Reform Via the Elimination of the Two Party System

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Disclaimer

I first want to say that, WC and boutons, as the two most disgusting partisans in this forum, while i know you will comment on this, I do not feel that your words have any merit whatsoever. In this discussion, I hope people keep this in mind. To the point, try not to allow their stupidity or that of any other blind partisans to derail this topic. Please ignore them.


Intro

With that out of the way, the assumption that I am making is that the American political system is inherently flawed. It has reached the conclusion after 200+ years of what a two party system is. The more specific assumption is that the two party system is the basis for this dysfunction and as such is at the core of what needs to be reformed.

The two party system is endemic within the political process. From the way that the primaries are handled to control the nominations of the president, to the methods by which the leaders of the various legislatures around this country choose the leaders within those bodies, the manner in which committees process legislation, the appointments of our judiciary, and on and on and on. It IS our political system.

This really hit home for me in the last election, I looked over the ballot and saw a bunch of names that for the most part I had no idea who they were. I at least attempt to keep myself aware even on the local level so i know that the rank and file had absolutely no fucking clue as to who any of these people were. What I did see is that they were arranged in neat little rows with Republican and Democrat listed next to the names.

I thought back to my childhood and going with my sister during an election. One thing I recall clearly is the lever at the top of each column labeled Republican and Democrat which when pulled voted straight down party lines.

That pissed me off. I just have to think of all across the country how many people were not even thinking and pulling that lever perpetuating the system that I have come to hate. why think when you can have someone else do it for you. As an aside I feel that if you vote for someone and you have no idea who that individual is that you are not only intellectually lazy but more importantly irresponsible.


Schism

Enough with the complaints. Reform means solutions and since the last election, I have thought long and hard on this. It pissed me off so my first inclination was schism. No formalization of institutions such as majority leader, whip etc. No listings of party affiliations on government documents and broadcasts such as CSPAN --which on votes lists Repub Dem and other on votes-- and ballots. Absolutely no campaign funding to political parties. I feel that our tax dollars go to the perpetuating the system that fucks is wrong and those two are the only ones that get anything anyway. Things of that ilk.

If people want to get together on their own and assemble to raise funds and promote candidates then by all means go ahead but on the flip side I think that no American should be forced to assemble and participate in such activities because of government involvement.

First thing this does is removes legitimacy of the two parties. There is already a trend within the newer electorate away from party identification. this is a representation of this ethic. It sends a loud and clear message that this is NOT our system of government. This in turn reduces their power and allows other individuals, parties and organization an impetus to get involved.

I also think that their is a trend away towards celebrity and individual in the political landscape. Just as much as you hear about Repub and Dem you also hear about Obama, Clinton, Gramm, Gingrich, Beohner, Pelosi, Palin, Biden, Gore, Hatch, Paul, and on and on and on.

The individual candidates through institutional changes have gained more and more power over the last 50 years. This is a continuation of that however in stead of two seas of supposed similar independent ideologies you have a sea of individuals. Individuals will have to promote who they are more than what they are. Voters will not be so easily dumbed down in their decision making process.

There is no formal recognition of the parties within themselves in the Constitution. OTOH, the 14th Amendment and the broadening of definitions therein would lead to litigation without a doubt.


Proportional

The second idea came from a little political education from a friend of mine. It stems from the winner take all system in American politics. It basically means that if you win an election that district goes completely to the winner. Any other parties contesting get nothing. It is the reason why Perot's Reform Party in 1992 had the support of 20% of the electorate yet zero representation. It is the reason why the current Tea Party which is significantly different ideologically from the GOP is forced to consort with the them.

Most other democracies do not run this type of system. They instead have a proportional system where the political parties are awarded representation proportional to their support within the electorate. The reform party would have gotten 20 members in congress. the tea party would not have been forced to play along with the GOP to get those seats. Unionists, environmentalists and feminists would not have been forced together any more than capitalists, libertarians and the religious right.

Three regional powers use this system of government: Germany, Australia and Brazil. Both have had tremendous economic and social stability for a long time. Germany has been the least effected by the current EU meltdown, Brazil has been the shining star amongst developing countries and Australia has a staggering two decades straight of economic growth.

Our hegemony through incumbency is wearing away.


End

This has pretty much been a stream of consciousness regurgitation of these thought processes in my mind. I have been complaining quite a bit about the political system and i think its time for a search for solutions. If anything the last presidential election should have taught us is that reform within the system just does not work. Instead we need to fundamentally change the system itself.

These are just two of my ideas. Hopefully people can fill in the gaps to my knowledge, present alternative solutions and create a dialogue along these lines. Political discussion founded on the principles of the latest partisan think tanks needs to end. This democratic republic based on republicans and democrats needs to end. We for the most part know this. Now we just need a means to that end. In my view this is the most important political question facing us today.

It needs to end.

[boutons_deux]

"Most other democracies do not run this type of system."

England, as they call it, also does first-post-the-post wins all.

[Drachen]

Studied the Deutsche Grundgesetz when I was an exchange student in 96-97 and was facsinated by their (far more representative) form of democracy. This is why they are able to have many different parties in far better proportions which more closely represent their constituencies. In fact, while I was there, I remember seeing that one member of parliment was a part of the "Beer Drinkers Party." How cool is that (no I don't know the history or platform of the BDP)?

Edit: Deutsche Grundgesetz = German Constitution

[jacobdrj]

How would you compare the US government's 2 party system to the Israeli coalition system: Where a candidate can win the popular vote, but because the coalition of parties ends up being of a different percentage, the de-facto prime minister isn't the elected one?

Also, the countries you mention: Australia, Brazil, Germany... They all have their own problems. Big problems.

Australia, for example, has some very anti-free speech tendencies, censorship that rivals China's. There are some other very scary things like young 'gifted' athletes being forced to compete to be Olympians, despite the wishes of the parents...

Germany is having some serious labor issues with regards to their health professionals. They are, relative to the rest of the world, highly under-paid. There is also a culture of elitism that is pervasive, much like here, but much more pronounced.

[Drachen]

How would you compare the US government's 2 party system to the Israeli coalition system: Where a candidate can win the popular vote, but because the coalition of parties ends up being of a different percentage, the de-facto prime minister isn't the elected one?

Also, the countries you mention: Australia, Brazil, Germany... They all have their own problems. Big problems.

Australia, for example, has some very anti-free speech tendencies, censorship that rivals China's. There are some other very scary things like young 'gifted' athletes being forced to compete to be Olympians, despite the wishes of the parents...

Germany is having some serious labor issues with regards to their health professionals. They are, relative to the rest of the world, highly under-paid. There is also a culture of elitism that is pervasive, much like here, but much more pronounced.


I am not sure that any of these that you mentioned is due to a flaw in the way in which germany (austrailia, et al) is goverened. Is there something within the Austrainian constitution forcing parents to allow their kids to compete?

No one is saying that these countries are perfect, only that their flavor of democracy is far more democratic than ours. (disclaimer, I personally can only speak for germany, I don't know the forms of government for the others).

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How would you compare the US government's 2 party system to the Israeli coalition system: Where a candidate can win the popular vote, but because the coalition of parties ends up being of a different percentage, the de-facto prime minister isn't the elected one?

So we don't set up a system like Israels. I am looking for ideas not replicas. The solutions here are many but do not destroy the idea. it certainly does not mitigate that the political process needs to be fundamentally changed.

For example, make the proportion only applicable to legislative elections. Problem solved.

Did the popular vote winner even get a simple majority?


Also, the countries you mention: Australia, Brazil, Germany... They all have their own problems. Big problems.

Australia, for example, has some very anti-free speech tendencies, censorship that rivals China's. There are some other very scary things like young 'gifted' athletes being forced to compete to be Olympians, despite the wishes of the parents...

They also for the most part hate aborigines and their toilets flush counter clockwise. I fail to see how a change in the political system would alter the first amendment or the interpretation of it. Our political process has spewed out the same shit.

My point is that their political system has been touted for their economic and social stability.


Germany is having some serious labor issues with regards to their health professionals. They are, relative to the rest of the world, highly under-paid. There is also a culture of elitism that is pervasive, much like here, but much more pronounced.

How are the health worker pay scales in Germany determined. Is it by the state? Quite frankly if the system keeps health care costs down i fail to see how that is a criticism. Their health metrics are quite good. Infant mortality, and they are 8th in the world in per capita doctors so the pay does not deter people from becoming ones.

I do not see how that is necessarily a problem.

As for more pronounced elites. Bring that fucking on. You said we have elites just the same here. The issue here is they currently only have to operate through two agencies. By virtue of that they are able to obfuscate their influence. If it brings it more out into the open that is nothing but a good thing in my book.

This is good stuff though. Bring it fucking on.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Studied the Deutsche Grundgesetz when I was an exchange student in 96-97 and was facsinated by their (far more representative) form of democracy. This is why they are able to have many different parties in far better proportions which more closely represent their constituencies. In fact, while I was there, I remember seeing that one member of parliment was a part of the "Beer Drinkers Party." How cool is that (no I don't know the history or platform of the BDP)?

Edit: Deutsche Grundgesetz = German Constitution

I really want to go to Sal Paulo, Munich and Sydney. I have friends in Sydney and i was born in Bavaria so i do not know which to go to first. Was sold on down under but you have me revising that notion.

I guarantee you NORML would sneak in some reps here in the states.

[Drachen]

I really want to go to Sal Paulo, Munich and Sydney. I have friends in Sydney and i was born in Bavaria so i do not know which to go to first. Was sold on down under but you have me revising that notion.

I guarantee you NORML would sneak in some reps here in the states.

We lived in Berlin, but my host father was from Bavaria. They decided we would take a trip to visit his parents in mid-late september. Oktoberfest was awesome. My host mother and host brother had never been either, but the family decided that if there was ever a time to go, it would be when they could introduce the Ami to it as well (ami - american). Just dont expect that any German you know will pass in Bavaria, it is a different language

Example: [english - german - bavarian]
Friend - Freund - Spetzi (which in the rest of germany is a drink that is half coke and half fanta orange)
I love you - Ich liebe dich - I mog di

and so on....

Sydney DOES look amazing though.

[boutons_deux]

"Australia, Brazil, Germany... They all have their own problems. Big problems."

What those countries don't have is a major political party whose fundamental principle is "Govt is the (MAIN) problem" and whose overriding, persistent priority is to cripple/kill/privatize govt so capitalists and corporations can continue to rape the country harder, faster, deeper.

[JoeChalupa]

It used to be that the two parties could/would work together. Tip and Reagan did it but now things are so partisan it sucks.

[JoeChalupa]

It is not the Blue States of America or the Red States of America..but the United States of America!!!

[boutons_deux]

What's worse than the partisan standoff is that even the Dems are far to right of their traditional base and just a corrupted by UCA and capitalists.

The priority for most Americans is the economy, jobs, housing crisis, NOT the fake debt crisis. The Dems and Barry have done fuck all for their base.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What's worse than the partisan standoff is that even the Dems are far to right of their traditional base and just a corrupted by UCA and capitalists.

The priority for most Americans is the economy, jobs, housing crisis, NOT the fake debt crisis. The Dems and Barry have done fuck all for their base.

'Left,' 'Right,' 'base.' You are so indoctrinated to the point of absurdity. quit fucking up my thread with you bipolar political bullshit. The entire point of this discussion is to get rid of that paradigm. all you do is spout more of it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It is not the Blue States of America or the Red States of America..but the United States of America!!!

Could not agree more. i just want a representative democracy.

[Drachen]

'Left,' 'Right,' 'base.' You are so indoctrinated to the point of absurdity. quit fucking up my thread with you bipolar political bullshit. The entire point of this discussion is to get rid of that paradigm. all you do is spout more of it.

You fed it after you instructed everyone not to. Stop it.
If you see B-D or WC or jack sommerset, et al. just think "Bleep Blorp Bleep" or "Blorp Bleep Blorp" (depending on which party affiliation the person has)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You fed it after you instructed everyone not to. Stop it.
If you see B-D or WC or jack sommerset, et al. just think "Bleep Blorp Bleep" or "Blorp Bleep Blorp" (depending on which party affiliation the person has)

Fair enough. I just need to put him on ignore.

[Drachen]

Fair enough. I just need to put him on ignore.

The reason I don't do that is because once in a great GREAT while, they all will say something that is freakin hilarious (as long as YOU don't let politics get in the way).

[ElNono]

I don't know that the problem can be solely pinned down in the two party system. For the most part of 200+ years, I thought it worked OK. I think the system works as good as any when you have a good, well-intended political class. But when you get the political generation you have now (easily corruptible, interests over country, inept), I don't necessarily know that a different system is the answer to diminish their influence. They seem to be everywhere these days, including having an (I) after their names.

[boutons_deux]

Fuzzy, I FUCK UP YOUR THREAD! :lol

There's no fucking way to get rid of your left-right Dem-Repug paradigm. You're blowing self-congratulating, academic smoke up your own ass.

Just like there is no fucking way for Human-Americans "to take back their country" from the UCA and capitalists, who own BOTH parties, including the astro-turfing teabaggers, and own any fucking fantasy paradigm you think you're agitating for.

GFY and GF your fucked up thread. :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't know that the problem can be solely pinned down in the two party system. For the most part of 200+ years, I thought it worked OK. I think the system works as good as any when you have a good, well-intended political class. But when you get the political generation you have now (easily corruptible, interests over country, inept), I don't necessarily know that a different system is the answer to diminish their influence. They seem to be everywhere these days, including having an (I) after their names.

But that is the point in scrapping the system. The two systems i have espoused both actively encourage participation from independent groups. It amends and diversifies the 'political class.' As it stands now it gives that class a stranglehold on participation.

Additionally I strongly disagree that it has worked OK. The original incarnations were deeply bitter. Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton. they would beat each other in the parliament with canes. That bitterness eventually escalated into the Civil War and we all know how that turned out.

That basically resulted in the subordination of the Democratic Party so ostensibly we had a single party system up until FDR. Since that time it has developed into what we have today which is much like what we had before the Civil War. Thank God there is no clear geographic bifurcation such as in 1860 because I would fear we would be headed down that path again.

[vy65]

I guess the first amendment doesn't mean much these days.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I guess the first amendment doesn't mean much these days.

What do you mean?

[vy65]

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.

It's also called the right of free-association.

[vy65]

Oh and there's also the first amendment right to support (monetary or otherwise) those who's political platform you support. But that's more secondary.

[Drachen]

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.

It's also called the right of free-association.

That is why this is a discussion. You are free to add your solutions.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

It's also called the right of free-association.

I'm not arguing that people cannot assemble I am talking about that assembly being recognized as the foundation of the government. I am just saying that said assemblies would not be formally on or in said government institutions, supported by the government or otherwise beholden to them.

What i am saying is that you can be a party memmber and be a government participant. i am just saying that they will not be formally recognized as such within the context of government.

How do you jive separation of church and state btw?

[Agloco]

As long as the toughest decision Americans face is "Grande or Venti", its all good. Once the mortgage is threatened on a consistent basis things might change.

I stress might.......

Kudos to Fuzzy for navigating his way along the road less travelled. I wish I had some constructive input, but I know nothing of the process per se. The one observation I would make though is that human nature demands periodic change, lest we succumb to stagnation. Politics and government are not exempt from that rule.

[vy65]

I'm not arguing that people cannot assemble I am talking about that assembly being recognized as the foundation of the government. I am just saying that said assemblies would not be formally on or in said assemblies, supported by the government or otherwise beholden to them.

I may have completely missed the boat, but you're arguing that the Republican and Democratic parties should be abolished, right?

[vy65]

That is why this is a discussion. You are free to add your solutions.

ok

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh and there's also the first amendment right to support (monetary or otherwise) those who's political platform you support. But that's more secondary.

And besides the point. I have not seen anyone advocate elimination of political parties. Thats as pointless as drug laws.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I may have completely missed the boat, but you're arguing that the Republican and Democratic parties should be abolished, right?

No.

I just want their presences gone as institutions integrated into government. You can be a party member but institutional positions like Speaker, whip, majority leader would be gone or not be selected by party lines or participation directly, government funding would be gone, party support by listing on ballots would be gone.

They can still exist they just would not be integrated to the core of our system. that is also just one solution i have presented.

[ElNono]

But that is the point in scrapping the system. The two systems i have espoused both actively encourage participation from independent groups. It amends and diversifies the 'political class.' As it stands now it gives that class a stranglehold on participation.

Additionally I strongly disagree that it has worked OK. The original incarnations were deeply bitter. Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton. they would beat each other in the parliament with canes. That bitterness eventually escalated into the Civil War and we all know how that turned out.

That basically resulted in the subordination of the Democratic Party so ostensibly we had a single party system up until FDR. Since that time it has developed into what we have today which is much like what we had before the Civil War. Thank God there is no clear geographic bifurcation such as in 1860 because I would fear we would be headed down that path again.

Sure, but it's also the system that created a superpower, and frankly speaking, one of the places with the highest quality of life around the globe.
It's one of the few places around the world where you can pick up a phone and call your representative, and tell him/her what you think about something. It's not without it's faults. As I was pointing out a few days ago (with the withholding of information about campaign donors), I think there are some things that seem small but affect greatly the overall democratic system. You know also I'm a fervent supporter of privacy and freedom, and I frankly think as a country in the last few administrations we've veered dangerously towards destroying the safeguards that protect those items.

But I don't necessarily see it entirely as a flaw on the two party system. I think independents or third parties are as easily corruptible if needed be. In a way, independents are who decide elections, so you do have a third leg there in the system on a major role. The biggest problem I see right now is that both parties are not really on different sides of the aisle, and thus you have a big section of the population that feels completely unrepresented. It's definitely frustrating, but I also think it's a contemporary phenomenon, and I think one that will eventually tilt to the other side given time (IMO anyways).

[vy65]

No.

I just want their presences gone as institutions integrated into government. You can be a party member but institutional positions like Speaker, whip, majority leader would be gone or not be selected by party lines or participation directly, government funding would be gone, party support by listing on ballots would be gone.

They can still exist they just would not be integrated to the core of our system. that is also just one solution i have presented.

Fair enough. Although you could argue that the existence of those positions (along with parlimentary procedure in general) is just procedure and not necessarily negative. But I get your point that, as it plays out, those positions are used to create really negative results.

The problem is that, pragmatically, you need some structure to administer a congressional body of 535 individuals who have to administer one of the most sophisticated countries to have ever existed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fair enough. Although you could argue that the existence of those positions (along with parlimentary procedure in general) is just procedure and not necessarily negative. But I get your point that, as it plays out, those positions are used to create really negative results.

The problem is that, pragmatically, you need some structure to administer a congressional body of 535 individuals who have to administer one of the most sophisticated countries to have ever existed.

Don't get me started on parliamentary procedure.

[vy65]

But I don't necessarily see it entirely as a flaw on the two party system. I think independents or third parties are as easily corruptible if needed be. In a way, independents are who decide elections, so you do have a third leg there in the system on a major role. The biggest problem I see right now is that both parties are not really on different sides of the aisle, and thus you have a big section of the population that feels completely unrepresented. It's definitely frustrating, but I also think it's a contemporary phenomenon, and I think one that will eventually tilt to the other side given time (IMO anyways).

The problem of corruption is not unique to a two party system. All government succumbs to corruption. Changing the structure of government is just re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

[ElNono]

The problem of corruption is not unique to a two party system. All government succumbs to corruption. Changing the structure of government is just re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I don't think a two, three, or more party system will necessarily address that. I think prioritizing things like transparency, oversight, prioritizing country over special interests is what fights off corruption. I have no doubt though that at least the last few administrations have actively tried to erode those safeguards in different ways under different guises (war on terror, state secrets, etc).

[vy65]

That's exactly what I'm saying. I don't think a two, three, or more party system will necessarily address that. I think prioritizing things like transparency, oversight, prioritizing country over special interests is what fights off corruption. I have no doubt though that at least the last few administrations have actively tried to erode those safeguards in different ways under different guises (war on terror, state secrets, etc).

I was agreeing with you.

[ElNono]

Anyways, sorry I steered this into a specific area like corruption, but I feel that's exactly where the problem really lies, and I think the quality of the current crop of politicians have a lot to do with that.

[ElNono]

And BTW, while things like lobbying might be legal and heavily regulated, I do think they're corrupting the system to the core.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sure, but it's also the system that created a superpower, and frankly speaking, one of the places with the highest quality of life around the globe.
It's one of the few places around the world where you can pick up a phone and call your representative, and tell him/her what you think about something. It's not without it's faults. As I was pointing out a few days ago (with the withholding of information about campaign donors), I think there are some things that seem small but affect greatly the overall democratic system. You know also I'm a fervent supporter of privacy and freedom, and I frankly think as a country in the last few administrations we've veered dangerously towards destroying the safeguards that protect those items.

But I don't necessarily see it entirely as a flaw on the two party system. I think independents or third parties are as easily corruptible if needed be. In a way, independents are who decide elections, so you do have a third leg there in the system on a major role. The biggest problem I see right now is that both parties are not really on different sides of the aisle, and thus you have a big section of the population that feels completely unrepresented. It's definitely frustrating, but I also think it's a contemporary phenomenon, and I think one that will eventually tilt to the other side given time (IMO anyways).

If it ain't broke then why fix it? Its broken in my view. Over the course of the last 30 years there has been little movement at all in terms of national policy. Its the same shit in a different box over and over again.

We have only been the hegemony that we are --or were-- since 1950. We certainly not so earlier in the twentieth century and we were lesser in influence and wealth than many European nations prior to that. Said hegemony if you believe it still exists is quickly eroding.

And are three parties more difficult to corrupt or two? or ten? etc. i think the more diversity you have the more difficult it is for single influences to co-opt them all. Influence is good as individuals parties should have thier voices heard and some or going to be more dominant than others. Thats just life.

At the same token, when you only have two choices said dominating influences become the only influences. The more representative bodies you have the more diverse it becomes.

320m Americans can never be even closely represented by two platforms.

Also when you start talking about aisle, I think to a Thomas Paine quote that I find one of the most important in the American ethic:


A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Anyways, sorry I steered this into a specific area like corruption, but I feel that's exactly where the problem really lies, and I think the quality of the current crop of politicians have a lot to do with that.

Don't be sorry at all. It just adds to the discussion and is a very important problem.

It also happens to be that i feel that 2 party system is more prone to corruption than a multiparty one. :)

i would also argue that the more independent representatives you have the lesser the impact said corruption has.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And BTW, while things like lobbying might be legal and heavily regulated, I do think they're corrupting the system to the core.

Its very easy to lobby when you only have to lobby two parties.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's exactly what I'm saying. I don't think a two, three, or more party system will necessarily address that. I think prioritizing things like transparency, oversight, prioritizing country over special interests is what fights off corruption. I have no doubt though that at least the last few administrations have actively tried to erode those safeguards in different ways under different guises (war on terror, state secrets, etc).

The last president we had that I honestly believe fought the corruption and special interest nonsense was Theodore Roosevelt. He only came to power because McKinley was shot and then was forced to create a third party because his own party would not support him.

Those things that you are espousing are good and necessary but will never come to light under this current political system.

[ElNono]

Don't be sorry at all. It just adds to the discussion and is a very important problem.

It also happens to be that i feel that 2 party system is more prone to corruption than a multiparty one. :)

i would also argue that the more independent representatives you have the lesser the impact said corruption has.


Its very easy to lobby when you only have to lobby two parties.

I don't think that's necessarily true. The greasing palms donor machine works mostly on an individual representative basis AFAIK. Which is why party lines don't really matter in that aspect.

Ultimately, laws are voted yes or no, and that's where you see a lot of party alignment. Now, I've lived in a country with a third party minority and even a few independents poured in here and there. And the way it works is not much different than what you see here. Before the vote, negotiations take place where certain concessions are made to such minority so they'll swing their vote accordingly (oftentimes completely shitting on their constituency). It really ends up feeling like vote shopping for the casual observer (Party A: I'm offering building the highway you want if you vote with us. Party B: We'll do the highway and the give a cozy job in the cabinet for one of your guys). In other words, business as usual.

I think the way you break that cycle is with strong, quality political individuals. Something that's been sorely missing at least for the past decade.

[ElNono]

The last president we had that I honestly believe fought the corruption and special interest nonsense was Theodore Roosevelt. He only came to power because McKinley was shot and then was forced to create a third party because his own party would not support him.

Those things that you are espousing are good and necessary but will never come to light under this current political system.

There was a time not long ago that one party Congress and the other party Executive worked towards balancing the budget, and for the most part did.
That's one example where country was prioritized IMO, and it wasn't that long ago. They are few and far between examples, but I think they're still valid. We need more of that and less of this.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There was a time not long ago that one party Congress and the other party Executive worked towards balancing the budget, and for the most part did.
That's one example where country was prioritized IMO, and it wasn't that long ago. They are few and far between examples, but I think they're still valid. We need more of that and less of this.

You mean when they systematically dismantled Glass-Steagall? That was the big bipartisan priority i remember. Clinton and Gramm working hand in hand to lead us to the big pile of shit that was 2008.

I don't really get the alarmist attitude towards deficits in a recession.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think that's necessarily true. The greasing palms donor machine works mostly on an individual representative basis AFAIK. Which is why party lines don't really matter in that aspect.

Ultimately, laws are voted yes or no, and that's where you see a lot of party alignment. Now, I've lived in a country with a third party minority and even a few independents poured in here and there. And the way it works is not much different than what you see here. Before the vote, negotiations take place where certain concessions are made to such minority so they'll swing their vote accordingly (oftentimes completely shitting on their constituency). It really ends up feeling like vote shopping for the casual observer (Party A: I'm offering building the highway you want if you vote with us. Party B: We'll do the highway and the give a cozy job in the cabinet for one of your guys). In other words, business as usual.

I think the way you break that cycle is with strong, quality political individuals. Something that's been sorely missing at least for the past decade.

I agree that individual votes will be bought. I do not think that changes that its harder to corrupt with more independent representatives for two reasons:

Thre are huge amounts of contributions to the RNC and DNC. The RNC has gotten $40m or something this year. The DNC is not as good at fundraising typically but you get the point. There is a reason for this.

Also its a question of access. Now I agree wholeheartedly that its like it was in turn of the century Chicago where you could simply go to Daly's machine but that tends to the point. Its much harder to get access to and influence multiple electors on multiple votes than it is to go to say the Daly machine of the 19th century.

The issue of access is an important one. If you have an in with the RNC you have access to each and every member of the party same with the DNC. You make access more difficult the more independent agencies. You ahve seen the influence entities like majority leaders and whips have. that derives from the party. Eliminate that entity or debase it and eliminate the ease of influence by potential corruption.

[ElNono]

You mean when they systematically dismantled Glass-Steagall? That was the big bipartisan priority i remember. Clinton and Gramm working hand in hand to lead us to the big pile of shit that was 2008.
I don't really get the alarmist attitude towards deficits in a recession.

Well, just pointing out there was some good work interspersed with the bad. At least more good than the unabated pile of crap you get now anyways, IMO. Largely with both with the last and this administration you're left wondering what they screwed you over with this week.

I don't disagree about deficits in a recession. I'm much more alarmed with attempts to willingly default when credit is absolutely available to the US and under incredibly low rates. Or the way the government is funneling money to banks at 0% interest rates right in front of everybody's noses. But again, this goes back to not being two aisles right now, IMO. It's either right or extreme right. There's no counterbalance.

[ElNono]

I agree that individual votes will be bought. I do not think that changes that its harder to corrupt with more independent representatives for two reasons:

Thre are huge amounts of contributions to the RNC and DNC. The RNC has gotten $40m or something this year. The DNC is not as good at fundraising typically but you get the point. There is a reason for this.

Also its a question of access. Now I agree wholeheartedly that its like it was in turn of the century Chicago where you could simply go to Daly's machine but that tends to the point. Its much harder to get access to and influence multiple electors on multiple votes than it is to go to say the Daly machine of the 19th century.

The issue of access is an important one. If you have an in with the RNC you have access to each and every member of the party same with the DNC. You make access more difficult the more independent agencies. You ahve seen the influence entities like majority leaders and whips have. that derives from the party. Eliminate that entity or debase it and eliminate the ease of influence by potential corruption.

I just think smaller parties/movements are just as susceptible to get corrupted and end up acting as a proxy of one of big parties depending on the deal on the table. As far as fundraising, I can't think there's something that needs more regulation and transparency than that. We can probably throw all sorts of ideas out there. Some ideas: Forbidding those who contributed to a winning campaign to eventually get a position on the elected government. Another one: Forbid contributors to a party or candidate to be able to lobby said party or candidate if they win the election/position. It's obviously stuff that I'll never see happening, because that's exactly where corruption is more pervasive and thus it's defended the greatest. But we can all dream, right?

[Winehole23]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-most-unpopular-congress-ever/2011/08/04/gIQAto2RuI_blog.html

[velik_m]

Why is everyone so hung up on the representative system? Give me direct democracy - nobody represents me and my views better than me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-most-unpopular-congress-ever/2011/08/04/gIQAto2RuI_blog.html


“This the first time in my political lifetime that significant numbers of incumbents in both parties could lose,” said Frost. “The GOP could win the Senate and lose the House.”

And it will end up being the exact same shit. That is my entire point.

At some point people are going to have to understand that the basis that our political 'leaders' make their decisions on is flawed. Even listening to the DNC and RNC partisans in this piece you see a willful blindness. They are worried about incumbency losing its supremacy. The disconnect is huge.

the problem like this is that this is what leads to despots. You get a pedagogue that captures the ear of Americans and as this gets worse and worse the potential 'political calamity' becomes more and more distasteful on the worse end.

The framers included the ability to amend the constitution, between that and legislation we can alter how government is run but we need the political will to do it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why is everyone so hung up on the representative system? Give me direct democracy - nobody represents me and my views better than me.

Most of the US electorate is more interested in 'Snooki want smoosh smoosh' than in policymaking.

I think that if you wanted to do something like that then you would have to completely decentralized and I just do not see the states being in a position where people would accept that until ICE travel became cost prohibitive for most.