Future of Party Politics

[Nabubrush]

I vote for Spector because he is a very powerful Senator and he is from my state.  So when contracts are awarded he does his best to make sure they build shit in PA.

This is why Ted Stevens and Don Young keep getting elected in Alaska. Alaska gets more federal dollars per capita than any other state in the union.

Don't residents get somekind of tax kickback just for living there, also?

You just concern yourself with updating that 'last track played' doohickey, Mister.

Actually, it's a chunk of oil revenue that the state sets aside for residents. Alaskans don't pay state taxes.

[AlohaDawg]

AD, you seem to be thinking only on the grand scale: Local candidates don't really get that much help from the parties; basically only the training of aides and other assistants & gofers. If I'm a cop, and have served fifteen years, and decided to run for Deputy Sheriff, it wouldn't really matter to what party I subscribe, because it's not that hotly contested an office. Let's say that I win the office, because it could happen, and over the next ten to twenty years I get a bunch of party compatriots to run for the school board, the county commission, treasurer, etc., all while serving as Sheriff, and then throw in my hat for the election for Mayor or County Commissioner. Let's also say I do this without any major controversies striking me or my compatriots. See the endorsements I'd have from the local non-big-two officials, whose names and records are known? See the corporate backing I'd have by tying myself into the community and associating my performance with my party? Let's say I've portrayed myself as Libertarian the whole time, but made a little deal of party to the people, and a big deal of issues, and let the people settle it at the polls. See how the big parties could be eroded from the edges?

Imagine this happening in Tempe, Dayton, Albany, Hartford, Redmond, San Bernadino, Missoula, etc. See how small cities could be good launching points for small parties? That's how the big parties could be overthrown: in small doses over a long time. Another twenty years could see a multi-party, coalition-type Congress which safeguards civil and human rights while neither overregulating nor underregulating businesses, made up of a big group of people that would make unnecessary war damned near impossible.

Choop, what you've described seems to me to be how the parties themselves change over time more than how a viable third (or more) party could come to the fore. Eventually, the people will vote one way or another, and eventually party platforms have to shift to accomodate the way people think. The problem is that a large proportion of the US electorate is for defense of marriage in some form. No party interested in preserving itself will vocalize opposition to that; even Mr. Kerry could not commit to being against this type of legislation. 80% is a huge number.

The only way a multi-party coalition government could happen in the US is if a parliamentary form of government were introduced whereby the Prime Minister is obligated to form a majority coalition in order to stay in power. Governments such as these require so much deal-cutting and back-door bargaining that the overall government as a whole is powerless to react to real-world problems in a decisive way. There are sinply too many people to offend; the ship is simply impossible to steer when you have 20 different groups rowing in different directions. The best you can hope for is a regression to the lowest common denominator. I want more than that from our government and I think we got it right 200 years ago.

[Choop]

Choop, what you've described seems to me to be how the parties themselves change over time more than how a viable third (or more) party could come to the fore. Eventually, the people will vote one way or another, and eventually party platforms have to shift to accomodate the way people think.

Verily, I love the fact that this is a place where people don't get too passionate about their politics - calm, educated discussion reigns here (in most cases) and that's awesome. Now: you've absolutely hit the nail on the head with my argument: Those minor parties that currently throw in candidates for the presidency are forgetting to encourage this evolution of party affiliation on smaller scales in more places, guaranteeing themselves ages of lost elections. I'm definitely talking about a decades-long process here, and that's what it will take. I hope it's not too long for our planet or our status in the world (though I fear the latter is now shot for a century).

Note: The next section may get split into a new thread, depending.

The problem is that a large proportion of the US electorate is for defense of marriage in some form. No party interested in preserving itself will vocalize opposition to that; even Mr. Kerry could not commit to being against this type of legislation. 80% is a huge number.

Ahem. "The problem" ? No, "One problem" . A large proportion of the US also thinks that the war in Iraq is a mistake. Another large proportion of the US, likely very much overlapping with that which you cited, believes in a Trinity of God, including a human born without resulting from sexual intercourse. Why is one issue more important than another? Why is one more volatile than another?

- "Defense" or "Definition of Marriage" is a reactive measure to Massachusetts' legalization of one dude kissing only one other dude for a while, which goes against traditional "moral values," though those people reacting fail to realize the value of increasing the availability of happy homes for unwanted children (which there are more of because of similar reactions to birth control measures). This country may not accept homosexual monogamy, but there's a qualifier: "yet."

- The war in Iraq is a more important issue because we, as a nation, had no right nor recourse to attack, as has been proven. As a member of the UN, we had both, as long as the UN agreed with our position and agreed to back us in our effort. As an independent nation, none. Hussein. Posed. No. Threat. Now, we're having a hard time supplying our military with volunteers, and the casualties to civilian citizens of Iraq climb almost exponentially. Every day we're there we're less effective at fighting the insurgent natives, and it's driving down our international status as a superpower, which we had to fight tooth and nail to get. What country will join hands with the US in any measure which we claim betters the world?

The only way a multi-party coalition government could happen in the US is if a parliamentary form of government were introduced whereby the Prime Minister is obligated to form a majority coalition in order to stay in power. Governments such as these require so much deal-cutting and back-door bargaining that the overall government as a whole is powerless to react to real-world problems in a decisive way. There are sinply too many people to offend; the ship is simply impossible to steer when you have 20 different groups rowing in different directions. The best you can hope for is a regression to the lowest common denominator. I want more than that from our government and I think we got it right 200 years ago.

Who said anything about a coalition-based government? There's no need for a coalition of any number of parties in our system, nor will there be when any number of parties become major players in Congress. We've got the Congress part right. We may even have the electoral college right - the jury's still out on that one as far as I'm concerned. What we got wrong is we allowed two political parties to consolidate their power to the point when a multi-party government is near inconceivable to the average voter. We will and shall elect our President.

Didja know that George Washington didn't want to allow political parties to exist in the USA? It's true. He knew roughly where it would lead, and would be in serious physical pain if alive today, because of the severe arthritis. Seriously, how bad would it suck to be nearly three hundred years old? Plus, he'd really rail against the two major parties and the structure that allows it.

If the House and Senate were divided, say, according to this party distribution:
34% Republican
32% Democrat
13% Green
13% Libertarian
8% Independent/Other
it would resemble a coalition government, but with a major difference: the Legislative and Executive branches begin to compete with each other, and no party is strong enough to force any measure through into law without cooperation from at least several representatives from other parties. Coalition governments generally have the Legislative and Executive branches strongly aligned, because it's the Legislators that indeed keep the chief Executive in charge. Concern about impeachment is the main reason those governments are structured that way; usually they just dissolve the whole lot of it and start over. As we saw in '98 (?), impeachment isn't easy in this country. And hell, if Dubya can get along this far without even being called out as a liar, how's a raucous, divided-as-above Leg. branch going to agree that he needs impeaching?

Maybe I'm just an idealist, but I don't see the actual legislative process breaking down into LCD stages with a multi-party Congress. Bills will pass or not, according to what each politician thinks of it, as is the democratic way. Sure, some votes will be traded for others, some pork will ride on the back, but civil rights & liberties won't be so quick to erode, and our environment won't be quite so easily raped when there are opposing viewpoints to be heard. Right now it's all a bunch of people who mainly agree on all but the details. We need conflict and competition to save our government from the pundits.

[AlohaDawg]

If the House and Senate were divided, say, according to this party distribution:
34% Republican
32% Democrat
13% Green
13% Libertarian
8% Independent/Other
it would resemble a coalition government, but with a major difference: the Legislative and Executive branches begin to compete with each other, and no party is strong enough to force any measure through into law without cooperation from at least several representatives from other parties. Coalition governments generally have the Legislative and Executive branches strongly aligned, because it's the Legislators that indeed keep the chief Executive in charge. Concern about impeachment is the main reason those governments are structured that way; usually they just dissolve the whole lot of it and start over. As we saw in '98 (?), impeachment isn't easy in this country. And hell, if Dubya can get along this far without even being called out as a liar, how's a raucous, divided-as-above Leg. branch going to agree that he needs impeaching?

I have thought about this; you are right in that it will take decades for viable third/fourth parties to emerge. The level of wheeling and dealing (you call it cooperation but it really amounts to backroom deals) that would be required to get a majority for any piece of legislation would result, I think, in some truly terrible legislation getting out or absolute gridlock. Also, the Senate would be a nightmare without some serious rule changes; what kind of Judges and other appointed officials could ever win approval from such a group?

I don't know the history of the Green or Libertarian parties; they seem to hang in there but don't always even manage to make the ballots in many states.  A better candidate than Nader (Dean next time?) could certainly possibly get more votes but I think the current electorate feels that a third party vote is basically a 'protest' vote or a wasted vote. Getting past that sentiment will be tough.

[Choop]

The electorate's feelings about minor-party votes are exactly why there need to be strong local candidates for the minor parties, which will discourage the "protest vote" mentality surrounding them.

Wheeling & dealing, inter-party cooperation, whatever, it's always been a part of democratic/republican governments, and always will be. That's not the troublesome part. Changing the power structure of the parties is.

Judges and appointees need to answer to the people, not to the parties in power at the time of their appointments; if a candidate for appointment can't pass the test, so be it. Move on to the next candidate.

Nader's done. If he doesn't realize it yet, his family's doing him a disservice.

Dean, also, is done in politics, except for appointed positions by future Dem officeholders. His moment of rage-like excitement cost him his entire career. fuck*ng spin doctors! He's excited, trying to rally his troops, and he screams! So? "Oh, he's got a temper and rage level that's going to blow this country into pieces." Uh, maybe not?

[AlohaDawg]

Dean was passionate. I think an unspoken issue in this election was the sharp contrast between the passion of Dr Dean and the understated hyper-eloquence of the extremely stiff candidate Senator Kerry.

I think Kerry also suffered from trying too hard to look like a regular guy; Dean had Regular Guy in Spades. He had a moment that spun out of control but I think in this election, he could have done as well as Kerry because a lot of the votes for Kerry were for change,

[CortJstr]

Didja know that George Washington didn't want to allow political parties to exist in the USA? It's true. He knew roughly where it would lead, and would be in serious physical pain if alive today, because of the severe arthritis. Seriously, how bad would it suck to be nearly three hundred years old? Plus, he'd really rail against the two major parties and the structure that allows it.

I don't think his system would have worked. Here in VA we don't officially recognize political parties. There's no place on the voter registration form to choose one even if you wanted to. Therefore the whole state is technically registered independents. But people don't like to think and want to know at a glance who's who. So on ballots the state caved and will put a little D or R after a person's name even though the state doens't actually acknowledge that it means anything.

[arkabee]

can i veer off-topic for a moment?

my parents are dyed in the wool democrats.  my mother weeps tears of joy if you even THINK the name "Jimmy Carter  (1 - yes, she is psychic as all mothers are.  2- yes, she is sweet).

i've always thought of myself in terms of being more "left" than "right" because i've always thought that given the INCREDIBLE and VAST resources of our nation, that it is wrong to have children, future citizens, starving and freezing and sick and un- or under- educated, etc, etc, etc.  i've always thought it was our Nation's Responsibility and more so it's Privilege to take care of our Nation's Natural Resources and environment, not to pollute the soil that we grow our crops in, not the poison the water that we drink and bathe in, not darken the skies with chemicals that destroy the air we breathe.  etc, etc, etc.

however, the older i get, the more conservative i get.  i want less government.  i do not want to trade my liberties for safety.  i do not feel the government should enact legislation to PROTECT ME FROM MYSELF.  however i STRONGLY feel that the government EXISTS to PROTECT ME FROM OTHERS.

a hot bed, in my opinion, of Left versus Right is "gun control".

supposedly, the left is for gun control and the right is against gun control.

i think that statement is assinine.

a new friend from my office building is proudly and self-acknowledged to be firmly "in the right".

he has stated to me that he will not watch ABC (or as little as possible) because Dianne Sawyer once had an interview that he watched, wherein she pretty much JUMPED all over an "anti gun control" person.

i said to him "would you say you are against gun control?"  and he said "absolutely".

so i said "you are lying, and i guarantee you are for gun control."  at which point he blinked and looked at me as though i were insanse.

"would you hand a loaded pistol to your son, say nothing, and then leave the room and pay no more attention to the situation?"

"absolutely not!" he exclaimed, adding "that would be stupid and dangerous!"

"so, you ARE for gun control?" i asked and he nodded.

i bring this up not to discuss gun control.

i bring this up because i can not align myself with the democratic nor the republican parties.

i am sick of "talking points".

i am sick of extremists shouting louder and louder, and the moderates staying silent.

i am sick of both parties enacting more and more legislation, and justifying it with a simple label of "liberal" or "conservative", when the legislation has nothing to do with "liberal" or "conservative".

is "morality" the most important issue to the american population?

if it is, i suppose that i am heartened.  morality is important to a society.  i think that statement is obvious.

however, i am not convinced that morality is actually what is at stake.  i am saddened to think that the word "morality" has simply been coopted as a talking point, as a verbal figurehead, to extend agendas that have nothing to do with morality.

[slink]

I am sick, personally, of people aliging themselves with parties.
OK, I will use the UK as my example as it's where I am from...

I am not a Labour party supported. I am not a Tory supporter. I am not a Lib Dem supporter, and nor do I support any of the other parties.
When Blair decided we should follow America to war, I was against it, as most of the country. The Tories spoke out against it, saying that were they in power, they wouldn't have (which I and most people think is complete bullshit anyway - they just go against whatever Labour say, which is turning the Tories into a vaguely left looking party). Now, this does not mean that I am going to now support the Conservative party, as I still disagree with most everything else they've said.

People were saying how Howard Stern 180ed and supported Bush when he decided to go to war against terror, post 9/11. But surely he still disagreed with everything else like he did before? So WHY then say you support Bush?

Choop said that the way to go was to vote for who you think is less harmful in national election, and then vote for who you agree with locally, and this is how I would go. I wouldn't support the Republicans, or the Democrats, as the majority of both parties are corrupt, corporate shills. But I would have voted for Kerry as it would be the best choice.

I am just tired of all this 'I support so and so', when it's careless, and dangerous for good politics.