3rd Parties are a good idea but Its more of a mirage on the horizon than a cure-all. Our Constitution is mute on the rules Congress passes to run it's own bodies and as a result, that silence has lead to the complete shit-show we have up in Washington. A 3rd party is going to be just as unscrupulous with the same rule book in it's hands; is it not?
Changing the rules will be the only thing that changes the situation. Nothing else.
Now; how do you change the rules? It's not easy. The only remedy I see is very hard to pull off. First it will take an idealistic nominee who sews up their Party's nomination before the convention. The latter is pretty easy. Bush and McCain had their nominations sewn up on Super Tuesday. The former is very difficult because they will be doing something not in their party's best interest.
The second portion would be that you would have to have a figure in the other major party that combines all 3 of the following qualities:
1. Either be a Senator on the come in the party or be in the high leadership of the House.
2. Have an eye on the White House in the future
3. Most importantly, be willing to play along with the scenario that follows.
The next step is to have the nominee who has won their party's nomination NOT name their running mate until after the national convention. Once they get the nomination (no rule forces them to have a VP or "full ticket" at the convention) they pick the person who satisfies all 3 of the qualities above. Now this is predicated on the time between winning the delegates In the Spring and the National Convention in the Summer....the two people have had meetings where they have divided up the playing field so to speak. The top of the ticket offers their running mate at least 2 plum pieces of autonomy in return for their help in lining up the opposition party's support for their initiatives.
Just for Example, if you had a Republican on top of the ticket, they want the following: Social Security reform that raises the retirement age and caps payouts for well-to-do Seniors. To get that past the Congress, the Presidential Candidate offers the Democratic Party running mate the following; support for raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour for example. Or campaign finance reform. Or (depending on the make-up of Congress), Republican support for restoring the cloture threshold to 75 or whatever.
The playing field can be divided up any number of ways but the point is that for any real change to occur, you'd need an idealistic bi-partisan ticket where the President really wants to do something momentous, the VP would have the clout to credibly dangle patronage to members of his own party for support on the President's initiatives, a Congress who has a bit more of a wide-angle lens and of course, they would have to win in the Electoral College.
Changing the rules will be the only thing that changes the situation. Nothing else.
Now; how do you change the rules? It's not easy. The only remedy I see is very hard to pull off. First it will take an idealistic nominee who sews up their Party's nomination before the convention. The latter is pretty easy. Bush and McCain had their nominations sewn up on Super Tuesday. The former is very difficult because they will be doing something not in their party's best interest.
The second portion would be that you would have to have a figure in the other major party that combines all 3 of the following qualities:
1. Either be a Senator on the come in the party or be in the high leadership of the House.
2. Have an eye on the White House in the future
3. Most importantly, be willing to play along with the scenario that follows.
The next step is to have the nominee who has won their party's nomination NOT name their running mate until after the national convention. Once they get the nomination (no rule forces them to have a VP or "full ticket" at the convention) they pick the person who satisfies all 3 of the qualities above. Now this is predicated on the time between winning the delegates In the Spring and the National Convention in the Summer....the two people have had meetings where they have divided up the playing field so to speak. The top of the ticket offers their running mate at least 2 plum pieces of autonomy in return for their help in lining up the opposition party's support for their initiatives.
Just for Example, if you had a Republican on top of the ticket, they want the following: Social Security reform that raises the retirement age and caps payouts for well-to-do Seniors. To get that past the Congress, the Presidential Candidate offers the Democratic Party running mate the following; support for raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour for example. Or campaign finance reform. Or (depending on the make-up of Congress), Republican support for restoring the cloture threshold to 75 or whatever.
The playing field can be divided up any number of ways but the point is that for any real change to occur, you'd need an idealistic bi-partisan ticket where the President really wants to do something momentous, the VP would have the clout to credibly dangle patronage to members of his own party for support on the President's initiatives, a Congress who has a bit more of a wide-angle lens and of course, they would have to win in the Electoral College.
