The deeper question: Do we actually need political parties anymore?

[kpete]

By Charles P. Pierce

............................

The deeper question: Do we actually need political parties anymore?

Maybe, in the post-Citizens United era, you can actually run a national political party as a loose coalition of wealthy independent contractors, who pick their own candidates for their own reasons, and then run them under your banner. However, it strikes me as an invitation to endless internecine bloodletting and political incoherence. It also strikes me as a recipe for continuing gridlock if and when any of the Deb Fischers of the world actually get elected. They've been formed in a system whereby their primary loyalties are to the extra-party organizations, or the wealthy individuals, to whom they owe their success. Against that, what can Mitch McConnell do to them? They've also got his ass in their sights, anyway.


Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/deb-fischer-wins-nebraska-primary-8893769#ixzz1v2wqUPai

[RC]

1. Some countries have a Unicameral Legislature

that works very well for them. Of course those countries is nowhere as corrupt as the United States of America.

[SoutherDem]

2. Maybe we need more

Currently we have two major parties.

With only two this makes any effort of a 3rd party to win difficult. Usually the 3rd party is a variation to one of the big two. It almost causes the opposite party to win e.g. if the liberals are divided the conservatives win. If we had 4 or 5 parties. Across the political spectrum it may give the American voter a better choice in choosing a candidate.

The problem is with a run off system we still brought back to two parties, with the electoral college we are almost guaranteed that the presidential election will go to the Senate (I think that is were it goes next)putting the vote to those in office. For multiple parties to work we would need to a form of government similar to those in Europe.

If we attempted to eliminate political parties and the elected officials would actually vote the will of the people sounds good but it could also cause even more gridlock, only instead of two lined up head to head we would now have 535, or dozens of coalitions lined up head to head.

IMO We need to 1)take personhood from corporations, 2)limit campaign donations, 3)limit lobbying, 4)have truth in advertising laws, and 5)maybe through the FCC give each candidate equal air time.

1) The idea that corporations should be considered a person is insane.

2) I understand some feel money is free speech but it give the rich more of a voice than the poor.

3) Lobbying is fine but perhaps limit the time any one group can lobby or force someone with skin in the game to do the lobbying not someone who does it for a living and no donations through lobbyist.

4) All claims in campaign advertising must be proven. There are organizations which examine ads after the fact will often find the ads are outright lies and extremely misleading.

5) If we really want the average citizen to be elected to any office we need to give a voice to them. I said maybe on this one because I can see the issues involved and if 1-4 were done it may not be needed.

[oldernwiser]

8. Expanding the list a little

I whole-heartedly agree with #5 - when was the last time we saw a WalMart stock boy holding an office of any kind? We put too much emphasis on the opportunities afforded an individual and too little on the common sense required to actually be effective in an elected capacity. I'm thinking this is, pretty much, a cash issue. Obviously, if a candidate comes from a fairly well-connected family he stands a better chance of winning an election than someone who comes from a long line of blue collar workers. Who the better candidate is will never be known, and I can't think of a way around this other than to maybe make media airtime both free and equitable.

Of course, this would send us back to a time when the media had a responsibility to be fair, unbiased, and allowed for opposing viewpoints. Rush would be out of a job if that ever happened again.

[yurbud]

10. it would be nice if we had truth in advertising for parties

when you vote a new party in and they substantially agree with the most egregious policies of their predecessors and in spite of the core principles of their party that party members thought they were voting on, then the labels are meaningless.

[oldernwiser]

11. I think you miss the point a little

Right now, we have a form of government which allows a few puppet-masters to dictate the country's business. This applies equally to both Democrats and Republicans. As long as one party has 60 members seated, they can become the Obstructionist party and effectively block any legislation they choose to by threatening to filibuster every new law or executive nomination. Essentially, this makes the party in power look to the American people as if they are either ineffective or bowing to the policies of their predecessors.

The rate of cloture (definition here) votes in the Congress is at the highest point ever in the history of our country. Currently, every single nomination of appellate and federal judges has been stonewalled by the Republican party so that it will take years just to get through the list - more years than Obama would have should he be re-elected. Effectively, the Republicans have cut the Democrats off at the knees. Public opinion is also being manipulated by the obstructionist party, which is why good Republicans are supplanted by horrible Democrats and vice versa. This tool is used by both parties - however, the Republicans have become VERY good at using it.

What's the solution? I think the point of this post is very well put. Without a party of any kind, a candidate would have to stand or fall on his own merits. If the American public were required to really look at a candidate rather than to rely on the ever changing labels applied to party affiliation, then perhaps the way the country does business would revert to the original values: a republic with a representative form of government - and by "representative" I mean of the people and not of the political party itself.

Currently, our senate needs 51 members present in order to take a vote on any issue - the quorum rule is a majority of members: half the possible voters + 1. Perhaps our own election process should take that same approach. In order for an election to be valid, a majority of registered voters needs to have cast a ballot. Without a quorum, the election results are rejected and the process repeated until such time as a quorum is established. In the case of an unopposed position, the same ratio would have to accept the candidate. Maybe the so-called "voter apathy" phenomenon is actually due to the fact that we aren't voting for a particular candidate so much as we're selecting a political party. If the latter is the case, then it doesn't much matter who runs for office as long as they wear the right shirt. A voting quorum could ensure that the parties field not just someone who could win an election based on simple demographics, but someone who has the confidence of the electorate.

[wenziga]

3. Spam deleted by ScreamingMeemie (MIR Team)

[Odin2005]

4. We need a REAL WORKERS' PARTY.

[bemildred]

5. Yes.

I have to say that I have been surprised, for some time now, that our political leaders have not cottoned onto this problem, since in the past they have been assiduous in hanging onto power at all costs. Now they have allowed themselves to become paid servants. Tsk. Giants of the past like LBJ and Tip O'Neill would be appalled.

[sad sally]

6. Since our diplomatic leaders seem to favor countries that "democratically" hold elections with

only one person on the ballot, I'd say that's where the US may be headed.

Any pesky competitors can be locked up, any uprisings by the people can be quickly squelched by the well-armed police. As Sec Clinton said in her congratulations to the people of Yemen on their recent "one person on the ballot" election, "another important step forward in their democratic transition process."

[bemildred]

7. Whenever I hear about some "X transition process" I always translate it as:

"initiative to stave off X", ever since old "Paris Peace Process". If they wanted X, they would insist on X, as is done with "enemies".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Accords:

"The negotiations that led to the accord began in 1968 after various lengthy delays."

[oldernwiser]

9. hmmm...

Unfortunately, this is how our own ballots look now. If a party should concede a district due to some poll that says the other party holds a lock, then the incumbent runs unopposed. What I believe is wrong with this equation is that if so much as 1 person votes for him, and we can assume the candidate will vote for himself, he's in. That isn't exactly the will of the people so much as it is the will of the party. No wonder that voter turnouts are unimpressive.