Thought this was a good explanation for the excessive partisanship

[Angry Irishman]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-10-03-15-57-39

 

[cubby1223]

I agree with that and go an extra step that in politics the party is far and away more important than the politician. And we really only have two parties. So as long as one party believes they have the upper-hand, they have zero incentive to strike any deal, a deal can only hurt themselves. The politicians are just a numbers game to determine which party has majority rule.

 

[Paratus]

So basically they are saying there are entire districts where the majority of the constituents are Incorruptible?

 

[Balt]

It's not a new hypothesis (it has been studied in political science), but it is a good one. When candidates only have to appeal to a small, homogeneous segment of the population, moderate opinions/behavior become a disadvantage.

 

[boomerang]

Term limits. Term limits. Term Limits. Then throw in a mandatory retirement age. Is it "the answer", no. Is it a huge step in the right direction, yes.

Will the politicians implement this of their own accord? Absolutely not. See Article V in my sig. We have to do this. They will not. We must cram it down their throats.

 

[Matt1970]

Term limits. Term limits. Term Limits. Then throw in a mandatory retirement age. Is it "the answer", no. Is it a huge step in the right direction, yes.

Will the politicians implement this of their own accord? Absolutely not. See Article V in my sig. We have to do this. They will not. We must cram it down their throats.

If we can't vote these people out than we deserve them.

 

[boomerang]

If we can't vote these people out than we deserve them.

The culture of DC has to be changed. Voting them out won't do it. One bad apple spoils the bunch? Give them less time to become entrenched in the system. We have to restore their position to one that is desired for public service, not personal gain. A big job because everyone wants instant gratification and this is the type of process that will take a few decades. Still, the alternative is not more of the same, it's exponentially more of the same.

 

[Bowfinger]

The culture of DC has to be changed. Voting them out won't do it. One bad apple spoils the bunch? Give them less time to become entrenched in the system. We have to restore their position to one that is desired for public service, not personal gain. A big job because everyone wants instant gratification and this is the type of process that will take a few decades. Still, the alternative is not more of the same, it's exponentially more of the same.

I agree, though I don't think that helps much with this issue because gerrymandering happens at the state level. We have, in general, created a political environment where party is more important than country and the public interest. This is true not only at the federal level, but also at the state and often local level.

 

[fskimospy]

People don't seem to realize that DC is a symptom, not the problem. In the past, DC was far more insider-y than it is now, yet things functioned better.

When people in DC step across the aisle and work with the other party they are frequently subject to a primary challenge and replaced by a more ideologically orthodox member. Members aren't stupid, sooner or later they realize that making compromises means losing their job. As corrupt as it was, the old boys network that used to exist insulated people from that to a large extent. Now in the age of the internet, heterodox members are identified and eliminated by the very same voters who come back later and complain about partisanship.

We have met the enemy and he is us.

 

[dank69]

Term limits. Term limits. Term Limits. Then throw in a mandatory retirement age. Is it "the answer", no. Is it a huge step in the right direction, yes.

Will the politicians implement this of their own accord? Absolutely not. See Article V in my sig. We have to do this. They will not. We must cram it down their throats.

How does this solve the problem mentioned in the article? Nut job 1 is forced to retire or reaches term limit and nut jobs 2-1000 are right there to replace him. More like a step sideways.

 

[JTsyo]

Will the states ever just draw reasonable districts? I don't see how. Whichever party is in power will try to swing it in their favor. We would need a 3rd party for some real reforms.

 

[kia75]

Will the states ever just draw reasonable districts? I don't see how. Whichever party is in power will try to swing it in their favor. We would need a 3rd party for some real reforms.

Some states have bipartisan comittees drawing in the districts (like California) and that seems to work relatively well.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Why exactly can't we just get rid of the party system?

Removing the party system would be pretty difficult, but I think we'd be better off without it. Campaigns would have to be financed 100% by private donations from individuals or by the candidate themselves. Primaries would have to be non-partisan - all candidates who collect a certain # of signatures go to a primary. The top x(5?) vote getters appear on the ballot for that election in that district/state. Party-based positions (ex. whip) are removed from legislatures.

I wouldn't be opposed to a single term limit for all elected positions as well. Follow the format of the Senate - a 6 year term with 1/3rd being elected every 2 years, so that you always have some "more experienced" representatives to keep things running smoothly. I'm not sure that this would really fix anything, but I really don't like the idea of "politician" being a career. You are there to serve the people, not constantly run for re-election.

 

[Lithium381]

Why exactly can't we just get rid of the party system?

Removing the party system would be pretty difficult, but I think we'd be better off without it. Campaigns would have to be financed 100% by private donations from individuals or by the candidate themselves. Primaries would have to be non-partisan - all candidates who collect a certain # of signatures go to a primary. The top x(5?) vote getters appear on the ballot for that election in that district/state. Party-based positions (ex. whip) are removed from legislatures.

I wouldn't be opposed to a single term limit for all elected positions as well. Follow the format of the Senate - a 6 year term with 1/3rd being elected every 2 years, so that you always have some "more experienced" representatives to keep things running smoothly. I'm not sure that this would really fix anything, but I really don't like the idea of "politician" being a career. You are there to serve the people, not constantly run for re-election.

Just getting rid of the (R) or (D) or (L) designations at the voting booth would do a whole lot to help. would at least make people research the names of the candidates in their party and what they stand for instead of just showing up on voting day, voting party line and leaving. . .

 

[Moonbeam]

There are many ways to explain excessive partisanship but whatever the cause a person must have the personal character upon which those causes operate. This is not commonly understood. For example often trot out the notion that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, that that is not true. Power corrupts those who can be corrupted by power and cannot corrupt those who cannot be. Folk with deep moral insight into the dangers power create will not succumb to it. This is because the most valuable thing in the universe is ones own self respect and anybody who has it will know its value never trade it for lesser things.

In short, the fanaticism that political power manifests in those who are susceptible to such temptation is the result of character defect, having no idea of the real value of things. Such folk are essentially spiritually lost.

It is the fact that we lack genuine self respect that creates all evil. We are motivated by the need to fill a vacuum within that can only be filled by realization that we are actually full of love rather that in need of it. There is nothing we have to do, nothing we have to change, nothing to achieve, nothing to become because we are already everything if we could but allow ourselves to feel it. But we have been programmed and stripped of natural self love by being put down and humiliated from birth.

This is why you see the poor Republicans demanding they get something for the pain their political irrationality has cost them. They want their egos hugged. But the ego is the external face of the feeling of worthlessness, a consolation prize for giving up on ourselves. They are the nanny anti-state, those who believe they know better than the voters and know it so deeply that to save the nation they will destroy its government. Only they know what's really good for you and the thing they fear and project is that its the government that's actually doing that to them. We always create what we fear.

 

[werepossum]

Just getting rid of the (R) or (D) or (L) designations at the voting booth would do a whole lot to help. would at least make people research the names of the candidates in their party and what they stand for instead of just showing up on voting day, voting party line and leaving. . .

I'd support that 100%.

 

[Lithium381]

I'd support that 100%.

Though Holder would probably label it as a poll tax and voter discrimination against those who 'don't have ready access to a computer, newspaper, television, or radio'. . .

 

[IronWing]

I go back to getting rid of government involvement in helping parties select their candidates. There is no state interest in how the parties come up with candidates so the state should stay out. I prefer caucuses but party-only primaries run by the parties themselves would work. I am not a member of any party, why should I get to decide on a party's candidates simply because I checked a box on my voter registration form?

Open primaries and state-sponsored primaries encourage folks to feel attachments to parties even though they do nothing but vote. Allowing folks who barely pay attention to politics to select the candidates is ridiculous. Candidate selections aught to be done by folks who care enough to show up at a caucus.

I want candidates to reflect the parties, not try to reflect some common denominator. If a party is full of bozos, fine, let that party's candidates reflect the aspirations of the bozos.

 

[zinfamous]

If we can't vote these people out than we deserve them.

what the hell does voting them out matter when your replacement choices are Giant Douchebag vs Turd Sandwich?

 

[zinfamous]

Though Holder would probably label it as a poll tax and voter discrimination against those who 'don't have ready access to a computer, newspaper, television, or radio'. . .

well it couldn't be a poll tax, of course, but discriminating against low-access voters is arguable.

However, it puts the onus on the candidates and their party to actually get their feet on the ground again and let people know who they are.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Elections have consequences and the Tea Party certainly brought those in spades.

 

[werepossum]

Though Holder would probably label it as a poll tax and voter discrimination against those who 'don't have ready access to a computer, newspaper, television, or radio'. . .

Probably.

I go back to getting rid of government involvement in helping parties select their candidates. There is no state interest in how the parties come up with candidates so the state should stay out. I prefer caucuses but party-only primaries run by the parties themselves would work. I am not a member of any party, why should I get to decide on a party's candidates simply because I checked a box on my voter registration form?

Open primaries and state-sponsored primaries encourage folks to feel attachments to parties even though they do nothing but vote. Allowing folks who barely pay attention to politics to select the candidates is ridiculous. Candidate selections aught to be done by folks who care enough to show up at a caucus.

I want candidates to reflect the parties, not try to reflect some common denominator. If a party is full of bozos, fine, let that party's candidates reflect the aspirations of the bozos.

Allowing folks who barely pay attention to politics to select the candidates is ridiculous, but allowing those same folks to select the winner is okay?

I'm all for removing party affiliation in the general elections, but given the parties' funding of primaries interfering with those would be problematic. And with no need to even pretend to serve those outside the base, we'd likely get a Congress even more bitterly divided.

what the hell does voting them out matter when your replacement choices are Giant Douchebag vs Turd Sandwich?

LOL QFT But at least Turd Sandwich #2 wouldn't have the power base that Turd Sandwich #1 had built up. And special interests would have to keep buying Congresscritters over and over again, pumping money into D.C. Although arguably they do that now.