I read a post from Hayabusa Rider on political choice that got me wondering:

[Moonbeam]

I think political change will have to come through the internet and be done by young people via their social networks cooperating together to create a force that stays on message and isn't diverted from, say the constitutional amendments suggested above.

The young will have to clean house from the yard. The only thing that digs our entrenched interest is some sort of massive unity. Older morons are trying via the tea party, but they are a bunch of irrational and enraged fools, it seems to me.

 

[IronWing]

Remember that even if we had a hundred prospective candidates from both parties, the fact remains that they must pass a party litmus test. It's not written anywhere, but party loyalty is paramount, especially at the national level. It isn't just the person but the platform which is decidedly Democratic or Republican. Other ideas have no place outside the predefined borders of their thoughts.

Conform or be cast out.

To me, a demand for conformity within a party is fine. It's their party; how parties do things internally is not my problem. My problem with the major parties is that they use the institutions of government to further themselves. They set up a system where government officials oversee internal party elections at taxpayer expense. The parties use this system to legitimize and aggrandize themselves in the eyes of the voters. The primary system has voters select a "party affiliation" building brand loyalty. Then the two major parties use their clout to raise the bar to keep other parties out the government run primary system, making sure other parties are kept in a marginal existence.

The major parties also use their clout to draw electoral maps to suit their needs, mostly in their endless battle between themselves. The result is to suppress minority political views and enlarge majority political clout, giving the majority party more power than its election results would warrant under an "un-biased" electoral map. I don't have a clue how to fix this problem as any system for drawing boundaries will be biased.

A third practice I've encountered at the local level is the use of "at-large" representatives on local city and county boards. In an otherwise ward system, there will be extra seats contested on a city or county wide basis. The effect is very predictable, the magnification of majority clout at the expense of the political minority.

 

[StageLeft]

Yes I agree with him. If you can't beat em', join 'em. Politicians really interested in fighting the status quo have to contend/fight existing campaign coffers and relationships with lobbyists.

The remedy is probably some truly remarkable and seismic event that all but forces a pivotal shift in what the country demands from its people. E.g. nuclear war, cataclysmic bio attack. Otherwise things naturally will change over time but only slowly. The US government is not likely to change much in the near future.

 

[Atreus21]

Has anyone ever stopped to ask why exactly there are two, and only two, major political parties in the US?

 

[BrownTown]

The US public is too stupid to vote in their own best interests, were there an IQ test and a minimum IQ required to cast a vote, I suspect the outcome and system would have evolved quite differently...

There used to be such requirements. For example people who owned property were seen as people who had an investment in the community, so you had to own property to vote. Then they had literacy tests because maybe if you can't read and write you don't really understand politics either. Both these are taught today as if they are horrifically unfair policies. Personally, I think you should have to pay taxes to vote. That we we don't have the current 40% of eligible voters who don't pay a single cent into the system and therefore have no real desire to vote for anything except for more money from the government. Of course i also think people living off government money shouldn't be allowed to have kids, some apparently i'm a Nazi by current standards.

 

[Craig234]

Has anyone ever stopped to ask why exactly there are two, and only two, major political parties in the US?

It's a NATURAL result of out winner take all political system, incenting concentrating into two pareties, where any further division gives a big edge to those who concentrate, reinforced by those to making the rules.

It started durimg the term of Washington, when the factions of Adams and Jefferson formed, and you could back one of them or be a 'third party' to the side.

Issues tend to have two main sides - wealthy versus everyone else, trial lawyers versus those sued, employers versus labor, yes and no on whatever issue, that increas the two party system.

Issues can either get into the platform of one of the two main parties, or can be 'third parties' who don't get a lot of votes (Greens, Libertarians, etc.)

The two parties can shift their positions - you can't find the 1950's Republican top tax rate of 90% in today's party, the Democrats went from little concern to strong concern on civil rights, etc.

If you want more than two parties, the system of state elections, at least, has to change. I've suggested ranked voting as a way to increase votes for other parties.

 

[Craig234]

There used to be such requirements. For example people who owned property were seen as people who had an investment in the community, so you had to own property to vote. Then they had literacy tests because maybe if you can't read and write you don't really understand politics either. Both these are taught today as if they are horrifically unfair policies. Personally, I think you should have to pay taxes to vote. That we we don't have the current 40% of eligible voters who don't pay a single cent into the system and therefore have no real desire to vote for anything except for more money from the government. Of course i also think people living off government money shouldn't be allowed to have kids, some apparently i'm a Nazi by current standards.

You are a victim of ideology. You don't understand how the result of your policy is simply the increase of the exploitation of those denied the vote by those who have it - the increase of poverty and dependance.

People's need to eat isn't going anywhere no matter how many rights you deny them - you simply reinvent slavery bit by bit. You create a permanent class of exploited cheap labor, disposable people.

By the same measure you create such a class of cheap labor you undermine the income of the other workers, further increasing poverty.

You have no clue about the basic issues in a society - the need for the government to swe the rules that increase opportunity and productivity, not further the dehumanization and powerlessness of a group.

Take away all income and taxes from a man, make him a slave - and he's contibuting even more to society, providing his labor for cheap cost, basic food and a shanty, but deserves no political rights you say.

That's the trend of your policy - to discount the value of cheap labor by the poor precisely because they make so little taxing them makes little sense, you deny them any rights to the political system.

You are arguing for a system lacking opportunity for many people in the country and you don't realize that you are. You have a simplistic notion based in ideology the poor are 'leeches'.

Too bad you can't be helped that I know of, and are committed to such bad policies.

 

[Craig234]

Sounds like we're fucked.

It's relative. Are they using a condom? Lube? Buying us dinner first? We're not seeing Hitler or a dictator who sends his centurians throughout out cities slaughtering. There are big problems, but limits to them.

Things can get worse or not get as much worse, if that's any comfort, depending in part if people vote earlier than later the right ways.

One funny thing is, in even some of the worst societies, many people not only didn't think it was so terrible, they often even preferred the system.

I heard a story last week that one of the Iraqi election officials told a reporter 99% of the people in the organization would vote for Saddam right now.

You know, continuing with your metaphor, animals are raped all the time, but we don't worry about it much.

Things could get worse here and many would still say they're fine. People are funny.

Not many were saying we needed the government to cut elder poverty from 90% to 10% before FDR did it. Were the elderly screwed? They weren't saying that much. Would they be if 90% poverty returned?

If we lost our democracy altogether - very unlikely, more likely is for it to have mor and more limits on what it can do as the power of the people weakens - societies through human history have gotten by without it.

Were things so horrible under the 'tyranny' of King George III? Funny, many Americans supported stayinjg under England and even fought to do so. George Washington was against secession in 1775, until the war was guaranteed. And yet, our whole country's founding assumes things were that bad under England. It's all relative on your question.

What if we had our military slashed by 90%, our nukes eliminated while others still had theirs, weaker than other nations? Then we'd be like most nations in the world, and still 'stronger' than most.

Yet we don't care much about their getting out of that 'sad' situation. It's ok for them, not for us.

In 1900, the average income adujusted for inflation was $10,000 wile there were almost no worked protections. Were they 'screwed' - or in the greatest nation on earth under liberty?

IMO the Republicans will make things worse for most - Americans and non-Americans. Progressives are hard put to make them better but will do that or make them less worse. But 'screwed' is relative.

I do think we can be on the verge of an even more broken democracy with this court ruling giving corporations even more power relative to the people to a degree never seen in the country.

While corporations had a pretty good run in the late 19th century when they first got their 'corporations are people with rights under the constitution' passed then, they lacked the concentration of wealth now.

When English women faced what you mention, they were told 'lie back and think of England'. It's not all that different, I guess. But it's a better idea for them to get involved and informed politically.

 

[Moonbeam]

Has anyone ever stopped to ask why exactly there are two, and only two, major political parties in the US?

I thunk it's because PR is crazy, but I have a hunch you might be dying to tell me, so, why do we only have two parties?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I thunk it's because PR is crazy, but I have a hunch you might be dying to tell me, so, why do we only have two parties?

My opinion is that it's akin to thermodynamics. The way we have defined Democracy demands more than one party, and more than two introduces a complexity which doesn't survive because people want to win. Investing in a third option dilutes their chances from 1 in 2 to 1 in 3.

When I was a child I heard adults talking about politics. I assumed that those who created the Constitution meant that there should be two parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. After all, it's "always" been that way and no one acted like it should be otherwise.

That leads me to believe that the overwhelming majority of the electorate has been conditioned to not question how things are any more than one would question why the the sky isn't green.

What I propose as a solution would require a change in the Constitution. Any election would have a predefined maximum amount of money adjusted for inflation. To get on the ballot a minimum amount of signatures would be required to get funding from that "pot". That money could come from any source whatsoever, however the caveat is this. No party could get an overwhelming amount of funding compared to any other. Of course the total amounts and ratios would be subject for debate, however for sake of argument let's say that no party regardless of the amount of signatures could exceed the lowest qualifying by a third. That way new ideas couldn't be crushed, however people would have some say before the election in who they prefer.

Whole idea would be to allow the two players to participate, but they would no longer be able to silence all other voices. Not only that, but the idea that the two party system is written in stone might change.

The flaw? This would require the cooperation of the government to enact, and who control that? Not the people, but the Democratic and Republican parties.

As you say M, we're fucked. No other choices are possible, because at the start, the Constitution allowed a dictatorship by party with the illusion of freedom of choice. It's like saying anyone can be a billionaire, but when that statement is examined, it will be found to be flawed. Like anyone can win the Megamillion lottery, the statement is literally true, but in practice if you wait for it to happen to you, you are going to wait forever.

Same with real choice in a D and R world.

 

[JTsyo]

The two party system is kind of a given. If an issue came up that split a party, it would ensure the victory of the other party. If a new party popped up that has similar agenda to one of the parties, it would draw voters from them and give victory to the other party. The only way I can see a third party coming into play is if there's an issue that splits both parties.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Hayabusa is correct. I can think of a couple of things to help with the situation.

1. Just have the candidate's name on the ballot for the office he / she is running for, do not list their political party / affiliation.

2. Remove party-based primaries and just have runoff votes. If the candidate makes it to the ballot via petition, then let the top two guys have a runoff election if no one achieves a majority of the vote. They might even be from the same party or none at all.

 

[Moonbeam]

There are many many solutions that would improve our undemocratic system. The questions, I think are, is more democracy good, and if so how do you achieve it. The important point, to me at any rate, is how do you change what doesn't want to be changed.

I am of the opinion that we have the exact system we want or else it would change automatically.

I think we stay in this pot of shit because we feel like pigs, not consciously, of course, because consciously we are all near perfect, but unconsciously where our real motivations really express. The man goes into 12 step, but the monster wants to drink.

 

[Pocatello]

Wow, people have plenty of time to write essays after essays, saying the same shit. Do you really think you can convince people of your ideas how America should be run by sitting behind a computer? How about going out to the real world and do something about it? At least the tea party people are out there fighting for what they believe it.

 

[Carmen813]

My opinion is that it's akin to thermodynamics. The way we have defined Democracy demands more than one party, and more than two introduces a complexity which doesn't survive because people want to win. Investing in a third option dilutes their chances from 1 in 2 to 1 in 3.

When I was a child I heard adults talking about politics. I assumed that those who created the Constitution meant that there should be two parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. After all, it's "always" been that way and no one acted like it should be otherwise.

That leads me to believe that the overwhelming majority of the electorate has been conditioned to not question how things are any more than one would question why the the sky isn't green.

What I propose as a solution would require a change in the Constitution. Any election would have a predefined maximum amount of money adjusted for inflation. To get on the ballot a minimum amount of signatures would be required to get funding from that "pot". That money could come from any source whatsoever, however the caveat is this. No party could get an overwhelming amount of funding compared to any other. Of course the total amounts and ratios would be subject for debate, however for sake of argument let's say that no party regardless of the amount of signatures could exceed the lowest qualifying by a third. That way new ideas couldn't be crushed, however people would have some say before the election in who they prefer.

Whole idea would be to allow the two players to participate, but they would no longer be able to silence all other voices. Not only that, but the idea that the two party system is written in stone might change.

The flaw? This would require the cooperation of the government to enact, and who control that? Not the people, but the Democratic and Republican parties.

As you say M, we're fucked. No other choices are possible, because at the start, the Constitution allowed a dictatorship by party with the illusion of freedom of choice. It's like saying anyone can be a billionaire, but when that statement is examined, it will be found to be flawed. Like anyone can win the Megamillion lottery, the statement is literally true, but in practice if you wait for it to happen to you, you are going to wait forever.

Same with real choice in a D and R world.

I'm starting to honestly think that a parliamentarian system similar to what many European countries have might be better. I.e., in the general elections everyone votes for a party...then the parties hold primary-esque elections to determine who actually fills the seat. Then again, this option has it's own problems.

 

[Jaskalas]

The political parties insure voter apathy.

We agree.....

Solutions? My... how does one overcome divide and conquer? I do not know, other than for the obvious need of a winning third party. Throw the two incumbent parties out onto the street.

We need to unite under a common goal that crosses partisan lines.

 

[Moonbeam]

Wow, people have plenty of time to write essays after essays, saying the same shit. Do you really think you can convince people of your ideas how America should be run by sitting behind a computer? How about going out to the real world and do something about it? At least the tea party people are out there fighting for what they believe it.

At least is right. My feeling is that you are exactly wrong, that before anybody does anything they need to see what they are up against. Hitting your head on a wall isn't doing anything that matters. And I'm sitting behind a computer and I made you post. Now you can think about how useless your approach would be and reconsider, eh?

 

[werepossum]

My opinion is that it's akin to thermodynamics. The way we have defined Democracy demands more than one party, and more than two introduces a complexity which doesn't survive because people want to win. Investing in a third option dilutes their chances from 1 in 2 to 1 in 3.

When I was a child I heard adults talking about politics. I assumed that those who created the Constitution meant that there should be two parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. After all, it's "always" been that way and no one acted like it should be otherwise.

That leads me to believe that the overwhelming majority of the electorate has been conditioned to not question how things are any more than one would question why the the sky isn't green.

What I propose as a solution would require a change in the Constitution. Any election would have a predefined maximum amount of money adjusted for inflation. To get on the ballot a minimum amount of signatures would be required to get funding from that "pot". That money could come from any source whatsoever, however the caveat is this. No party could get an overwhelming amount of funding compared to any other. Of course the total amounts and ratios would be subject for debate, however for sake of argument let's say that no party regardless of the amount of signatures could exceed the lowest qualifying by a third. That way new ideas couldn't be crushed, however people would have some say before the election in who they prefer.

Whole idea would be to allow the two players to participate, but they would no longer be able to silence all other voices. Not only that, but the idea that the two party system is written in stone might change.

The flaw? This would require the cooperation of the government to enact, and who control that? Not the people, but the Democratic and Republican parties.

As you say M, we're fucked. No other choices are possible, because at the start, the Constitution allowed a dictatorship by party with the illusion of freedom of choice. It's like saying anyone can be a billionaire, but when that statement is examined, it will be found to be flawed. Like anyone can win the Megamillion lottery, the statement is literally true, but in practice if you wait for it to happen to you, you are going to wait forever.

Same with real choice in a D and R world.

In the past parties have come and gone. With today's polling that's less likely. Both parties have a core constituency that will reliably vote for them whilst remaining generally ignorant of politics. For the independent voters, if a strong third party springs up both Democrats and Republicans will adopt those of its positions more closely aligned with themselves, reducing the incentive to vote third party (i.e. you can have all or some of what you want without fear of wasting your vote.) That means one party has to really, really engender a lot of lasting hate in order to succumb to a third party. And since most people know politicians only by their campaign promises, it's easy to adopt whatever views you need to get elected. When you don't do what you didn't want to do anyway but had to claim to want to do to win election, blame it on the other party.

 

[lothar]

Allow any voter to vote in any party's primary without being registered with the political party(similar to what they do in Virginia) and ban candidates from putting (D) or (R) in their name on the general election ballot.

 

[Craig234]

Allow any voter to vote in any party's primary without being registered with the political party(similar to what they do in Virginia) and ban candidates from putting (D) or (R) in their name on the general election ballot.

The first is probably used for more mischief than good - "hey, all the Democrats vote for the wack job Republican so it's an easy election" - and the second is a real waste and even harm.

Sorry to the ideological centrists who want to pretend party iis nothing buit bad and you can bury your head in the sand by taking it off the ballot, but some legitimately care about the part of the candidate.

Democrats probably stand to gain the most from that change - I've seen a lot more Democrats who 'look at the person' than Republicans - but if people give weight to party, that's their right.

If they're so uninformed abtou the candidates that not listing the party means they don't know, you are not getting an 'informed' vote for the person anyway. In fact, you are likely getting a vote for whoever got the most advertising - the opposite of what's in the public interest generally, and so it's actually making the role of money matter MORE when ewe need it to matter less.

 

[Zebo]

I believe they all start up honest and there are still some honest/true in power like Colburn from OK or Sandars form VT but coming up trough the system you become corrupted. It's easy to do. Starting as a state senator or Mayor you see you give developer Y a Corporation X they funnel you a sweetheart deal or give your wife a fluff job like director of communications. Then you go national on a larger scale. Another thing that happens is you are mingling and wined and dinned with the richest people on the planet at this point making you feel special, above the Frey, breathing ratified air, so the peoples concerns are largely forgotten, your new buddies are not. It's like the CBC, representing the poorest areas of America, but they get flown on retreats to the Bahamas, live a 5 star lifestyle so they won't raise too big a stink.

In sum I believe part is financial (election and survival money) and part psychological.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

The US public is too stupid to vote in their own best interests, were there an IQ test and a minimum IQ required to cast a vote, I suspect the outcome and system would have evolved quite differently...

I think we have tried that already. Except last time it was owning land.

Limiting who has the right to vote for a person who has control over their lives is just another way to have "social classes".

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by Hayabusa Rider
We're a Democracy alright. We get to pick from a list selected for us at each election.

The two parties have seen to it that only in theory can someone outside of their control rise to political prominence with very rare exception.

What I was wondering, and would have been off topic to question in the thread in which it appeared, was whether you agree and if so do you think there is a remedy?

Only to a limited extent.

Where I live we have at least a half-dozen people running for our Congressional seat, and those are just the ones running as Repubs. (on the Dem side IDK if anyone's challenging the incumbant)

So, there's no list "selected" for us. And the candidates who make it through to the general election will have been chosen by the voters.

Among those half-dozen are some pretty diverse people. One guy is a former national Director for the Serra Club, who was a registered Dem before moving here and switching to Repub. I.e., we have some leaning left and others of varying conservative shades.

Seems to me a decent argument can be made that we have more than 2 parties. Under a parliment system where you see multiple parties, those parties still caucus together to form coalitions etc to enhance their influence.

You can think of the Blue Dog Dems as 'different' party than the more liberal mainstream Dems, it's just that they caucus together. Likewise with more left-leaning Dems who've got exactly zip in common with the Blue Dogs.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You are very lucky Fern. Most of us don't have that option. Anyone who wants to win needs to be a D or R. That means that they need to have general agreement with the philosophy of those parties. We have many races across the nation where one candidate runs unopposed. No one bothers to challenge the dominant party because the political machine will crush them. That's democracy?

Until some mechanism is put in place which breaks the stranglehold of the two big parties, there will never be a real choice for the overwhelming majority of voters, and it will be those major players who will have to approve any change. In theory it's the Legislature which decides changes, however it's the parties who pull their strings.

Washington was right.

 

[werepossum]

Fern is correct, a New England urban Republican or Democrat is vastly different from a rural Southern candidate of the same party. Each area and state tends to have two major party choices similar to what it prefers to elect, so in that sense we already have some of the effect of a parliamentary system but with fixed alliances. Third party candidates tend to cater to those to whom neither party has appeal, which makes it quite difficult to get traction since both parties are concerned with appealing to 50.1% of the relevant voters. The big problem is that voters tend to pay attention to what politicians SAY they want to do rather than to what they HAVE done outside of election season.