How #Unity2020 plans to end the two-party system, bring back Andrew Yang
The proposal calls for the American public to draft two candidates to lead the executive branch: one from the center-left, the other from the center-right.
- The #Unity2020 plan was recently outlined by Bret Weinstein, a former biology professor, on the Joe Rogan Experience.
- Weinstein suggested an independent ticket for the 2020 presidential election: Andrew Yang and former U.S. Navy Admiral William McRaven.
- Although details of the proposal are sparse, surveys suggest that many Americans are cynical and frustrated with the two-party system.
Americans are rigidly divided on many issues, but the idea that national politics is corrupt is not one of them. In recent years, surveys on Americans' views on political corruption and their trust in the federal government reveal that cynicism stretches across both parties, even though diagnoses may differ.
This widespread frustration has a logical consequence: distrust of the two-party system. And now, Americans face an upcoming presidential election between, arguably, the most controversial president in history, and a challenger whose chief selling point is: who he is not.
Is there a way out? Consider Unity2020 — a proposal for a new format of federal governance that aims to replace cynicism and partisanship with compromise and cooperation.
The proposal is spearheaded by Bret Weinstein, a biologist, evolutionary theorist and cultural commentator associated with the Intellectual Dark Web. Weinstein made headlines in 2017 after criticizing the demands of student protesters at Evergreen State College, where he was formerly a professor of biology.
#Unity2020 is perhaps the most important political development in decades. It is urgently needed. The Exhausted Maj… https://t.co/Cn8X8jhx5J— Brendan from Dharma (@Brendan from Dharma)1593655864.0
Here's how the Unity2020 plan would work, according to a Medium post titled "The Articles of Unity":
"We the people draft two candidates: one from the center-left, one from the center-right. Once elected, they agree to govern as a team. All decisions and appointments will be made jointly in the interests of the American public. Only when they cannot reach agreement, or when a decision does not allow for consultation, does the President decide independently. A coin flip determines which candidate runs at the top of the ticket."
Each candidate must possess three qualities:
- They must be patriotic
- They must be highly capable
- They must be courageous
The post doesn't mention how these qualities would be defined, or who would judge prospective candidates.
"After four years in office, the order reverses for the next election," the post reads. "This continues until the American public chooses an alternative administration or one of the members of the team cannot run for re-election, at which point a new patriot would replace them."
Who would fit the bill? On a recent episode of the Joe Rogan Experience, Weinstein suggested two potential center-ish draftees: former 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, and retired U.S. Navy Admiral William Harry McRaven, who oversaw the special operations raid that killed Osama Bin Laden.
"Here we got two people, one of them, I think, will do so out of duty, the other one is crazy enough to want the job in the first place. And what are they? Well, they're both patriots, they're both courageous, and they're both highly capable. This is the road out."
Of course, many questions remain: How exactly would Americans go about drafting the two candidates? Do Americans actually want a coalition of two centrists? And are we really going to rely on a coin flip to determine who leads the executive branch for four years?
Logistical questions aside, the overall sentiment of the plan is something with which many Americans would likely agree.
"The need for leadership has never been greater. Yet, the parties have never offered less."
The post continues:
"We will not settle for the false choice presented to us. We demand better, in no uncertain terms. We propose a solution to unify our country such that it may deliver on its immense promise. We intend to use the available tools of American democracy in a new and galvanizing way. We are keenly aware of the full history of American third parties; we will not be a spoiler or be relegated to a footnote. We fully intend to seat an administration that represents the interests of a clear and overwhelming majority of Americans."If you want to get involved with Unity2020, check out this Change.org petition that aims to put Yang and McRaven on a 2020 independent ticket.
- Did Politics Just Replace Race as the Most Divisive Thing in America? ›
- Two Party System: Why Third Parties Struggle to Succeed - Big Think ›
- Bipolar Politics: The Beginning and End of the Two-Party System ... ›
Famous physicists like Richard Feynman think 137 holds the answers to the Universe.
- The fine structure constant has mystified scientists since the 1800s.
- The number 1/137 might hold the clues to the Grand Unified Theory.
- Relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics are unified by the number.
Younger Americans support expanding the Supreme Court and serious political reforms, says new poll.
- Americans under 40 largely favor major political reforms, finds a new survey.
- The poll revealed that most would want to expand the Supreme Court, impose terms limits, and make it easier to vote.
- Millennials are more liberal and reform-centered than Generation Z.
A 2020 study published in the journal of Psychological Science explores the idea that fake news can actually help you remember real facts better.
- In 2019, researchers at Stanford Engineering analyzed the spread of fake news as if it were a strain of Ebola. They adapted a model for understanding diseases that can infect a person more than once to better understand how fake news spreads and gains traction.
- A new study published in 2020 explores the idea that fake news can actually help you remember real facts better.
- "These findings demonstrate one situation in which misinformation reminders can diminish the negative effects of fake-news exposure in the short term," researchers on the project explained.
Previous studies on misinformation have already paved the way to a better understanding<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDU1NzQ4NC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNjE2Mjg1Nn0.hs_xHktN1KXUDVoWpHIVBI2sMJy6aRK6tvBVFkqmYjk/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C800%2C0%2C823&height=700" id="fc135" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="246bb1920c0f40ccb15e123914de1ab1" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="fake news concept of misinformation and fake news in the media" />
How does misinformation spread?
Credit: Visual Generation on Shutterstock<p><strong>What is the "continued-influence" effect?</strong></p><p>A challenge in using corrections effectively is that repeating the misinformation can have negative consequences. Research on this effect (referred to as "continued-influence") has shown that information presented as factual that is later deemed false can still contaminate memory and reasoning. The persistence of the continued-influence effect has led researchers to generally recommend avoiding repeating misinformation. </p><p>"Repetition increases familiarity and believability of misinformation," <a href="https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-fake-news-spreads-real-virus" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the study explains</a>.</p><p><strong>What is the "familiarity-backfire" effect?</strong></p><p>Studies of this effect have shown that increasing misinformation familiarity through extra exposure to it leads to misattributions of fluency when the context of said information cannot be recalled. <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797620952797#" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A 2017 study</a> examined this effect in myth correction. Subjects rated beliefs in facts and myths of unclear veracity. Then, the facts were affirmed and myths corrected and subjects again made belief ratings. The results suggested a role for familiarity but the myth beliefs remained below pre-manipulation levels. </p>