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 ins utions, 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?
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 suc b to stagnation. Politics and government are not exempt from that rule.
I may have completely missed the boat, but you're arguing that the Republican and Democratic parties should be abolished, right?
And besides the point. I have not seen anyone advocate elimination of political parties. Thats as pointless as drug laws.
No.
I just want their presences gone as ins utions integrated into government. You can be a party member but ins utional 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.
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).
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.
The problem of corruption is not unique to a two party system. All government suc bs to corruption. Changing the structure of government is just re-arranging the deck chairs on the anic.
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.
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.
And BTW, while things like lobbying might be legal and heavily regulated, I do think they're corrupting the system to the core.
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 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:
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.
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.
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.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.
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 ting on their cons uency). 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.
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 that was 2008.
I don't really get the alarmist at ude towards deficits in a recession.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 08-05-2011 at 05:34 PM.
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 en ies like majority leaders and whips have. that derives from the party. Eliminate that en y or debase it and eliminate the ease of influence by potential corruption.
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.
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
