US politics isn't broken. It's fixed | Katherine M. Gehl

Transcriber:

翻译人员: Charlie Lee 校对人员: suya f.

我一切有关政治的知识，

都是从芝士中学到的。

在我商业生涯的最后十年中，

我在威斯康辛州经营着 市值2.5亿的食品公司。

Everything I need to know about politics,

I learned from cheese.

是的，我们制作芝士。

For the last decade of my business career,

如果顾客喜欢我 的芝士，那我做得好。

I ran a 250-million-dollar food company in Wisconsin.

如果他们不喜欢， 并从其他人那里购买芝士，

And yes, we made cheese.

那我做得不是那么好。

If customers liked my cheese, I did well.

这是良性竞争。

良性竞争激励企业去生产更好的产品。

If they didn't, they bought cheese from someone else and I did less well.

更好的产品等同于更开心的顾客，

That's healthy competition.

而更开心的顾客等于成功的企业。

Healthy competition incentivizes businesses to make better products.

双赢。

现在，当我经营Gehl食品时，

Better products equals happier customers

我深入参与到政治，

and happier customers equals successful businesses.

并逐渐被政治所挫败。

Win-win.

Now, while I was running Gehl Foods,

I was also deeply engaged in

我越是被政治所挫败，

我越是想知道为什么政治竞争

and increasingly frustrated by politics.

不能产生同样的双赢结果。

The more frustrated I got,

the more I wondered why competition in politics

为什么民主党人 和共和党人能一直这么做？

didn't deliver the same kind of win-win results.

当他们的顾客，

那就是我们， 十分的不开心。

How did the Democrats and the Republicans keep doing so well

为什么政治行业是零和博弈？

when their customers, that's us, are so unhappy?

他们赢，

我们输。

答案为何？

实际上有一件事情 几乎所有美国人都赞同，

Why is the politics industry win-lose?

They win.

We lose.

“华盛顿已经破碎，”

The answer?

这也是一件被我们错误看待的事情。

It turns out that one thing almost all Americans agree on,

"Washington is broken,"

华盛顿并没有破碎，

is also one thing we're all wrong about.

它确确实实按照设计的那样运作。

Washington isn't broken,

不过它不是设计用来 服务我们，公民，公共利益。

it's doing exactly what it's designed to do.

绝大多数政治里的规则 被设计好并被持续微调

It's just not designed to serve us, the citizens, the public interest.

就是为了私人利益集团的收益。

Most of the rules in politics are designed and continuously fine-tuned

这就是两党， 教科书式的双头垄断，

by and for the benefit of private gain-seeking organizations.

以及在这政治交易里的公司。

That's the two parties, a textbook duopoly,

而他们都做的非常好。

and the surrounding companies in the business of politics.

以至于美国公众从未如此地失望。

And they're all doing great.

用另一种方式说， 政治并没有破碎，而是被修正了。

Even as the American public has never been more dissatisfied.

这是政治行业理论的指导原则，

Said another way, politics isn't broken, it's fixed.

也是我创立并倡导的超政党协作

在这过去的七年间。

This is a guiding principle of politics industry theory,

现在，在我走的更远之前，

我应该告诉你们 我不属于红党或者蓝党。

the nonpartisan body of work that I originated and have championed

我称我自己为政治流浪者， 这可能跟你们某些人产生共鸣。

over the last seven years.

Now, before I go further,

I should tell you I'm not on the red team or the blue team.

而我的工作不是 注重于指责某个政客，

I call myself politically homeless, which may resonate with some of you.

指责双头垄断的双方。

根基导致了我们的政治紊乱，

And my work doesn't focus blame on individual politicians

这个出现在整个选举周期

on either side of the duopoly.

和所有的管理部门中的诱因

The root cause of our political dysfunction,

正是这个体制。

游戏里的不正当规则，

the cause that endures across all election cycles

政治游戏里的规则

and all administrations

甚至挟持了我们的参议院和州议员。

is the system,

the perverted rules of the game,

他们唯一的选择 只有与他们阵营保持一致。

the rules of the game in politics

even make prisoners of our senators and representatives.

而我们能为之做什么？

Their only option is lockstep allegiance to their side of the divide.

我们怎么解放我们的 国会议员并达成政治双赢？

我们要改变规则。

So what do we do about it?

但是具体是哪一个？ 它并不是我们所想。

How do we free our Congress and make politics win-win?

它并不是重划选举区， 不是选举人团，

We change the rules.

不是条款限制的缺失， 甚至不是政治中的金钱交易。

But which ones? It's not what we think.

It's not gerrymandering, not the Electoral College,

以竞争的视角观察这个体制，

not the absence of term limits and not even money in politics, really.

政治行业理论决定了两个统治者

By looking at the system through a competition lens,

他们既是我们最大 的阻碍也是我们最大的机会。

politics industry theory identifies the two rules

他们一直隐藏在众人视野外。

that are both our greatest obstacles and our greatest opportunities.

我们从一号恶性规则开始：

党内初选。

你们都知道党内初选，

They've been hiding in plain sight.

那些被我们经常忽视的第一轮选举，

Let's start with bad rule number one:

那些决定着唯一的 共和党人和唯一的民主党人

party primaries.

You all know primaries,

those first round elections that we mostly ignore,

谁能够出现在九月份选票名单上。

the ones that identify the single Republican

党内初选已经成为低出席率竞选

and the single Democrat who can appear on the November general election ballot.

而为高度分化的选民 和特殊利益所左右

Party primaries have become low turnout elections

候选人们知道出现 在九月份选票名单上的唯一机会

dominated by highly ideological voters and special interests.

是在初选中赢得 这些较极端党羽的青睐。

Candidates know that the only way to make it

因此来自两党的 候选人们没有太多选择，

to the general election ballot in November

is to win the favor of these more extreme partisans in the primary.

只能屈从于那些极端者们。

这为何重要？

So candidates from both parties have little choice

因为它很大程度上影响了执政， 而且是不良的方式。

but to move towards those extremes.

想象一下你作为国会的一员，

Why does this matter?

Because it dramatically affects governing, and not in a good way.

你正在决定如何关于 一两党议案进行投票

来设法解决一个重大 的全国性考验。

Imagine you're a member of Congress.

你可能会问你自己， 这是一个好主意吗？

You're deciding how to vote on a bipartisan bill

这是我大部分选民所想要的吗？

that addresses a critical national challenge.

You might ask yourself, is this a good idea?

但是在政治行业并不是这样做的。

Is this what the majority of my constituents want?

取而代之的，对你而言 最重要的问题是，

But that's not how it works in the politics industry.

如果我为这个议案投票， 我是否能赢得下次党内初选？

Instead, the question that matters most to you is,

而回答总是否定的。

will I win my next party primary if I vote for this bill?

一致的解决方案不会赢得党内初选。

The answer is almost always no.

让我们用一张维恩图 解释这一关键的设计缺陷。

Consensus solutions don't win party primaries.

在目前体制里，很明显 可以看出这没有交集或者关联

Let's illustrate this key design flaw with a Venn diagram.

国会议员为公众利益效力 和他们连任的可能性无关。

In the current system, there's virtually no intersection,

如果美国州议员如我们所希冀地工作

no connection between Congress acting in the public interest

and the likelihood of their getting reelected.

他们很有可能失去这些工作

If America's elected representatives do their jobs the way we need them to,

这听上去十分疯狂。

难怪国会议员什么都不做。

they're likely to lose those jobs.

好吧，现在我来谈谈二号恶性规则：

That is crazy.

多数票制，

No wonder Congress doesn't get anything done.

我很快将解释这个问题。

在任何其他像政治一样 庞大而繁荣的行业

OK, now let's talk about bad rule number two:

且有如此多不满意 的顾客而只有两个公司，

plurality voting,

which I'll explain in just a moment.

In any other industry as big and as thriving as politics

一些企业家可能看到了巨大的商机

with this much customer dissatisfaction and only two companies,

并创造出一个新的竞争者。

some entrepreneur would see a phenomenal business opportunity

但是这不会在政治里出现。

我们现在的政党并没有感到竞争压力

and create a new competitor.

But that doesn't happen in politics.

来服务于公众利益，

很大部分上是因为一条规则

Our current parties don't feel competitive pressure

它将几乎所有的竞争者排除在外：

to serve the public interest,

in large part because of one rule

多数票制。

这听上去很复杂的，但它仅仅 意味着拥有最多选票的候选人胜选。

that keeps out almost all new competition:

plurality voting.

这似乎也符合逻辑， 但它是一个十分糟糕的主意。

It sounds fancy, but it simply means the candidate with the most votes wins.

为什么？

因为在美国你可以赢得 几乎所有的选举，

That also seems logical, but it's a really bad idea.

甚至当大多数人给你投票。

Why?

Because in the United States you can win almost any election,

比如说，在这个三方竞赛中，

赢家仅有百分之三十四的选票。

even if a majority didn't vote for you.

百分之六十六的选民， 大多数人，渴望另外的人选。

For example, in this three-way race,

the winner only has 34 percent of the votes.

而在多数票制下，

Sixty-six percent of the voters, most people, wanted someone else.

我们可能无法自由地 为我们真正想要的选举人投票

因为我们害怕将浪费我们的选票，

With plurality voting,

或者更糟，将败坏选举。

we may not feel free to vote for the candidate we really want

所以如果你回想2016年总统大选，

because we're afraid that we'll just waste our vote,

那些倾向于自由党 候选人加里·约翰逊的右翼选民，

or worse, will spoil the election.

So if you think back to the 2016 presidential race,

共和党人告诉他们， “不要为他投票！他就是个搅局者。

voters on the right who liked Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson,

他将从川普那拿走 选票来帮助选举希拉里。“

were told by the Republicans, "Don't vote for him! He's just a spoiler.

而那些倾向于绿党 候选人吉尔·施泰因的左翼选民，

民主党人告诉他们， “不要为她投票。她就是个搅局者。

He'll take votes away from Trump and help elect Hillary."

And voters on the left who liked Green Party candidate Jill Stein

她将从希拉里那拿走 选票来帮助选举川普。“

were told by the Democrats, "Don't vote for her. She's just a spoiler.

这个来源于多数票制的搅局者问题是

She'll take votes away from Hillary and help elect Trump."

是唯一且是最大原因针对

没有两党之外的新人 曾争取并得到助力的原因

The spoiler problem that comes from plurality voting

因为所有人知道 他们不会有任何机会。

is the single biggest reason almost nobody new outside the duopoly

政治是唯一的行业， 在这里我们被告知

ever runs or gets any traction

because everyone knows they don't stand a chance.

更少的竞争是更好的。

而如果那里没有任何新的竞争，

Politics is the only industry where we're regularly told

现存的党派不会因为 结果而对我们负责

that less competition is better.

And if there's never any new competition,

因为他们不需要 我们去喜欢他们现在所为。

the existing parties aren't accountable to us for results

他们只需要我们两害取其轻， 去选出他们中的一个

because they don't need us to like what they're doing.

或者就坐在家里。

They only need us to choose one of them as the lesser of two evils

国父们预见了 我们的现状并警告我们。

or to just stay home.

约翰亚当所说， “没有什么令我如此担心的，

The founders foresaw our situation and they warned us.

就是共和国被分裂成两个大党派，

As when John Adams said, "There is nothing which I dread so much

每一个都在它领袖下独立运作，

并采取相互对立的政策。“

as a division of the republic into two great parties,

现在，没有什么比政党 存在更多固有性问题

each arranged under its leader

and concerting measures in opposition to each other."

或者甚至仅仅只有两个多数党。

这个问题是目前这 两个政党会一直保持不变，

Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with parties

or even having only two major parties.

无论他们是对国家有益或者无益。

The problem is the current two are guaranteed to remain the only two,

这听上去我们最多至此了吗？

regardless of what they do or don't get done on behalf of the country.

当然不是。

而国父们

Does this sound like the best we can do?

他们给了我们这个，我们的宪法。

Of course not.

这是它被称为口袋宪法 的原因：它十分简短。

So the founders gave us what they knew we'd need.

They gave us this, our Constitution.

猜猜看它不包含什么---

关于如何进行选举的指导。

There's a reason it's called the pocket Constitution: it's short.

像党内初选和多数票制这样的 荒唐规则，它们是后来被补充的。

Guess what's not in here --

但是多亏了这个， 宪法第一条，它们是可选的。

instructions on how to run our elections.

Crazy rules like party primaries and plurality voting, they're made up.

宪法第一条给予所有州这样的权力，

But thanks to what is in here, Article I, they're optional.

在任何时间改变国会议员选举的规则。

个人而言，我认为现在 似乎是最完美的时机。

Article I gives every state the power

to change the rules of election for Congress at any time.

因此我们将为超党派 政治行业理论付诸行动。

Personally, I think it now sounds like the perfect time.

我们所需要的政治改革 是我称之为“终五“的投票制。

And here's where we turn nonpartisan politics industry theory into action.

在终五投票制之下，

我们对国会议员 的选举做出两个简单改变。

The political innovation we need is what I call final-five voting.

我们摆脱那些没有用的，

With final-five voting,

像党内初选和多数票制，

we make two simple changes to our elections for Congress.

并取而代之以有用的：

开放性的前五初选制

We get rid of what doesn't work,

party primaries and plurality voting,

以及在大选中的排序复选制。

让我用终五投票制 的例子解释这些改变，

and replace it with what will work:

open top-five primaries

以一个理论的而且 有点酷的选举为例。

and instant runoffs in the general election.

Let me explain these changes with an example of final-five voting

所以在这里我们有 八个来自不同政党的候选人：

in a hypothetical and kind of cool election.

亚历山大·汉密尔顿、 乔治·华盛顿、阿比盖尔·亚当斯，

So here we have eight candidates from four different political parties:

一直到亚伦·伯尔， 都是雄心壮志者。

Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Abigail Adams,

瞬间你会注意到这是如此的多样化。

这是一个极具吸引力的初选， 人人都想参与投票。

all the way through to Aaron Burr, ambitious as ever.

它有经验和视界，

Immediately you notice how diverse this field is.

但是它同样也年轻且踌躇满志。

It's a primary people would want to vote in because it's exciting.

好吧，可能不是那么年轻

It has experience and vision,

而且因为它是一个开放性初选，

but it's also young, scrappy and hungry.

所有的八个候选人在同一张选票上，

OK, maybe not so young.

不论政党。

当结果出来后，

And because this is an open primary,

前五名优胜者进入九月份大选，

all eight candidates are on the same ballot,

regardless of party.

再次，不论政党。

When the results are in,

在大选中，

the top five finishers move on to the November election,

选民们挑选出他们最喜欢的， 就像往常一样。

但是，如果他们愿意，

again, regardless of party.

他们同样可以排出 他们第二，第三，

In the general election,

voters pick their favorite, just like always.

第四和最末选择。

But then, if they would like,

你可能听过这个 ”排名选择票制“想法。

they can also rank their second, third,

这是事情变得有意思之处。

fourth and last choices.

如果这个选举如 往常一样是多数票制，

You may have heard of this idea as ranked-choice voting.

亚伦·伯尔会赢 因为他有最多的首选票。

Here's where things get interesting.

百分之三十。

If this election were a plurality vote like normal,

但是因为这是终五投票制，

赢者将是拥有大众 选民支持的候选人，

Aaron Burr would win because he has the most first-place votes.

Thirty percent.

而不是小众选民。

But because this is final-five voting,

所以我们采用排序复选制。

the winner will be the candidate who's most popular with the majority,

我们排除最末一位的候选人

not just with a narrow slice of voters.

和以他为首选的选民，

So we use instant runoffs.

相反只计算这些选民的次选。

We drop the candidate who came in last

这个过程一直持续 直到出现多数票候选人。

and those who had marked that candidate as their first choice

get their second choice counted instead.

这就像是多轮的选举。

但不同于需要折回 参加另一场选举，

The process continues until a candidate emerges with a majority.

选民只需要一次性投出所有选票。

It's just like a series of runoffs.

而当所有结果出来以后，

But instead of having to keep coming back for another election,

亚历山大赢得了 百分之六十八的选票。

voters simply cast all their votes at once.

终五选票制代表着

And after those results are in,

前五初选制和

Alexander Hamilton wins with 68 percent of the vote.

排序复选制的结合

Final-five voting is the name

我们必须同时改变这两个规则

for this combination of top-five primaries

因为它们作为一个结合

and instant runoff general elections.

将转变政治动机。

We must change both rules at the same time

终五选票制的最终目 的并不是改变赢家，

because it's how they work in combination

that transforms the incentives in politics.

而是改变赢家所受到的激励。

The ultimate purpose of final-five voting is not necessarily to change who wins,

在这种体制下， 传递给国会议员的信息是

it's to change what the winners are incentivized to do.

“做好这份工作或者失去这份工作，”

改革，包容一切有益的方面，

Under this system, the message to Congress is

提出对我们问题的真正解决方案

“do your job or lose your job,”

并为进步创造新的机会

innovate, reach across the aisle whenever it's helpful,

或者确保全新且良性的竞争

and come up with real solutions to our problems

在下一次的竞选中。

and create new opportunities for progress

终五票制给予选民更多的选择，

or be guaranteed new and healthy competition

更多的发声， 最重要的，更好的结果。

in the next election.

Final-five voting gives voters more choice,

我倾向于称之为自由市场政治

more voice and most importantly, better results.

因为它提供了在良性竞争中 所能产生的最大效益

在任何行业中：

I like to call it free-market politics

改革，结果，责任。

because it will deliver the best of what healthy competition delivers

现在，在你认为我正在做出 一个天真的过度承诺前，

in any industry:

innovation, results and accountability.

一个关于有点疯狂 并不实际的乌托邦承诺，

我想澄清并不是这样的。

Now, before you think that I'm just making a naive overpromise

我赞同温斯顿丘吉尔

of some crazy, unattainable utopia,

当他说，

“民主是这个世上 最糟糕的政府形式，

I want to clarify that I'm not.

I agree with Winston Churchill

尤其是将它与其他相比之时。“

when he said,

"Democracy is the worst form of government out there,

民主是棘手且困难的，

而我们现在得到的

except when compared to all the others."

是棘手，艰难以及坏结果，

Democracy is messy and hard,

十分坏的结果。

and what we have now

终五票制下，我们得到的将是 棘手，艰难以及好结果。

is messy, hard and bad results,

really bad results.

With final-five voting we'll have messy, hard and good results to show for it.

而可能所有中最令人惊讶的部分是，

终五票制是强有力且实际的

And perhaps the most amazing part of all of this,

现在我们有证据。

在2017年，

final-five voting is powerful and achievable.

我发布了有关政治 行业理论的早起工作

通过哈弗商学院和我的 合著者米歇尔·波特一同发布。

We now have proof.

In 2017,

这份报告一直传到阿拉斯加， 斯科特·肯德尔读到了它，

I published my early work on politics industry theory

through Harvard Business School with my coauthor Michael Porter.

之后他采取了行动。

The report made its way to Alaska where Scott Kendall read it,

斯科特利用这个研究 设计出一个选票新方案，

包括这些新规则。

and then he took action.

就在上个月，2020年九月，

Scott used the work to design a ballot initiative,

阿拉斯加的选民们 通过了这个新方案，

including these new rules.

而阿拉斯加成为国内第一个州

Just last month, November 2020,

在国会议员选举中选择良性竞争。

Alaska voters passed this initiative,

他们不会是最后一个。

and Alaska became the first state in the nation

这是十分毁灭性的去真正面对

to choose healthy competition in elections for Congress.

我们对政治的难存期待。

They won't be the last.

我们认为这是正常的。

It's devastating to really face

我们抱怨它， 但是我们几乎放弃相信

how little we've come to expect from our politics.

We think this is normal.

它能够变得不同。

We complain about it, but we've almost given up believing

但这不是运营这山丘上 闪耀城市的方法，

这个城市就叫美国。

that it could ever be different.

我们能选择不同。

我们的宪法给予了 我们那样的权力

But this is no way to run the shining city on a hill

而且，我相信，一同与责任

that is America.

We can choose different.

在需要时去重铸我们政治

Our Constitution gives us that power

而我们现在正需要去做。

and, I believe, the responsibility

怀着最大的紧迫感， 毫不疲倦地，

to remake our politics when we need to --

我们必须积极地重申这巨大的承诺

and we need to.

关于伟大美国实践，

With the greatest urgency and without fatigue,

关于我们美国的政治，

we must aggressively reclaim the enormous promise

我们的政治。

of the great American experiment,

不是红党，不是蓝党，而是我们。

of our American politics,

谢谢。

our politics.

Not red politics. Not blue politics, ours.

Thank you.