Strategy for Playoffs (Planning Them)
If you read between the lines in my previous WC comments, I believe that, if they are going to keep this extra playoff round, they should make it more valid.
Expand the Wild Card round to best-of-five, the Division Series to a full 4-of-7. That would fix it, in the way the NBA Playoffs ensure these contests have their completion (though I personally would advocate "calling it" in any best-of-7 when it's 3-0).
That would mean a long break for those two bye teams in each league, both for good and for ill. The next evolution would be toward a system in which the only bye team for the first round is the one with the best regular-season record in the league--the NFL once again setting the pace.
Where do the days come from to do all this? By reverting to the traditional 154-game regular season (from the current 162). Adding those four potential additional games to the length of the whole season (including playoffs) would need this adjustment, though the one I propose would also bring the chance for more off-days and make-up days. Few would object to this change, except team owners. So they would need some adjustment, perhaps in their precious cap limits.
"College football" is in chaos, it seems to me, with professional college, inc. teams serving as money-making incubators for the NFL owners to cherry-pick. The 'conferences", and their championships? Don't make me laugh. There are two that matter (the SEC and the Big 10) for the new, over-expanded playoff system. Those championship games will be life-and-death battles, for seeding? It makes no sense except in the greed, cow-milking one. And I was one of the ones recommending the radical idea of an expanded round! (I meant, to six).
4X4 for Kamala
Post-Election Proposals for Popular (mostly non-Partisan) Reform
1) Remove the income cap for Social Security tax--this will fix one problem, at least. The previous argument for the famous shut-off in midyear for the privileged, that Social Security is but an insurance policy, now paid for the year, is no longer sustainable, as the tide has gone out and we see our wet suits for what they are. It is pay-as-you-go, always has been, really, and this gap for income earners between $140K (or whatever the current calculation for when the tax stops, for the rest of the year), and $400k, which was the Biden going-nowhere proposal, with tax recurring above that, will have to go. Among other reasons, for equity. It can get bipartisan support, and the complete change will save the security-part of SSA. (Above 400k, it can increase, or whatever the system can allow...) She could even advocate this now, if she wanted to show some intelligent diversion from a straight Biden line, but it has risks.
2) Direct election of the Speaker of the House
Yes, but--ARTICLE 1,-Section 2. The House shall chuse their Speaker..
So, it would be non-binding, in a different way from chusing our President. Get it? I'm sure the House would, and meaningful challenges to the will of the electorate would be rare. Any of that would importantly take the struggle away from the existential question of the ownership of the White House. The elected Speaker would be able to deal with the Senate and thus with the President as head of Congress, and pull back the legislative authority from the presidency. The over-empowered executive could then focus on its true, huge responsibility for global security, maybe? Yes, and administration, a la- Jimmy Carter (bless him!--his 1976 victory is the key to understanding this election).
I'd suggest ranked-choice voting, runoff of top 3, low barrier to entry but short campaign (in years with Congressional elections, so every two years).
Could Donald Trump win this, after he loses to Kamala? I'm willing to see it.
3) Do Away with States' Winner-Take-All (Conditionally) - This would be a compact of Congress that would support best practices and induce states voluntarily to switch away from giving all their Electoral Votes for President to the candidate getting the plurality in their state. This would create more interest in turning out in the large states with partisan majorities, in spite of which there are always contrary pockets, usually in multiple Congressional districts. .
The other half of this would be independent certification that states are not excessively gerrymandering their districting. Fair congressional districts are within our power to develop; AI could actually be useful here in developing a set of districts maximizing various objectives, in order to present decision-makers with a final choice. This reform would be targeted for the 2032 Presidential election.
4) Start a Federally-Supported Institute for Home Health Training - This is a favorite unopened envelope from the 2020 campaign. It is clear that the best health service for many, the one woman worth paying for, is at home, with varying levels of attention there, from periodic to full-time, depending on the needs and resources of the client. It is very hard to find and keep active capable home healthcare workers. A nationally-recognized certification program would allow these workers to move about, as many would like to do, and get work where they go. So many will be needed.
The Institute should be located in South Florida (this is the partisan part). That's closest to where the greatest portion of eventual work will be, and it is a good area to recruit future home healthcare workers.
These are proposals for a Harris administration that could actually be accomplished in a hostile, or hopelessly split (at best) partisan Congress. Doing any of these would radically change the dialogue and push toward 21st-century-suitable processes to manage one of the most important aspects of our society. If, on the other hand Harris loses, I got nothing for you, US.
These would not require constitutional amendments, which are not possible at this time. Some may need to wait until after the expected post-Trumpian collapse of the Republican party as a viable competitor for national office (as opposed to the Senate, where they will linger on).
Posts
