of citizens.
The result is a system where the best way for politicians to stay in office is to take ideologically extreme positions, and to keep divisive issues alive and festering through gridlock. Bipartisan compromise is seen as weakness. Important decisions are only adopted on party line votes when the party has a majority; when the majority shifts, the new party in charge focuses on repealing the laws of its predecessor.
The authors give detailed recommendations on making the politics industry more competitive and productive.
The book highlights two types of needed reforms . First, restructuring the election process by adopting non partisan primaries , ranked choice voting, and redistricting. Second, restructuring the governing process by rewriting legislative rules such as concerning filibusters and the Hastert rule (House speaker can prevent a bill from reaching the floor for a vote). The Select Committee on Modernization of Congress is well placed to begin thinking on the second type of reforms. The original version of the book had another type of recommendation: reforming money in politics by incentivizing small donors, adopting transparency, and closing loopholes. Instead of this, the authors now argue for a different approach. They point out that the electoral reforms above will increase the value of votes, which will in turn reduce the value of money in politics in relative terms. Campaign financing reform is still needed, but may be a long time coming.
All of these measures are being rolled out at the city, state and national level in the US and other countries. See fairvote.org uniteamerica.org
The book adds value beyond other research methodologies. A strength is that it focuses on the industry, rather than on one party. While recent books looking at similar issues focus on one of the parties (eg Let them eat Tweets), this one shows that when the alternate party gets control, they do the same types of things. The book also convincingly argues that the current partisan divide has happened before: during the gilded age. We got past it then, and could do so today.
The executive branch issue is not a key part of this research, but it's central to the theory of change. The authors use the metric of getting policy results supporting broad public interests (and not just the interests of a few lobbyists) to judge whether reforms are successful. Getting results needs politicians to compromise and agree, and then executive agencies to deliver.
There are some areas where more work is needed. First, many of the recommended reforms are new, and weren't used to address the partisan divide of the 1890s. That era saw different reforms, such as popular election of senators, and popular election of party candidates in primaries. The new reforms are being rolled out at the state and city level, but the evidence of better results is still limited. More evidence on this needs to be marshalled to support future reforms.
A related point is that greater clarity is needed on the opportunities for reform at different points in the cycle. The book points out a period from the 1890s to the 1960s that preceded the present period of heightened partisanship that followed, and which we are presently in. That period could be divided in two parts: one a period of intensive progressive reform with combative partisan pushback, and the other, say from the 1940s to the 1960s, when partisanship was minimal. At one point, the book raises the example of a successful, bipartisan effort at legislative reform that was concluded in the second part of the cycle, and suggests this be adopted today in the form of a bipartisan commission on legislative reform. In my view, that won't work. In a intensely partisan setting, bipartisan efforts such as this end up with reports on the shelf, not action. Examples during the Obama era provide good case studies.
Second, as discussed above, achieving better results from our politics industry requires extensive work by the bureaucracy. Won't reforms be needed there as well, such as reducing the number of political appointments? Part of the partisan debate has been to demonize the bureaucracy: how can that be turned around? The book describes what effective government looks like, but now how to reform the bureaucracy to get there.
Third, the rise of the politics industry is paralleled by the rise of non-competitive private industries such as Facebook and Google. This creates many of the same challenges as those faced by the duopoly in politics. What are the common factors leading to these outcomes? The winner take all business economy has led to concentration in some business sectors even worse than during the gilded age of Standard Oil and the like. Changing the mutually reinforcing concentration of power in politics and business will take unprecedented social activism and coordination.
The result is a system where the best way for politicians to stay in office is to take ideologically extreme positions, and to keep divisive issues alive and festering through gridlock. Bipartisan compromise is seen as weakness. Important decisions are only adopted on party line votes when the party has a majority; when the majority shifts, the new party in charge focuses on repealing the laws of its predecessor.
The authors give detailed recommendations on making the politics industry more competitive and productive.
The book highlights two types of needed reforms . First, restructuring the election process by adopting non partisan primaries , ranked choice voting, and redistricting. Second, restructuring the governing process by rewriting legislative rules such as concerning filibusters and the Hastert rule (House speaker can prevent a bill from reaching the floor for a vote). The Select Committee on Modernization of Congress is well placed to begin thinking on the second type of reforms. The original version of the book had another type of recommendation: reforming money in politics by incentivizing small donors, adopting transparency, and closing loopholes. Instead of this, the authors now argue for a different approach. They point out that the electoral reforms above will increase the value of votes, which will in turn reduce the value of money in politics in relative terms. Campaign financing reform is still needed, but may be a long time coming.
All of these measures are being rolled out at the city, state and national level in the US and other countries. See fairvote.org uniteamerica.org
The book adds value beyond other research methodologies. A strength is that it focuses on the industry, rather than on one party. While recent books looking at similar issues focus on one of the parties (eg Let them eat Tweets), this one shows that when the alternate party gets control, they do the same types of things. The book also convincingly argues that the current partisan divide has happened before: during the gilded age. We got past it then, and could do so today.
The executive branch issue is not a key part of this research, but it's central to the theory of change. The authors use the metric of getting policy results supporting broad public interests (and not just the interests of a few lobbyists) to judge whether reforms are successful. Getting results needs politicians to compromise and agree, and then executive agencies to deliver.
There are some areas where more work is needed. First, many of the recommended reforms are new, and weren't used to address the partisan divide of the 1890s. That era saw different reforms, such as popular election of senators, and popular election of party candidates in primaries. The new reforms are being rolled out at the state and city level, but the evidence of better results is still limited. More evidence on this needs to be marshalled to support future reforms.
A related point is that greater clarity is needed on the opportunities for reform at different points in the cycle. The book points out a period from the 1890s to the 1960s that preceded the present period of heightened partisanship that followed, and which we are presently in. That period could be divided in two parts: one a period of intensive progressive reform with combative partisan pushback, and the other, say from the 1940s to the 1960s, when partisanship was minimal. At one point, the book raises the example of a successful, bipartisan effort at legislative reform that was concluded in the second part of the cycle, and suggests this be adopted today in the form of a bipartisan commission on legislative reform. In my view, that won't work. In a intensely partisan setting, bipartisan efforts such as this end up with reports on the shelf, not action. Examples during the Obama era provide good case studies.
Second, as discussed above, achieving better results from our politics industry requires extensive work by the bureaucracy. Won't reforms be needed there as well, such as reducing the number of political appointments? Part of the partisan debate has been to demonize the bureaucracy: how can that be turned around? The book describes what effective government looks like, but now how to reform the bureaucracy to get there.
Third, the rise of the politics industry is paralleled by the rise of non-competitive private industries such as Facebook and Google. This creates many of the same challenges as those faced by the duopoly in politics. What are the common factors leading to these outcomes? The winner take all business economy has led to concentration in some business sectors even worse than during the gilded age of Standard Oil and the like. Changing the mutually reinforcing concentration of power in politics and business will take unprecedented social activism and coordination.
August 6, 2020
Audible.
I have grown tired of complaining and hearing complaints about polarization. Somehow, it feels like those complaints only make things worse, particularly with political polarity. This book addresses this head-on; it's less of a book and more of an extended lecture and call to action.
I actually think the sentiment around 'draining the swamp' in recent elections is intuitively focused in the right direction, but the wrong solution. The case Gehl & Porter make is that changing the system - the elective and legislative machinery - not just electing the 'lesser of two evils', is critical to drive innovation and improvement.
I have grown tired of complaining and hearing complaints about polarization. Somehow, it feels like those complaints only make things worse, particularly with political polarity. This book addresses this head-on; it's less of a book and more of an extended lecture and call to action.
I actually think the sentiment around 'draining the swamp' in recent elections is intuitively focused in the right direction, but the wrong solution. The case Gehl & Porter make is that changing the system - the elective and legislative machinery - not just electing the 'lesser of two evils', is critical to drive innovation and improvement.
December 30, 2022
Very straightforward way of thinking and economic frames are super useful. Very here for suggested reforms and it’s made clear how they can be useful. Definitely missing a bit on the legislative piece of the gridlock puzzle but this is good start!
Side note: it was eerie to read a book about politics published amidst the 2020 primaries and just as the panny was starting
Side note: it was eerie to read a book about politics published amidst the 2020 primaries and just as the panny was starting
March 20, 2023
This book is awesome. If you hate having only two polarized choices at the ballot box and the resulting dysfunction that it’s brought to government read this book. It outlines how we got here, how we’ve been here before and how we’ve gotten out in the past and can do it again now. It is clear, concise at only 180 pages and you don’t need to be a wonk to understand it.
February 1, 2021
Incredible. If you, like most of us, are wondering why Washington appears to be moving further away from reason and the collective American will, and what, if anything, there is to be done about it... this is your book. It's straightforward, practical, non-partisan. A dissection of modern politics in the United States and a template to enact change based on historical precedence. I'll be returning to this one.
July 23, 2023
A stirring, persuasive case for Final Five Voting (ranked choice voting plus abolishing party primaries) in general elections. It gave me hope for the future. I'll definitely be voting for Final Five Voting in my state next year!
January 6, 2021
A book every american should read. It's a good balance of history and solutions to make politics work again.
March 9, 2021
*received for free from netgalley for honest review* Interesting book with a lot of good points, worth the read
June 10, 2024
Great ideas in this book. If you don't have time for a full book Andrew Yang gave a Ted talk recently that pretty much summarized the wind book
December 10, 2020
Very good book that offers desperately needed solid solutions. Everyone needs to read it and urge their states to pickup these solutions.
May 27, 2021
There is universal agreement that our political system is badly broken. Learn the details of the dysfunction and solid solutions for moving forward.
May 30, 2024
Excellent book that I hope will be read by many people. America and our democracy are raveling apart because of (Democratic and Republican parties) the duoply and the very real issue of partisanship. This book is co-written by Katherine Gehl, a business leader and a path-breaking political innovator, and Michael Porter, a world-renowed business strategist who takes a radical new approach to the partisan politics in this country. They acknowledge that you can not run a government like a business, but you take good things from the business world and apply them to the government by using Porter's Five Forces. I really learned a lot about Rank Choice Voting (RCV) while reading this book. The book prescribes RCV as a way to break the duoply and partisanship we see every day in politics from the lowest level to the highest, especially in Congress.
August 7, 2023
I thing everyone would agree that our current political mechanisms are too polarized and are providing too few results. We deserve better.
The authors provide a solid analysis of the issues and provide some solutions that sound solid - “Final Five” and Ranked Choice Voting.
I highly recommend. Loved the history and deep research. Loved that the authors provided solutions!
We need to see more results from our government and a true bi-partisan approach would get us going again.
I’m a big fan of Michael Porter and when I saw his name and how he used his five forces analysis on our current system it became a must read for me.
The authors provide a solid analysis of the issues and provide some solutions that sound solid - “Final Five” and Ranked Choice Voting.
I highly recommend. Loved the history and deep research. Loved that the authors provided solutions!
We need to see more results from our government and a true bi-partisan approach would get us going again.
I’m a big fan of Michael Porter and when I saw his name and how he used his five forces analysis on our current system it became a must read for me.
November 7, 2024
I’ve encountered Michael Porter’s work during my working life through his books and his articles in the Harvard Business Review, in particular, his theories about competitive strategy. Katherine Gehl is new to me, but she appears well-credentialed. She was CEO of Gehl Foods, and also founded the Institute for Political Innovation. The authors certainly do a good job of diagnosing the problems and causes of political gridlock, and then offer solutions to effectively address the book’s subtitle, namely, How Political Innovation Can Break Partisan Gridlock and Save Our Democracy. This subtitle is responsible for me choosing to read the book in the first place.
I’ll wager that, in any large, random gathering of diverse people, it would not be difficult to find many that agree with a statement made early in the book, that “Politics has become the pre-eminent barrier to addressing the very problems it exists to solve.” But the authors also claim that, no matter what party ideologies are, both sides of the ideological divide are to blame. Readers are quickly introduced to the term duopoly, which the dictionary defines as an economic or political condition in which power is concentrated in two groups.
Part 1 of this two-part book explores “the who, what, when, where, why, and how of competition in the politics industry”; and Part 2 focuses “on political innovation both through the study of American history and by translating [the authors’] research and theory into a powerful and achievable game plan for breaking partisan gridlock.”
Part 1 is therefore replete with lots of data and helpful charts to explain the dynamics of politics. One chart in particular jumped out at me for its illustration of “Declining Bipartisan Support of Landmark Legislation” over decades, bringing us right into modern times when the only type of legislation passed is partisan by the dominant party. This would more aptly be called tribalism politics. Part 2 explains innovative solutions in the form of Final-Five Voting and Ranked Choice Voting to break political gridlock, both viable, do-able approaches.
The Politics Industry is a fast, easy read offering viable solutions for breaking partisan gridlock. It should be required reading for the legislative branch of government, since that’s where the biggest gains may materialize, but other government branches would also benefit. I highly recommend Porter and Gehl’s timely book.
I’ll wager that, in any large, random gathering of diverse people, it would not be difficult to find many that agree with a statement made early in the book, that “Politics has become the pre-eminent barrier to addressing the very problems it exists to solve.” But the authors also claim that, no matter what party ideologies are, both sides of the ideological divide are to blame. Readers are quickly introduced to the term duopoly, which the dictionary defines as an economic or political condition in which power is concentrated in two groups.
Part 1 of this two-part book explores “the who, what, when, where, why, and how of competition in the politics industry”; and Part 2 focuses “on political innovation both through the study of American history and by translating [the authors’] research and theory into a powerful and achievable game plan for breaking partisan gridlock.”
Part 1 is therefore replete with lots of data and helpful charts to explain the dynamics of politics. One chart in particular jumped out at me for its illustration of “Declining Bipartisan Support of Landmark Legislation” over decades, bringing us right into modern times when the only type of legislation passed is partisan by the dominant party. This would more aptly be called tribalism politics. Part 2 explains innovative solutions in the form of Final-Five Voting and Ranked Choice Voting to break political gridlock, both viable, do-able approaches.
The Politics Industry is a fast, easy read offering viable solutions for breaking partisan gridlock. It should be required reading for the legislative branch of government, since that’s where the biggest gains may materialize, but other government branches would also benefit. I highly recommend Porter and Gehl’s timely book.
December 29, 2020
I will be introducing legislation that brings some of these ideas to Wisconsin. Here is my monthly book review column relating to this book:
The Politics Industry
America’s mounting challenges are on the minds of many Americans. Crumbling infrastructure, dismal educational outcomes, a shifting economy, stifling regulations, rising threats abroad, and more have been accumulating for decades.
And given the behavior of many elected officials, it’s not hard to see why many people put the blame for an unacceptable status quo on Congress. The 2020 book, The Politics Industry by Katherine M. Gehl and Michael E. Porter, examines how the incentives our political system creates stand in the way of solving these seemingly intractable problems.
The authors identify a number of specific ways that partisanship and grandstanding have replaced pragmatic problem-solving in Washington, and they have a solution: change how we conduct our elections to encourage more ideological competition.
Their solution is called final-five primaries and ranked choice voting, ideas with bipartisan support. Reps. Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, a Republican, and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, a Democrat, join in writing the book’s foreword.
Published in the midst of COVID, the authors point out the dismaying staying power of political opportunism and self-interest. Even during COVID, when answers are needed most, our politicians seem incapable of rising above a system that rewards grandstanding and punishes pragmatism.
The events of this year have made clear the need for a functioning political system and proactive lawmaking. One silver lining from the year of COVID could be a new impetus to redefine our politics using the reforms laid out in The Politics Industry.
Throughout, the authors insist that the status quo in politics is not inevitable, but we, the people, have to be clear-eyed about the challenge. They do this by relaying a “fish story” from renowned author David Foster Wallace in his commencement address at Kenyon College:
“There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, ‘Morning, boys. How’s the water?’ The two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, ‘What the hell is water?’”
Gehl and Porter elaborate, “The most obvious, ubiquitous, important realities are the ones that are hardest to see and talk about.” Our political system surrounds us, like water, so we can’t afford to ignore its health.
The health of our system is at a low point for a number of reasons. One issue is that less than 20 percent of eligible voters participate in most congressional primaries. Also, about half the states have primaries that are closed or semi-closed to non-party affiliated voters, so citizens who do not register a party affiliation can’t vote in these contests. Candidates have a strong incentive to appeal to the extremes of their party in order to win, producing more polarized contests.
California was a case-in-point. Democrat primaries throughout the Golden State determined who would eventually sail to victory in November’s general election “coronations.” Unworried about ever losing their seats except in partisan primaries, left-wing politicians in Sacramento ran one of the most dysfunctional state governments in the country, according to Pew Charitable Trusts. This problem is, of course, not relegated only to liberal states.
Washington, D.C.’s revolving door is another problem, an example of how partisans in the two-party duopoly have optimized the rules of the game for their own benefit—often at the expense of the national interest.
Gehl and Porter note that 42% of retiring members of Congress between 2009 and 2015 joined a lobbying firm, and another 25% took a job at a company involved with lobbying. That’s just former members of Congress, to say nothing about all the other former government employees like congressional staffers and regulatory agency officials.
Another example of how the two-party system sets rules favorable to itself are so-called “sore loser” laws, some version of which are on the books in 47 states. These laws say that anyone who loses a partisan primary can’t run as an independent or on another party’s ticket in the general election. The authors point to the electoral debacle of Delaware Rep. Mike Castle, a pragmatic Republican who almost certainly would’ve won Joe Biden’s former U.S. Senate seat. But he was defeated in the GOP primary for U.S. Senate by a candidate who was trounced in the general election.
Rather than a Republican pragmatist from Delaware—of all places—this law ensured the elevation of another partisan liberal, Chris Coons.
Partisans have gone to Washington and changed the rules for their own benefit there, too. Back to the late 1960s, liberal Democrats angry their bills weren’t passing Congress formed the Democratic caucus, where partisans met to discuss partisan schemes. Prior to that, most rank and file members had little contact with party leaders once in office. The way things worked prior to this change is almost unfathomable today—think “what the hell is water?”
The book goes on to describe the consolidation of power within Congress by partisan leaders, especially the Speaker of the House. Over time, Democrats mitigated the power of the committee chairs, transferring power to party leadership. Choosing rank-and-file committee members was transferred to the Speaker and party leaders. Seniority was replaced by fundraising prowess in determining powerful chairmanships.
Such power moves haven’t been relegated to ambitious liberals who controlled the House until the early 1990s. Speaker Gingrich cut by one-third the professional staff of House committees and service agencies like the Government Accountability Office and Congressional Research Service. Meanwhile, resources for the Speaker’s office increased, consolidating even more power in a partisan office, Gehl and Porter note.
Public hearings in Congress have too often also devolved from efforts to collect public input into partisan circuses. Between 1994 and 2014, the number of public committee hearings plunged by half. In the 113th Congress, about 40% of substantive bills bypassed the committee process entirely.
The way Obamacare was passed was a low-water point in this devolution. President Obama decided the GOP’s failure to completely capitulate constituted an excuse to ram the bill through entirely along party lines rather than negotiating.
The Politics Industry outlines the incentives of our system to elect the most extreme partisans who go to Washington and stack the rules in favor of other partisans. Gehl and Porter present one possible solution: Top-five primaries and ranked choice voting.
In this system, closed primaries are replaced with ballots which place all candidates of all parties on one ballot in the primary. The top five vote-getters move on to the general election.
Then, in the general election, voters rank their preferences from 1-5 (or however many candidates there are). If a candidate gets more than 50%, they win. But if no one gets a majority, an “instant runoff” occurs where the fifth-place candidate is disqualified and their voters’ second-place choices are tallied among the remaining candidates. This process is repeated until one candidate crosses 50%.
Earlier, I mentioned the dysfunction in California. But in 2012, the state implemented a similar top-two system, immediately resulting in a doubling of the number of competitive races for state legislative seats.
Partisans hate this system. Nancy Pelosi said California’s top-two reform, “is not a reform. It is terrible.” Meanwhile, the state’s last Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, co-wrote that, “Political parties hate top-two, so voters should love it.” And because top-five primaries encourage more competition than California’s system, it’s a step better.
As a believer in the free market, I know that competition results in better outcomes. That’s why I’m working with colleagues in the legislature on both sides on a bill to bring top-five and ranked choice voting to certain elections in Wisconsin.
I’m a pragmatist, so I know there are no silver bullets that will solve every problem overnight. But in the spirit of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who once said that the states are laboratories of democracy, it’s up to the states to explore new ways to address the partisan dysfunction in Washington.
This election reform promises to be one step toward that worthy goal.
The Politics Industry
America’s mounting challenges are on the minds of many Americans. Crumbling infrastructure, dismal educational outcomes, a shifting economy, stifling regulations, rising threats abroad, and more have been accumulating for decades.
And given the behavior of many elected officials, it’s not hard to see why many people put the blame for an unacceptable status quo on Congress. The 2020 book, The Politics Industry by Katherine M. Gehl and Michael E. Porter, examines how the incentives our political system creates stand in the way of solving these seemingly intractable problems.
The authors identify a number of specific ways that partisanship and grandstanding have replaced pragmatic problem-solving in Washington, and they have a solution: change how we conduct our elections to encourage more ideological competition.
Their solution is called final-five primaries and ranked choice voting, ideas with bipartisan support. Reps. Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, a Republican, and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, a Democrat, join in writing the book’s foreword.
Published in the midst of COVID, the authors point out the dismaying staying power of political opportunism and self-interest. Even during COVID, when answers are needed most, our politicians seem incapable of rising above a system that rewards grandstanding and punishes pragmatism.
The events of this year have made clear the need for a functioning political system and proactive lawmaking. One silver lining from the year of COVID could be a new impetus to redefine our politics using the reforms laid out in The Politics Industry.
Throughout, the authors insist that the status quo in politics is not inevitable, but we, the people, have to be clear-eyed about the challenge. They do this by relaying a “fish story” from renowned author David Foster Wallace in his commencement address at Kenyon College:
“There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, ‘Morning, boys. How’s the water?’ The two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, ‘What the hell is water?’”
Gehl and Porter elaborate, “The most obvious, ubiquitous, important realities are the ones that are hardest to see and talk about.” Our political system surrounds us, like water, so we can’t afford to ignore its health.
The health of our system is at a low point for a number of reasons. One issue is that less than 20 percent of eligible voters participate in most congressional primaries. Also, about half the states have primaries that are closed or semi-closed to non-party affiliated voters, so citizens who do not register a party affiliation can’t vote in these contests. Candidates have a strong incentive to appeal to the extremes of their party in order to win, producing more polarized contests.
California was a case-in-point. Democrat primaries throughout the Golden State determined who would eventually sail to victory in November’s general election “coronations.” Unworried about ever losing their seats except in partisan primaries, left-wing politicians in Sacramento ran one of the most dysfunctional state governments in the country, according to Pew Charitable Trusts. This problem is, of course, not relegated only to liberal states.
Washington, D.C.’s revolving door is another problem, an example of how partisans in the two-party duopoly have optimized the rules of the game for their own benefit—often at the expense of the national interest.
Gehl and Porter note that 42% of retiring members of Congress between 2009 and 2015 joined a lobbying firm, and another 25% took a job at a company involved with lobbying. That’s just former members of Congress, to say nothing about all the other former government employees like congressional staffers and regulatory agency officials.
Another example of how the two-party system sets rules favorable to itself are so-called “sore loser” laws, some version of which are on the books in 47 states. These laws say that anyone who loses a partisan primary can’t run as an independent or on another party’s ticket in the general election. The authors point to the electoral debacle of Delaware Rep. Mike Castle, a pragmatic Republican who almost certainly would’ve won Joe Biden’s former U.S. Senate seat. But he was defeated in the GOP primary for U.S. Senate by a candidate who was trounced in the general election.
Rather than a Republican pragmatist from Delaware—of all places—this law ensured the elevation of another partisan liberal, Chris Coons.
Partisans have gone to Washington and changed the rules for their own benefit there, too. Back to the late 1960s, liberal Democrats angry their bills weren’t passing Congress formed the Democratic caucus, where partisans met to discuss partisan schemes. Prior to that, most rank and file members had little contact with party leaders once in office. The way things worked prior to this change is almost unfathomable today—think “what the hell is water?”
The book goes on to describe the consolidation of power within Congress by partisan leaders, especially the Speaker of the House. Over time, Democrats mitigated the power of the committee chairs, transferring power to party leadership. Choosing rank-and-file committee members was transferred to the Speaker and party leaders. Seniority was replaced by fundraising prowess in determining powerful chairmanships.
Such power moves haven’t been relegated to ambitious liberals who controlled the House until the early 1990s. Speaker Gingrich cut by one-third the professional staff of House committees and service agencies like the Government Accountability Office and Congressional Research Service. Meanwhile, resources for the Speaker’s office increased, consolidating even more power in a partisan office, Gehl and Porter note.
Public hearings in Congress have too often also devolved from efforts to collect public input into partisan circuses. Between 1994 and 2014, the number of public committee hearings plunged by half. In the 113th Congress, about 40% of substantive bills bypassed the committee process entirely.
The way Obamacare was passed was a low-water point in this devolution. President Obama decided the GOP’s failure to completely capitulate constituted an excuse to ram the bill through entirely along party lines rather than negotiating.
The Politics Industry outlines the incentives of our system to elect the most extreme partisans who go to Washington and stack the rules in favor of other partisans. Gehl and Porter present one possible solution: Top-five primaries and ranked choice voting.
In this system, closed primaries are replaced with ballots which place all candidates of all parties on one ballot in the primary. The top five vote-getters move on to the general election.
Then, in the general election, voters rank their preferences from 1-5 (or however many candidates there are). If a candidate gets more than 50%, they win. But if no one gets a majority, an “instant runoff” occurs where the fifth-place candidate is disqualified and their voters’ second-place choices are tallied among the remaining candidates. This process is repeated until one candidate crosses 50%.
Earlier, I mentioned the dysfunction in California. But in 2012, the state implemented a similar top-two system, immediately resulting in a doubling of the number of competitive races for state legislative seats.
Partisans hate this system. Nancy Pelosi said California’s top-two reform, “is not a reform. It is terrible.” Meanwhile, the state’s last Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, co-wrote that, “Political parties hate top-two, so voters should love it.” And because top-five primaries encourage more competition than California’s system, it’s a step better.
As a believer in the free market, I know that competition results in better outcomes. That’s why I’m working with colleagues in the legislature on both sides on a bill to bring top-five and ranked choice voting to certain elections in Wisconsin.
I’m a pragmatist, so I know there are no silver bullets that will solve every problem overnight. But in the spirit of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who once said that the states are laboratories of democracy, it’s up to the states to explore new ways to address the partisan dysfunction in Washington.
This election reform promises to be one step toward that worthy goal.
May 13, 2024
4.5 / 5 - round up :)
May 9, 2021
This is an interesting book that looks to both diagnose and prescribe a cure for what ails the American political system. It uses the "Five Forces" framework pioneered by renown corporate strategy professor Michael Porter to diagnose the issues, and then suggests two solutions: for elections a combination of open "top 5" primaries followed by a general election utilizing rank choice voting. For the resolution of issues within the legislative process they're significantly less prescriptive and suggest the deus ex machina of a "blank slate" commission designed to start from scratch with regard to Congressional and other legislative procedure.
The book reads well and is interesting but it seems extremely facile to me. My own experience is that of a person who has spent a long career in one of the more competitive sectors of the private sector and now find myself working as a Chief of Staff in the House of Representatives. I'd say this: the private sector is significantly more rational than the public sector in the sense that the motivations are largely uniform and that, generally though not uniformly, the system selects for ability. Neither of these are true for the political system.
They are right that the political system is not really delivering what it needs to, and there is some truth to their analysis but I think the actual problems are significantly greater than a duopoly of the parties. Not nearly enough time is spent on the near total destruction of faith in the media as it has itself become partisan and this has enabled the triumph of standpoint epistemology: the existence of personal truth which is immune from objective factors.
That said, I think they're onto something with their "top 5" and "rank choice voting" idea. I've worked with legislative offices who were selected in these kinds of elections and they are indeed significantly more focused on outcomes than others. I think that it is telling that these reforms are generally only being implemented in one party states where the state party is pretty confident that it will not erode the power of the dominant party. They are forced you use measures other than single party dominance when describing the success of these policies.
So, while I think they overlook quite a lot in the book, from redistricting to the power of online fundraising, to the highly effective weaponization of the Rules committee by Pelosi as Speaker it's a worthwhile read.
The one thing I've learned in my time in politics so far is that once you think you know you have the answer to something its usually because you're not really done asking questions. I think this is true for the authors as well.
The book reads well and is interesting but it seems extremely facile to me. My own experience is that of a person who has spent a long career in one of the more competitive sectors of the private sector and now find myself working as a Chief of Staff in the House of Representatives. I'd say this: the private sector is significantly more rational than the public sector in the sense that the motivations are largely uniform and that, generally though not uniformly, the system selects for ability. Neither of these are true for the political system.
They are right that the political system is not really delivering what it needs to, and there is some truth to their analysis but I think the actual problems are significantly greater than a duopoly of the parties. Not nearly enough time is spent on the near total destruction of faith in the media as it has itself become partisan and this has enabled the triumph of standpoint epistemology: the existence of personal truth which is immune from objective factors.
That said, I think they're onto something with their "top 5" and "rank choice voting" idea. I've worked with legislative offices who were selected in these kinds of elections and they are indeed significantly more focused on outcomes than others. I think that it is telling that these reforms are generally only being implemented in one party states where the state party is pretty confident that it will not erode the power of the dominant party. They are forced you use measures other than single party dominance when describing the success of these policies.
So, while I think they overlook quite a lot in the book, from redistricting to the power of online fundraising, to the highly effective weaponization of the Rules committee by Pelosi as Speaker it's a worthwhile read.
The one thing I've learned in my time in politics so far is that once you think you know you have the answer to something its usually because you're not really done asking questions. I think this is true for the authors as well.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 141 reviews