B) Since Oct 25, 2006
C) Consistently contrarian attitude
High probability of:
Smooth sailing and hava nice trip.
Posted on 11/01/2006 6:21:31 AM PST by ruffedgrouse
No young person who has ever followed politics with the ferocity of a sports fan, no citizen who has been an idealist for at least a few hours, hasn't daydreamed about a third party or independent candidate – a third party winner, actually. At some point everyone with a civic soul, no matter what their ideological flavor, has yearned for an independent spirit to break through the homogenized, cuisinarted horse manure that is modern American politics.
Yet we are stuck with the same two parties, ad nauseam. It's like a world where there are two baseball teams, the Yankees and the Dodgers. Every year since the 1800s they have played 162 games against each other, and then played each other in the playoffs, and then the World Series. The players change, but never the teams.
The Constitution says nothing about parties. The great and wise founding elders detested political parties, and promptly formed them and divided up. Thanks so much.
The Civil War gave birth to the current two-party setup of Democrats and Republicans. That should have been a warning.
In 1942, an early and eminent political scientist named E.E. Schattschneider declared flatly that the two parties had a "monopoly on power" in America. Nothing has changed since then. Absolutely nothing.
Third parties do not exist because the two big parties don't want them to. It's bad for business and it's that simple.
There are three kinds of barriers to third parties, two of them created by the monopoly parties. The Constitution, however, is a problem. The American system is winner take all: you win a plurality of votes; you win the whole state or congressional district. Most other democracies have various forms of proportional representation where parties are represented in proportion to the percentage of the vote. So in Italy, for a rough example with fake parties, if in a national election got the Conservatives got 60 percent, the Socialists 30 percent and the Liberals got 10 percent, the seats in the parliament would by divvied up almost in that exact proportion. In America, it's win or lose.
Still, that doesn't mean third parties candidates are prevented from winning elections at any level. So here's where the monopoly parties come in. First, they set up rules where Democrats and Republicans automatically get on ballots, but third parties have to jump through petitioning hoops. There are 51 different sets of laws to get on the ballot in this country, one for every state, plus Washington, D.C. Next they make it hard for third parties to raise money. Then they sleep well at night.
It's "Groundhog Day" meets Sartre. No wonder people tune out.
"special interest"
There is no ATLA political party, no NEA political party, no Pharma political party, no insurance polticial party, no NRA political party, no AARP political party, no US chamber of commerce political party, no tobacco political party, no NARAL poltical party etc. etc. These alphabet organizations are not parties, they exist to funnel campaign contributions (i.e. "buy") "demopublican" people whom they like, not to get THEIR OWN MEMBERS to office.
B) Since Oct 25, 2006
C) Consistently contrarian attitude
High probability of:
Smooth sailing and hava nice trip.
So I don't like smoking. Sue me.
"There is no ATLA political party, no NEA political party, no Pharma political party, no insurance polticial party, no NRA political party, no AARP political party, no US chamber of commerce political party, no tobacco political party, no NARAL poltical party etc. etc. These alphabet organizations are not parties, they exist to funnel campaign contributions (i.e. "buy") "demopublican" people whom they like, not to get THEIR OWN MEMBERS to office"
Only because most of them aren't big enough to do so in a two-party system. The large ones (such as the environmental special interests) already have their own parties. Some of the very parties that you listed as potentially forming are special interests, albeit the larger ones. Most of the people on this forum would have few qualms about voting for a gun-rights party.
The special interests that aren't big enough to form their own parties will just be able, with more parties to choose from, find a party that represents their interests well enough to just get more bang for their buck. A real Libertarian party would be a perfect fit for the tobacco industry in trying keep the government from passing laws against smoking.
Oh, wait, I forgot, in your system third parties will fund their campaigns with sunshine and pixie dust.
--Oh, wait, I forgot, in your system third parties will fund their campaigns with sunshine and pixie dust.--
True, you'd need some real public funding to prevent a small party from being bought off by a lobby or some wealthy sugar daddy like a Soros or Scaife. Some people on this board would scream murder at such a suggestion, though.
"True, you'd need some real public funding to prevent a small party from being bought off by a lobby or some wealthy sugar daddy like a Soros or Scaife. Some people on this board would scream murder at such a suggestion, though."
A system that would allow incumbents an even greater advantage by funneling public funds into their war chests (and eventually into their own personal pockets)? My tax dollars going to fund a small political party that supports abortion on demand? Why, who could possibly oppose such a plan...
"A system that would allow incumbents an even greater advantage by funneling public funds into their war chests (and eventually into their own personal pockets)? My tax dollars going to fund a small political party that supports abortion on demand? Why, who could possibly oppose such a plan..."
OK, I hear you. Although I have no problem with tax money going to a candiadate's war chest (even if I dont' agree with said candiate) if that is the ONLY way of keeping things clean (provided the $$$ goes only to a well-defined war chest and not a personal slush fund). The only other option would be totally "neuter" lobbies by preventing ANY money tracable to a lobby to go to ANY candidate (i.e the ONLY way a candiate could raise money--if no public funding--would be by strictly limited private contributions). At least that solution would ensure that a politician "danced with the one who brung him." I don't understand the general snideness of your responses either. I'm just trying to suggest improvements in the system--and Lord knows there is plenty of room for them!
"OK, I hear you. Although I have no problem with tax money going to a candiadate's war chest (even if I dont' agree with said candiate) if that is the ONLY way of keeping things clean (provided the $$$ goes only to a well-defined war chest and not a personal slush fund)."
Keeping things clean? You're handing the keys to the asylum over to the inmates. Being able to prevent their opponents from getting any funding while being able to get as much as they need from the government will leave incumbents free to do just about any damn thing they please. You might as well let them decide whether or not their opponents will be allowed to run against them at all. It'll the founding of the first genuine American aristocracy. On top of that, nothing short of an act of God is going to prevent politicians who you've just given direct access to government money from funneling it into their pockets.
Really, I'd much rather see my politician's campaigns funded by the NRA. At least then I can choose somebody who is being bought off by groups that I agree with.
"I don't understand the general snideness of your responses either."
That tends to happen when you lead off with "Seldom have I seen so many words used to come up with an argument so lacking in imagingation."
--"Seldom have I seen so many words used to come up with an argument so lacking in imagingation."--
OOOH-KAAAY. I'm sorry. :-(
--Being able to prevent their opponents from getting any funding while being able to get as much as they need from the government will leave incumbents free to do just about any damn thing they please.--
If that be the case, then what about the second suggestion--keep lobbies out of the financing game entirley. Let the $$$ flow ONLY from private contributions of a certain amount. This way, like I said before, the politician/party has no choice but to "dance with the one who brung him/it."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.