Party politics

[Fletchette]

I find it peculiar and disturbing that political parties have established themselves legally when our Founders never mentioned such an organization. Certainly, it is natural that people of the same opinion will gravitate towards one another, but it is different when this group gains a legal identity - the party.

For example, there are now many rules in Congress as to which party holds what seat, many rules in different states as to how many signatures you need to become a 'valid' canidate, districts are gerrymandered into ridiculous shapes in order to preserve the dominance of a particular party.

What if we simply stopped recognizing parties as a legitimate institution? For example, rather than having a little 'R' or "D" next to a candidate's name on the ballot, we simply had the candidate's name? This would force people to vote for *someone* and not a party. The result is that younger politicians would have to make a name for themselves with the people they supposedly represent as opposed to kissing up to party elders to be "chosen" in their party's primary.

It would also make it much more easy for a candidate that would otherwise be forced to run in a third party. This candidate would no longer be considered "a wasted vote" because of their membership in a third party. They would simply appear on the ballot - "Joe Blow".

In short, I think the advent of parties has really hurt our Republic and allowed it to become a system where the government is chosen not by popular choice, but by "the lesser of two evils"

 

[OrvilleYertleson]

This is a debate as old as our government. Congress started to divide into parties almost immediately if memory serves me correctly, and it was fiercely argued even back then.

At the same time a monocameral system is probably not the best solution either, just as much of our technological revolution was spurred by competition with the soviets, politicians need something definate to compete against, rather than just a bunch of individuals all working out of concert with each other.

Just look at all the nonsense that has happenned over the last several years when everything is republican dominated....there isn't any powerfull ddissenting voice.

I'm not saying I don't enjoy the thought of a government that can't really get anything done, but in practice one/no party systems don't work very well. You end up wth a lot of people all trying to fit into the *exact* same mold for success, instead of at least dividing into two slightly different sides.


I think short of appointing an official party a bicameral system is here to stay. More than two quasi-equal parties, like planetary orbits, will decay and a no-party system will quickly break down into parties...regardless of what you call them. Politicians will naturally stick together to increase thier strength and influence.

 

[geekWithA.45]

I find it peculiar and disturbing that political parties have established themselves legally

The legal authority to form parties is found here:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Fletchette]

Geekwitha45:

I do not contest your view that people have the right to peaceably assemble, but that is different from making a legal entity, such as a corporation. The political parties have this legal entity status - they can raise and hold money, have bank accounts, etc. This is a step above from simply having people peaceably assemble.

For example, a corporation may have its license revoked and be dissolved by the state if it has done something illegal. A corporate license is not a right.

 

[geekWithA.45]

To Assemble means more than to simply mill around in a group.

Assembly is not a trivial right by any means.

To Assemble means to come together, for the purpose of achieving something significant.

As in, The People Assembled did create the Constitution.

Assembly is the basis of _any_ collective action, be it for purposes social, religious, political or economic.


You correctly point out that corporations are ficticious persons, and ultimately, parties are _exactly_ that, no more, and no less, theoretically subject to dissolution for violation of laws.

By that same token, so are unions, and other organized, collective bargaining units, churches, and so on and so forth.

 

[Phetro]

Just look at all the nonsense that has happenned over the last several years when everything is republican dominated....there isn't any powerfull ddissenting voice.

CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News to some extent, a thousand front organizations, a thousand "educators," millions of union members, and over fifty idiots from the federal government doesn't constitute a "powerful dissenting voice?" For that matter, since when has anything been dominated by Republicans? All I see doing the dominating are RINOs. The Republicans are long gone.

 

[Fletchette]

Assembly is the basis of _any_ collective action, be it for purposes social, religious, political or economic.


You correctly point out that corporations are ficticious persons, and ultimately, parties are _exactly_ that, no more, and no less, theoretically subject to dissolution for violation of laws.

By that same token, so are unions, and other organized, collective bargaining units, churches, and so on and so forth.

Alright. But why should parties be placed on the ballot? If "Joe Blow (R)" is on the ballot, why not "Joe Blow (Jew)"? All I am saying is that the political parties should get no official recognition from the government, at least not any more than any other entity.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Fletchette,

Looking at it that sideways, I pretty much _do_ see your point.

It just seems to me that it's inevitable that folks would band together in more or less like minded clumps to try to get stuff done.

I think the real problem comes in two ways:

1) People "game" the system, (sorta like IPSC race guns ) and
2) The structure and process of the party itself becomes the primary object of allegiance, more concerned with its own perpetuation rather than achieving the goals for which people joined it in the first place.


And I just don't see how you can legislate those sorts of moral/ethic/integrity issues, without getting into perverse monstrosities like McCain-Fiengold's 1A shred.

Personally, I'd rather see more fluid structures, sort of like the high speed low drag biz kieretzus that come together, achieve a goal, disolve and recombine in a different config for the next task.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Also, Geek, the mere fact that political parties are legal under the "assembly" clause of the Constitution does not mean that they should have been so entrenched into the rules and workings of Congress.

For example, I do not think the Constitution says that the chairperson of a Congressional committee has to be a member of the majority party, yet that is the way Congress does things.

Political parties mainly serve to keep incumbents in office.

 

[geekWithA.45]

For example, I do not think the Constitution says that the chairperson of a Congressional committee has to be a member of the majority party, yet that is the way Congress does things.

That sort of thing is a direct consequence of two factors:


1) The constitution delegates congressional rule making to congress itself,
2) The largest voting bloc (aka the majority party) will prevail in that rule making process.

I once read the senate and house rule book, had to stop before my head exploded.

I came away with the impression that the rules and parliamentiary procedures are the well worn result of centuries of compromise, give and take, and so forth, which leave the minority party with enough tools to at least have their say, and therefore a fighting chance at having their way. While they're imperfect, few people are eager to muck with them, partly because they're so well understood (see my "gaming" comment above), and partly out of suspicion that anyone who's trying to change them significantly is trying to pull a fast one. The final reason nobody's eager to mess with them is the implicit understanding that no majority lasts forever, and the tables will eventually turn.

 

[silliman89]

What if we simply stopped recognizing parties as a legitimate institution? For example, rather than having a little 'R' or "D" next to a candidate's name on the ballot, we simply had the candidate's name? This would force people to vote for *someone* and not a party.

Alright. But why should parties be placed on the ballot? If "Joe Blow (R)" is on the ballot, why not "Joe Blow (Jew)"? All I am saying is that the political parties should get no official recognition from the government, at least not any more than any other entity.

The state of Virginia does not designate party affiliation on it's ballots. (At least they don't in my county and I assume it's state wide.) The idea seems to be just as you outline, that without the "R" and "D" to guide your vote, you will be forced to actually learn about the candidates and what their positions are.

It doesn't work. People are too lazy, and politicians don't like to make their positions known, or even have positions on issues.

There are volunteers outside the voting locations (schools where I vote) who hand out sample ballots, telling you who to vote for. You can get a sample from both the "R" volunteers and the "D" volunteers. In fact you invariably get both since they both insist on forcing their handouts on you (much like the porn peddlers on the Las Vegas Strip, if you've ever been).

 

[ProficientRifleman]

Parties?

This is my opinion. I know what opinions are like....

Today in the United States we have two branches of the Socialist party.

One branch is the "Leninists" (though the do not call themselves that) who believe we should dive headlong into full socialism today (if we can), tomorrow if we must. These people will lie to you, if they must, to get you to go along with their policies, though they know full well their policies are destructive. They will speak truthfully to people like themelves when they are reasonably sure only friendlies are listening.

The other branch is the "Fabians" (though they do not call themselves that) who believe we should creep into socialism a bit at a time by compromising perneianlly with the Leninists. These people will cave in to the Leninists each and every time due to an endless supply of guilt and shame. They will compromise on principle and tell you it was the best they could do (after all, politics is the art of compromise).

 

[ReadyontheRight]

We should all peaceably assemble to get rid of the "hard money" and "soft money" distinctions and eliminate Campaign Finance Reform.

What if we just were allowed to donate as much as we want to any candidate? And NOT sift it through the party or quasi-political organizations?

Just donate as much money as we want directly to the campaign of the candidate we like. Immediately post the donation on the Internet so we can cast our vote accordingly.

It's a big fight.

While most of us are out there struggling to make money, a host of organizations are funded by the taxes on the fruits of our labor merely because the government has created "regulations" that are supposedly protecting our interest.

Every regulation creates a new channel for our tax and political donation dollar - supporting a new bunch of political organization which require a CEO, a website, a PR staff, an accounting staff, etc., etc., etc.....

Government employees, The Courts, The Republican Party, The Democrat Party, The NRA, MoveOn.org and a host of other organizations make a TON OF MONEY because of the simple fact that individuals and corporations are not allowed to donate money directly to political candidates.

"Non-Profit" does not mean that the CEO and officers of the organization do not make boatloads of money.

Each new law to "reform" campaign finance creates a new set of compliant organizations lining up at a new feed through.

The assumptions around the current campaign laws are flawed. The Internet allows reporting of such donations in a manner that was not possible in the past. All donations could be immediately available as public documents posted on the Internet.

Such a system would have, for example, immediately alerted the Senatorial opponents of Al Gore, Sr. to the large donations by Armond Hammer to immediately use in the campaign instead of learning about the relationship years later.

We need to eliminate all laws that create indirect campaign contributions and open up the channel for well-documented and quickly-reported direct campaign contributions to the candidates, so we are not funneled to the parties and the political organizations.

 

[JesseJames]

One elemental reason: there is power in numbers.

I don't see it ever changing. Unless we radically change how people are put into political office.