in this process too, but is finally moving towards a mixed economy, a grain private sector will likely increase production, could erode social cohesion in what is still one of the most equal countries in the americas both. and now the state remains the dominant economic force. fundamental shift is on the way, the hello, i'm sorry, i'm your lives in london. a quick look at the headlines now. the us is confirmed that it will send widely bind cluster munitions to ukraine on friday, if you inspector general's office said it was against the continue use of cost to weapons and germany's government site. it opposes sending them to ukraine. we're working with ukraine to minimize the risk associated with the decision. the ukrainian government has offered us assurances in writing on the responsible use of dpi, cm's, including that they will not use the rounds and civilian populated urban environments and that they will record where they use these rounds, which will simplify later to mining efforts. ukraine also has committed to post

conflict the mining efforts to mitigate any potential harm to civilians. the united states has already invested more than $95000000.00 in ukraine, so you might need to berries and we will provide more support to help you create, mitigate the impacts of cost, your munition used by both sides in this conflict. white house correspondent, kimberly how kit has moved from washington. a us president had to sign a waiver because using this and, and proving this package of cluster munitions actually is a violation of u. s. law. this is something that has not been used by the united states in terms of approval since the iraq war. it was heavily criticized when george w bush use them and as a result they've been phased out. so this is a real turn around in terms of us policy. but the feeling of between the novel is pentagon, but the white house, even on capitol hill, is that conventional weapons are a short supply in terms of supply ukraine. the us president said that the united states will back ukraine, and the problem is,

is that the counter offensive has not been as the us would hope it has been lagging . or ukraine present automated lensky isn't k holding towards with the president pressure type i the one on developments in ukraine landscape. i think the one day so you client is in a to remember and in the short time, maintain the blacks. the grand deal, which was bro, could buy and correct hundreds of african migrants including children, have been striving in the deserts of just an easy and officials expelled in the long will it be in for the my grand say that off. it's an easy and officials push the mouth. libby and body guards refusing to let them in the b as border crossing directors, as you call it that the migraines and until he receives the orders from the ministry of interior. why goes hustler, i'm a 100 in the groups kind of these individuals are irregular migrants and don't have any travel documentation. we are

a border crossing like any other state. we don't allow individuals to enter our country without proper legal identification. i mean it's if there's some kind of agreement and receive orders from the libby, ministry of interior to grant of permission to enter who received them for or south graves government has endorsed a controversial japanese bound to dump more than a 1000000 tons of treated radioactive waste. water into the pacific and want to come from the succession of a nuclear upon which is so severely damaged during the of quick and see now mean 2011 project has been having the, criticized by china and south korea know position policies. it's received approval from the head of the united nations nuclear workshop, where i fell grossi, but he admits there were still concerns. we do not endorse the plan or recommend this to be done. we say this plan is consistent with the standards. so i think that with the qualification is important because they often say this is one

sided. we do not take sides. i'm not in the side of japan or on the side of china on the side of, of korea. the standards apply to or the same way they have expressed the number of a number of points. as i say, i stand by the, the, the conclusions and the assessment. and i feel extremely confident about of fighting between the 2 dogs. warring factions is intensified over night and hard to gunfire, and most of the explosions are reported over night. near the capital army come on to say, power, minute, trees, power, minute choosing the rapids of foot forces attacked the general command headquarters . and the says you have undermined those the headlines the so as always as a website, i'll just say are adult calm so that i says don't own it on top stories station for the boston line with steve collins the

a hi, i'm steve clements and i have a question for almost 200 years americans have generally been stuck with 2 political choices, either democrat or republican. but can that ever change? let's get to the bottom line. the american politics is mostly a 0 sum game. instead of debate on how to move the country forward, democrats and republicans both believe that their way is the only way, and everyone else is sort of the enemy. instead of civil debate, we see a lot of threats in french warfare and as american political institutions deteriorate and become more and more toxic citizens have also become more polarized . the country is full of small parties, offering a 3rd way, but none have really taken off the ground. so is there any way to make american politics more representative, more responsive, more diverse and more stable? today we're talking with lead druckman senior fellow in the political reform

program at the new america foundation and author of breaking the 2 party do loop the case for multi party democracy in america. and also holly page, one of the co founders of no labels, a fairly new political organization that supports a centrist approach. that's really not exactly republican nor democrat. it's wonderful to have you both here. uh and i think one of the big challenges in this country, li, if i can start with you, is to ask this question about the solvency of the choices we have. we have now. i don't know if you're going to win the g o p. nomination with the front runner. donald trump is, is now facing federal charges, a very unusual moment on the democratic ticket. a lot of people are looking at joe biden and saying this is the oldest person to ever run for officer to run again for office in the, in, in our history. and they're asking the question is, are these the only 2 choices we've got? i'd love to get your, your take on the choices and why we're stuck with these 2 possibly as

well. and it is a extremely unusual situation in our political history to have 2 candidates for president who are likely candidates or are both extremely unpopular and have a large share of americans who say that they don't really want either of these candidates. so i, i, i understand the reasons why many americans wish there were more choices. and i also wish there were more choices. but the presidency of our political institutions is the most winter take all, and i can only be one president. and so it does tend towards the 2 candidates, i think what the, the failures of our 2 party system to generate better choices. it seems quite clear to me. but the question i think that we all are trying to figure out is,

what do we do about that? and to me, we have to start with our electoral system, which means that we really need to think about ways that we can elect more candidates across a wide range of institutions who represent more partners. i think the challenge is that the presidency and the binary choice that we are facing in the selection is a symptom of some deeper problems within our political system. but it's hard to address the symptoms. but we can address the core problems. so how do you do it lead because if i were a young person today in a say, conservative oil town like bartlesville, oklahoma, north of tulsa, i might have some similar views as people growing up in the bay area in san francisco might have some similar views with someone down in mobile, alabama,

but i also have issues that are different. i have different orientation, maybe different uh, sets of ideas about how and economy works. what is preventing that impulse of trying to aggregate some of those interests around our little, you know, bartlesville, oklahoma young person and have that eventually become a party or something with some political juice in the us political system. is that something that your vision of an alternative to the 2 party system would entertain? yeah, absolutely. so oklahoma is a very read state in terms of who, who gets selected, but in terms of who the people are in oklahoma, i think it, there is a lot more ideological diversity that's not well represented. so you have a system of elections for both the congressional delegation and the state legislature that relies on a single member districts. and in a single member districts, you can have only one winner and single member districts mean that 3rd parties are

treated as boilers in wasted votes. but if you move to a system of multi member districts in which votes are allocated proportionally by party support, which is the norm among democracies around the world. that creates opportunities for new parties to form a new parties to organize. and so under a system of proportional representation, if what you're talking about is a more moderate republican party, a yeah, but that could be a party that gets 20 percent of the votes statewide, but it's not going to get 51 percent in any single district. so that there is not going to be a real reason for people to form that party. and that's why such a party doesn't for him because in our system of single winter districts, 3rd parties are wasted vote. we move to a system of more proportional representation with multi member districts. you would see more parties forming, holly, you were co founder of no labels. this interesting new organization that's trying

to posit that we should have choices that are neither neither republican nor democrat may be something in between a kind of pragmatic party. what are you trying to do with no labels? and is that part of the answer here is we talked the lee about trying to think beyond the stranglehold that the democrats and republicans have on the current system. absolutely. first of all, no labels was founded in 2010. so we have been around for a while and what we're really doing is giving voice to what we call the common sense majority, millions and millions. we have our numbers about 77000000 american voters who do not see their values and hopes and dreams for the country, and their families reflected in what the 2 parties are selling currently. so we are less committed to forming a 3rd party. we would like to see both parties kind of modernize and reform and speak more to the vast majority of american voters. what's the, how do you do that? how do you, i guess, i guess the question is, how do you not become

a trojan horse for one of the, one of the 2 parties and still provide a real viable alternative? well, we have a tremendous track record working through our allies in the house, in the problem solvers caucus and in the senate. they tell us about the problem solvers cox. so the problem solvers caucus is a robust a caucus of the united states. house of representatives, co chaired by democrat, josh got timer and republican. brian sits patrick 64 members. they have several rules, one of which is if 75 percent of the caucus supports a piece of legislation, the entire congress has to vote for it. that they vote as a block and they are, they were absolutely instrumental in reaching the debt ceiling deal. and i think any sort of constructive movement in congress, but they will be at the center of it. but we've, we have a track record our phone folks working together, helped create and then pass be hard to infrastructure legislation by having an

alliance with the senate. they found a path forward. and that is why you had so much bipartisan legislation passed last congress. the chip sacked electoral reform act, great american outdoors. that was all of them. so we know this can work if you allow the elected officials who are committed to problem solving the space and the ability to talk with the other side and come up with the best collective solution i wanted to inspect only. but before doing that, you know, i know from public record that you've raised an awful lot of money, me to potentially put forward a candidate in 2024. in the race of joe mentioned his off and talked about larry hogan who is a republican leader of maryland who is said he's not going to run but, but nonetheless, i'm just wondering, are you gonna spend all the money raised in 2024 and who, who do you think it might be? well, this is a little bit different than almost any other conversation in washington state, because this is really not about the elected officials. i think we're all exhausted

by the idea that we're going to like this one or that one and magically it's all going to be good from then on out. this is about giving 77000000 american voters, a voice in the national conversation. we want all the elected officials to speak to us. and by the way, all we want is what's in our collective best interest, fiscal responsibility, a 21st century education program. i mean, things that are very general, but that the country needs to compete in the future. oh, thank you, lee. i love to hear from you about what you think about the chances of no labels breaking through. but i also want to hear from you about structurally, because you've written a lot about fusion voting and about, you know, some of these new fangled ideas that others are trying to rank twist voting, which we saw in alaska recently trying to create some different alternatives that produce result, all that or that i guess from the voters perspective,

draw from people more in the center than the extreme. so i loved it, just handicap, you know, give us your grades, no labels, right? choice voting. tell us what fusion voting is. give us a quick lesson in this. all right, so, so let's, let's, we have the landscape here. he bought a fusion voting and fusion. her voting is actually not, not a new fangled idea at all. it's something that is deeply american and was wide spread in the 19th century. and the basic idea is simple, is it's that multiple parties can dominate the same category. so if you want to vote for joe biden on the democratic ticket, you can vote for joe biden on democratic tickets, but say they, if we had a 3rd common sense party that also nominated job item because use the more moderate of state by didn't 1st, trump matchups, you could vote for joe biden on the common sense ticket. now, what does that do? both aggregate divided, but you've signaled that what you want are the uh,

policies and priorities of this common sense party, which could be the same thing as, as a what holly just mentioned could be something else, but it gives voters more power to signal what it is that they want their candidates and elected officials to stand for it. and right, right. choice voting is sort of the candidate and version of that. where instead of parties a as nominating candidates who are now made by their parties, parties nominate their own candidates, but uh or independence run, but they are no longer spoilers cuz their votes transferring. now i think, i think political parties are really the essential institutions of modern representative democracy. you can't do modern democracy without political parties, political parties, aggregate and organized elections. so i like fusion because it's i see it as a pro parties reform, right. it is an opportunity to build political parties,

i think just because our 2 parties are broken doesn't mean we should give up on the idea of political parties of the problem is we need more parties, right? and we need your parties and fusion and proportional representation allow us to do that, i think in terms of running a 3rd party candidate in presidential elections. that is a tremendous long shot. and that there is really never been a successful 3rd party candidacy in america. the, the electoral college, it is a winner take all system on top of a one or take all systems. so with all. busy due respect holly i, it seems like running a 3rd party candidate in this presidential election is, is a incredibly unlikely winning strategy. well, lucky for us, we're not running a 3rd party candidate. we are running. the idea is if we get to the spring of 2024

and the american people are still pretty clear and what they're telling us right now, which is they do not want a repeat of 2020 the ideas potentially to have a unity ticket, a democrat and republican running together, but i agree with leave that the, the parties are basically here to stay. but they do need to modernize, they do need to start to address a, you know, a mirror akins where they are half part of your goal. yeah, exactly. put pressure on it's less than really i think about additional parties. and i heard catharine gale say this. i've got to give her credit, right. it's about the threat of another party. you know, and i think that the voters who, by the way, it's as hard as this is for me to kind of embrace, i try not to use word centrist because really it's about the politics of problem solving. and if you are committed to problem solving, no matter where you are in the spectrum, you're welcome at our table. and that's with the american people want, you know, they really don't care about, you know, the,

the latest mass nations in washington. and i invite we to come with us and get out around the country. is that what no labels is trying to do? you're trying to roll a bullying ball through the fragility of both parties right now. they. yes, i mean, you know, both parties have shown us time and time again. just as you say, donald trump read to find the republican party with 10 people, half of whom here is related to right. okay. bernie sanders, who's not even a democrat, basically took over the democratic party, the green, new deal build back better. those are his defining ideas. and every, you know, if you walk down the street, people understand the green new deal is affiliated with the democratic party. so we want the same attention and the same uh, you know, ideas address to those of us who believed that the priorities of the country should always come. first of right, the party li. i mean, i want to ask you a bit about money real quick. um, i guess last election cycle, $144.00, uh,

$14400000000.00. mean that is a huge amount of money. i had no idea that the political spending had reached that level. how i mean, when i heard that it, that explain to me why this is such a great business for political parties to be a number one. and how it's so hard to disrupt that is part of what cementing this to party doom loop, the amount of money that's involved, i don't think so. what, what's the meaning that the 2 party system is the fact that both parties have an opposition on monopoly because of the single wider election? so there's a, there's a lot of money that is going not there. so to parties, one of the parties is going to consultants. now is consultants are affiliated with the 2 parties, but a lot of consultants and campaign operations could work for other parties. if there weren't more parties or anything that would just be more potential clients and more

potential elections, there's a lot of money chasing very few competitive elections. we have a system in which less than 10 percent of the congressional elections are come, contested maybe 15 percent or sentimental actions are contested. there's a handful swing states and then a bunch of local election. so there's all this money chasing very few outcomes. a lot of it is frankly just wasted. uh, the, so i, i think the 2 party system is, it is, may, was right for disruption and opening up. and i, i think the problem and the reason why we're so dissatisfied with the 2 parties is because america is a much more diverse countries. and the 2 parties are trying to manage these practice coalitions. and there's only one way that they can really manage these practice coalitions, which is to demonize the other side, which is to say, now if you're, you might not love the democrats, but trump is destroying democracy. you might not love the republicans, but democrats want to impose the work new deal on you and,

and the republicans are your only alternatives. so that the, the very fact that we have a 2 party system is the thing that is dividing our country and leading us to really hate each other. because these 2 parties are fractures, correlations that are only bound together by the fact that so many people within those correlations really disliked the other side. so i think the fundamental problem is the 2 party system. it's not about getting the 2 parties to serve the american people better, cuz i, i love the more i that are about we try that 1st. but it, listen, i have tremendous respect for anybody who spends their time and energy trying to, uh, you know, put us on a different path. but is one of the problems with all of the attention on, on the reforms is that it only focuses on campaigns in elections. right. and that's like putting all your energy and attention on the wedding. the marriages were,

all the action is the marriages were either, you know, the values are advanced or not. and the problem is that, that you could rank choice vote or, you know, fusion, right? so your way to whatever, but you get here and the party still control a lot of what happens. well, that's why we ought to have more parties. because that i mean, the parties have to control parties organized politics. you need parties to organize and structure publish. the problem is when you have 2 parties that are competing for narrow majorities, they don't want to work together. the, the, the, the fundamental reason that washington is so broken is because both parties are trying to eke out these narrow majority. i think that's true because if you look at what happened in the last congress, the record store a number of bi partisan bills that were very significant for this country past lot, you know, because they helped define the target a voters who, who supported them. it is, i mean they, they pass because democrats had a majority and a few republicans went on on all of these important, you know,

that's not what, let me just ask you this in the, in the last couple of minutes we have one holly, a lot of people have flooded me with research and, and position papers that if no labels were to run a candidate like joe mentioned, all that's going to do is to get, is get donald trump elected, and that you are the bite in killing organization. that is a, you know, that is the dinner topic, does your uh, around town right now. and that is the concern there. i know, on the other hand, that as you talk about what no labels are trying to do to reach these many disaffected voters, you know, really approximately 80000000 people. as you said, we're not engaged in the public political system. i'm just interested in how you respond to the issue about your going to basically be a trojan horse for republican interest to take down a donald or excuse me. well, go, barney, if you republican folks say the same thing to us,

but on the opposite side and listen, they will take down donald's. yes, exactly. very concerned about that in some key states that we would be quite powerful in. right. but here's the thing, know levels isn't, we're not manifesting this, we're not creating this, we're giving voice to it. right? right. and all the political establishment has to do here in washington is speak to the common interest of the common sense majority voters, right? that's all they gotta do. they just really have to stop hitting us against each other. stop scaring us about, you know, the, the terrible things that will befall the country. should they lose power and government with a vision. so you know, competing as an american tradition, it's an american value. they can both compete for our votes and, and then if there's not a clear lane, then we won't advancing unity ticket. it's not that complicated. it's lee. and i really enjoyed your book and i think it's so important for people to pay attention

to this because you make something that feels true to me, that the legitimacy, the solvency of the system, is eroding and seems to be dying. and you're looking at ways to revive, if you were to play the lead rockman playbook of the 2 or 3 most important things. if you had the power, you would shift to get people to believe in the election system. again, what would you do or? well, i would move to a system of proportional representation for the house. multi member, just search through and give people real diversity of choices. america is a very diverse and plural hosted countries and which people have lots of different values, lots of different life experiences. lots of different hopes and we want to congress that looks like this country that looks like this country in terms of ideology, in terms of gender, in terms of age, terms of race. and can give everybody a voice to hash out those disagreements. i and, you know, i, i think that would be

a tremendous way to really realize the promise of representative democracy in america. i think we've got to move beyond this artificial us versus them is a part official. my team versus your team. the, the only way that we can win is for you to lose, and that's what the 2 party system is doing to us. that is fundamentally splitting us into 2 warring camps based on these artificial distinctions now there, but there are some real disagreements. and i think my disagreement with holly here is that the political center right now is somewhat small. there are a lot of people who are i happy with the 2 party system, but a lot of but not a lot of them are political centers. they're kind of all over the ideological map and moderation in centers. and is it something in the system level property that emerges from the diversity of representation and nobody having dominant power? i love this conversation. unfortunately, we're gonna have to leave it there. lead drummond senior fellow at the new america

nation, and holly page co founder of no labels. thank you so much for being with us today. thanks. i. thank you, steve. so what's the bottom lines? the big 2 parties always argue that the alternative to them is chaos, and they convince the public that resistance is futile. these 2 parties are company in the system they've created. they loved predictability, and they hate surprises. they grew and their leaders, overtime they raise tons of money and control the whole chain from top to bottom. and if they don't win race, who cares? they'll get another chance in a couple of years. that's literally the system america has. and it's structurally corrupt. there's just no other way to describe it. good ideas only happen in this country if they come through the 2 political parties and are absolutely crashed, if they don't, with the lack of innovation in a system that only allows 2 choices is destined to break down some day. somehow. maybe the race between one candidate who's accused of federal crimes and another who is the oldest candidate in american history? well, this might just be the time when a 3rd choice sounds like

a great idea. and that's the bottom line, the the, [000:00:00;00] the to dreaming of somebody more amazing system. how about some disney magic

ones that can go one big one goal was to find incredible things that you can just take things 3, using this summer feed more and more visits. cup of dot com. hello, i'm marianne eliza and then a quick look at the main stories. now us is confirmed that it will send widely by the cost of munitions to ukraine. on friday to inspector general's office said it was against the continued use of cost of weapons. and john, these government has also said that they oppose sending them to ukraine. i want house cost when it can be how kit has more in this from washington. us president had to sign a waiver because using this and,