We must ditch the two major parties for our own good

Bucks County Courier Times ^ | 21 MAY 2017 | JD Mullane

[Vince Ferrer]

The wisdom of George Washington is proven correct. He was against political parties. Let them all run as Independents and not beholden to towing the party line or arm twisting tactics. Term limits are a must.

The parties used to be necessary in order to have the organization to fundraise and spread one's message, but with the internet today I don't think that applies very much anymore. President Trump was so cost effective using twitter where Jeb and Hillary had to buy an infinite amount of ads to try to even the coverage.

[Windflier]

How can we abolish the right of people to “freely assemble,” as the parties will consider themselves?

I'm not advocating to abolish political parties outside of government. That would be un-American, and wholly unconstitutional.

I just want to erect a firewall between political parties and those who serve in stations of public trust. Two hundred and forty years of experience has shown that political parties are ruinous to the people's liberties, when allowed to operate freely within our government.

[Yaelle]

I hear you. But even “not having a party” won’t stop alliances inside government, that will not have our best interests at heart. It won’t be a magic eraser for the corruption that has clearly taken us over, government wise.

And I am not being pessimistic. I actually believe in the American people, and I believe we could disinfect and drain the swam EASILY if we all understood. With or without parties. How to get the rest of us awake? Parties do hurt us when people feel they have to vote for the party their friends like.

[DoughtyOne]

FReepers, it's time to get serious about retiring this FReep-a-thon.


Free Republic, the Home of the Eternal FReeper, Conservatism's Finest  (timely thoughts on the FReeper dynamic and Free Republic)

Ramirez political cartoon: Try it! Single Payer... LARGE VERSION 05/08/2017: LINK  LINK to regular sized versions of his political cartoons (archive).

Please join the monthlies, an automated way to help support Free Republic.

If you are not opting to join the automated monthly support program, please consider joining the One One Done project.  LINK

FReepers, 53.38% of the Second Quarter FReep-a-thon goal has been met.  Click above and pencil in your donation now.  Please folks, lets end this FReepathon.  Thank you!
...this is a general all-purpose message, and should not be seen as targeting any individual I am responding to...

[Windflier]

...“not having a party” won’t stop alliances inside government, that will not have our best interests at heart. It won’t be a magic eraser for the corruption that has clearly taken us over, government wise.

True, but if a legal firewall were put in place between public servants and political parties, at least the people would have some recourse to throw them out for going to the dark side.

As always, I appreciate your thoughtful comments.

[Yaelle]

I like the way you think, as well. But how to find a way to create that loophole of the fire wall? Can you imagine the opposition? And would the firewall be “in name only?” Gays weren’t allowed to serve in the military not long ago. But they still did.

[Windflier]

But how to find a way to create that loophole of the fire wall? Can you imagine the opposition? And would the firewall be “in name only?”

I think we both know that public servants would covertly maintain their alleigiances to the major parties while serving, but with a constitutional amendment and stiff penalties preventing open involvement or contact with political parties, the air in DC would be a lot cleaner.

Business in the House and Senate would have to be conducted in such a way, that all appearances of partisan conduct would be verboten.

The ability of lawmakers to caucus around issues, rather than party, would be greatly enhanced, and even demanded by the public. Even voting would change, as candidates for federal office would no longer run as Democrats, Republicans, Greens, or Libertarians. They'd all be Independents, espousing whatever views attracted the most voters.

I think voters would also keep a better eye on their reps after they arrived in Washington, as it would no longer be assumed that your rep would just vote the party line. Folks would have to pay closer attention to what their reps were doing, to see if they got what they voted for.

It seems that a fairly large segment of the population has already abandoned the old parties, so it follows that an idea such as a constitutional amendment forbidding political parties within government could see the light of day within the next couple of election cycles.

[Yaelle]

The ability of lawmakers to caucus around issues, rather than party, would be greatly enhanced, and even demanded by the public. Even voting would change, as candidates for federal office would no longer run as Democrats, Republicans, Greens, or Libertarians. They’d all be Independents, espousing whatever views attracted the most voters.

I think voters would also keep a better eye on their reps after they arrived in Washington, as it would no longer be assumed that your rep would just vote the party line. Folks would have to pay closer attention to what their reps were doing, to see if they got what they voted for.

---

Your two paragraphs above are reasons enough to abandon the parties. Even if alliances remained. Because it would change PEOPLE’S PERCEPTIONS both at the state level (in CA half the people wouldn’t feel disenfranchised from moment one like we do now) and, as you say, about their rep in DC. (I never pick up a phone to call my reps. It would be the same futility as asking the ATM to give me $1mil in cash.)

Anything that gives people the motivation to stay politically involved and feel like there is a chance for a government by and for us is a step in the right direction.

[free_life]

Outlaw political parties, elect 100 independent Senators and 435 independent Representatives in House. Make them represent the voters of their districts again not political parties and lobbyists.

[PeterPrinciple]

The ‘two party system’ isn’t working at all. Political parties have practically destroyed this once great nation, and ought to be outlawed.

---

so what do you think is the PERFECT solution..........

[Windflier]

so what do you think is the PERFECT solution......

Geez, I can see the sarcastic smirk from here.

Perhaps you've already seen my proposed solution upthread. If not, I suggest that anyone serving in any capacity in the federal government, disavow and foreswear all participation in, and any contact with political parties of any stripe.

I'd like to see a constitutional amendment making it unlawful for federal public servants of all ranks to be affiliated in any way with political parties. Let those seeking elective office run as Independents, running on whatever platform they think best serves the people's interest.

Let our reps caucus around issues - not party - and vote accordingly.

[Windflier]

We’ll never get rid of political factions and labels, even with a constitutional amendment forbidding affiliation with political parties at the federal level, but I do feel that adopting such an amendment would encourage more ‘truth in advertising’ among the elected class.

It would be a lot harder for someone like Olympia Snowe to go to Congress and claim to be a Republican, while voting with the Dems timed and time again. Aspiring office holders would have to run on a liberal or conservative platform, then stick to that, if they hoped to be re-elected.

[PeterPrinciple]

I’d like to see a constitutional amendment making it unlawful for federal public servants of all ranks to be affiliated in any way with political parties. Let those seeking elective office run as Independents, running on whatever platform they think best serves the people’s interest.

---

And I will counter that human nature will circumvent any fence you set up. Your focus on independents does not stop the grouping up of people. It is not the political parties that are the problem, it is human nature.

Just like term limits will not stop the corruption, it means that the corruption will have to happen faster in the time that is given.

Does local government vs centralized government solve the problem? no it just moves the corruption. But being local we distributes the corruption so it does less damage nationally and hopefully lets the locals make the corrections.

It is a principle of Conservatism TO UNDERSTAND HUMAN NATURE. So, knowing that human nature is the problem and there is no solution, we do the best we can.

As I said, the two party system is MUCH BETTER than the one party system and the multiple party system and your idealist independent system.

10 Principles of Conservatism:

http://www.kirkcenter.org/detail/ten-conservative-principles/

[PeterPrinciple]

I would add that our founding fathers were great thinkers and set up two methods of revolution .

1) A peaceful political revolution thru voting. We are in that process right now and the system they set up is working. Hampering that process with more rules and laws does not solve the problem and won’t help. Every law passed takes away our freedom and recourse and is used against us. I repeat the system is working if we will use it.

I am constantly amazed that conservatives will pass just as many laws as liberals and think it will solve the problem. But our laws are better, I am told. I am not an anarchist or a libertarian. it is a fine line and again, our founding fathers set up an amazing system.

2) the 2nd amendment if the first fails.

[Windflier]

I will counter that human nature will circumvent any fence you set up. Your focus on independents does not stop the grouping up of people.

I've stated as much, in nearly every post I've made about my proposal.

Under my proposal, there would be nothing to stop lawmakers from banding together under the shared umbrella of mutually held principles, but at least we'd see more truth in advertising amongst those scoundrels.

It would make it tough to run as a conservative, then go to Congress and vote with the liberals. We also just need to get the political machines out of the government.

Honestly, the tide has already begun moving in that direction. Fewer and fewer people are donating money to the two major parties, while more and more re-register as Independents. The people are sick to death of the two major parties, and the above is the proof.

In time we won't even need an amendment, as the parties become less and less popular with voters. Soon enough, partisan labels may well become radioactive.

[PeterPrinciple]

Honestly, the tide has already begun moving in that direction. Fewer and fewer people are donating money to the two major parties, while more and more re-register as Independents. The people are sick to death of the two major parties, and the above is the proof.
In time we won’t even need an amendment, as the parties become less and less popular with voters. Soon enough, partisan labels may well become radioactive.

---

If we won’t need the amendment, why encumber the system with it?

So we agree the system is working and self correcting. The story is still being written and we will have a lot of surprise along the way. I am still hopeful that the Republicans will rediscover their heritage. But the battle will NEVER go away.

And we need to find our role in the revolution. We can’t let Trump do all the fighting...................

[Windflier]

I would add that our founding fathers were great thinkers and set up two methods of revolution .

1) A peaceful political revolution thru voting. We are in that process right now and the system they set up is working. Hampering that process with more rules and laws does not solve the problem and won’t help.

I don't see how my proposed amendment hampers or constrains the people's free exercise of their liberties in any way. It only constrains those who would rule, and hampers the ability of powerful political machines to run our government.

Political parties have proven to be a pernicious evil, and there's nothing in the Constitution which grants them any rights, acknowledgement, or a seat at the table of power. Understanding the above, why should I hold them in any regard?

On the other hand, the People and the States are specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and in fact, the entire document is crafted with great care to restrain the federal government, putting limits on its enumerated powers.

It's no secret that the Framers held political parties in great disdain, and wanted to avoid partisanship within the ranks of the elected class. Alas, they didn't see fit to forbid open partisanship within the three branches of government, and here we are today.

[Windflier]

If we won’t need the amendment, why encumber the system with it?

I'm just sitting here stirring my brain, and throwing stuff against the wall. No need to take my ruminations seriously

I'm just a simple American who believes in our country's founding ideals and our form of government, which made us the greatest, most successful nation in all of human history.

I don't give a damn about the two party system, which has done nothing but bleed and weaken us as a people. If it died tomorrow, I'd take the day off and go to the range to celebrate.

[Windflier]

The story is still being written and we will have a lot of surprise along the way. I am still hopeful that the Republicans will rediscover their heritage. But the battle will NEVER go away.

I'm with you there. I'm a fighter, and an incurable optimist, so I'll never give up hope. It's just the way I'm wired, where it comes to our beloved country.

I also agree that we can't let the President do all the heavy lifting. From where we sit as citizens, the least we can do is to communicate our feelings to our elected reps, and send the President a note of encouragement from time to time.

I'm going to start doing that.

[Tunehead54]

UniParty bump!