ARTICLE: Is Government Legitimate Without the Right to Vote?

[goldcatt]

i'm pretty sure that the FEC regulates or actually distributes public cash for the parties' national primary conventions - some $4M of largess. less for minor or new parties, also based on their election performances the prior go-round. that is the federal part. i really dont know how states work in that respect. this is independent from the campaign money which individual primary candidates get, and goes to the parties coffers.

no, parties aren't part of the government, but they are part of the government's elections. there's some value in considering that nuance. the Fed is not part of the government, but it is part of the government's monetary policy. these organizations are similar in that they operate in specific capacities in government functions, precluding them, i think, from summary inclusion with other organizations in the private sector, particularly dealing directly with their respective purview.

like i said earlier, i think that funding allowances should be raised and that the government should step out of the hand-out game on the fed and state level, however, i dont think that that will advantage small or non-party politics either.

So you're addressing campaign financing? All right, we can look at primary campaign financing if you like. And nomonating conventions too, since they no longer actually select the candidates and are basically campaign events these days.

I'd like to go back to the whole idea of the two major parties being entities that fulfill specific capacities in government functions first though. I have one question. If, as an example, the Republican Party as an entity were to cease to exist tomorrow, would government function also cease? What would be the real net effect on government function and the people who hold those offices?

 

[antagon]

So you're addressing campaign financing? All right, we can look at primary campaign financing if you like. And nomonating conventions too, since they no longer actually select the candidates and are basically campaign events these days.

I'd like to go back to the whole idea of the two major parties being entities that fulfill specific capacities in government functions first though. I have one question. If, as an example, the Republican Party as an entity were to cease to exist tomorrow, would government function also cease? What would be the real net effect on government function and the people who hold those offices?

well there's campaign financing, primary campaign financing and then there is party convention financing. you are right. they all function to campaign and promote. for grass rooters, so does the signature requirement tho .

this is what i was referring to:

Each major political party is entitled to $4 million (plus cost-of-living adjustments)8 to finance its national Presidential nominating convention. A qualified minor party may become eligible for partial convention funding based on its Presidential candidate's share of the popular vote in the preceding Presidential election.

A party convention committee may not spend more than the amount to which the major party is entitled.

Public Funding of Presidential Elections Brochure


we dont have to use our imaginations too intensely to figure out what would happen inf the GOP vanished. the state of the party's power on the hill offers us some hints what it would be like. the existing government would have the run of the place without formal opposition. what you described earlier as being positive -- this environment of shake-ups and new ideas -- is really facilitated by a party in power without opposition. if there were a multitude of parties, i dont believe that so many heavy-weight initiatives would have been drafted and passed, then signed into law as there have been this last session with obama and the democrats in congress. this was made possible by the party in power.

if the republicans vanished altogether, there would be little hope of a strong opposition to the incumbent agenda. this is what thomas jefferson was getting at and why parties evolved in the first place. this is why they are seen to present a valuable function in our political system and virtually every other on the planet. this is why our government has specifically sanctioned them. the government has specifically lent policy to the nurturing of strong parties rather than many parties because of the efficiency of that layout. with such parties established, laws like the ones which you are concerned about are designed to strongly vet additional parties' broad-based support as to maintain integrity on the ballot.

i argue that poor support financially and in the booths is what keeps libertarians and greens out of office, not any conspiracy over eligibility and signature requirements. when these also-run parties do get on the ballot, why dont they perform? could it be that american values are represented by major parties in the first place?

 

[antagon]

Why are people so obsessed with voting? I think it has to do with people's need to have a "voice" and the need to be a part of something bigger than themselves. It's sort of like a religion, where humanity is better as a whole when it's combined than as individuals, when in reality a bunch of humans with human instincts isn't going to remove human nature but instead expose it.

Does a majority of people who participate in the system given the them justify actions that some humans make? For those people it surely does, but for me each person has to live with the individual choices they make regardless if those choices are approved by a million people or no one.

If a billion people are telling you to blow someone's brains out does that make it justified? What if no one is telling you to blow someone's brains out does that make it justified? I'd argue it's irrelevant.

this is just human nature as i see it. voting aligns governance with its constituents on a regular interval. i offer that if this alignment is compromised that a potential for unrest will ensue. this is a component of the rule of law: social justice. if you have that, there's less of a requirement for the violent end of the rule of law.

people will blow someone's brains out at the behest of a mob. what makes blowing brains out bad is mob disapproval in the first place. it is simple as that.

 

[goldcatt]

So you're addressing campaign financing? All right, we can look at primary campaign financing if you like. And nomonating conventions too, since they no longer actually select the candidates and are basically campaign events these days.

I'd like to go back to the whole idea of the two major parties being entities that fulfill specific capacities in government functions first though. I have one question. If, as an example, the Republican Party as an entity were to cease to exist tomorrow, would government function also cease? What would be the real net effect on government function and the people who hold those offices?

well there's campaign financing, primary campaign financing and then there is party convention financing. you are right. they all function to campaign and promote. for grass rooters, so does the signature requirement tho .

this is what i was referring to:

Each major political party is entitled to $4 million (plus cost-of-living adjustments)8 to finance its national Presidential nominating convention. A qualified minor party may become eligible for partial convention funding based on its Presidential candidate's share of the popular vote in the preceding Presidential election.

A party convention committee may not spend more than the amount to which the major party is entitled.

Public Funding of Presidential Elections Brochure


we dont have to use our imaginations too intensely to figure out what would happen inf the GOP vanished. the state of the party's power on the hill offers us some hints what it would be like. the existing government would have the run of the place without formal opposition. what you described earlier as being positive -- this environment of shake-ups and new ideas -- is really facilitated by a party in power without opposition. if there were a multitude of parties, i dont believe that so many heavy-weight initiatives would have been drafted and passed, then signed into law as there have been this last session with obama and the democrats in congress. this was made possible by the party in power.

if the republicans vanished altogether, there would be little hope of a strong opposition to the incumbent agenda. this is what thomas jefferson was getting at and why parties evolved in the first place. this is why they are seen to present a valuable function in our political system and virtually every other on the planet. this is why our government has specifically sanctioned them. the government has specifically lent policy to the nurturing of strong parties rather than many parties because of the efficiency of that layout. with such parties established, laws like the ones which you are concerned about are designed to strongly vet additional parties' broad-based support as to maintain integrity on the ballot.

i argue that poor support financially and in the booths is what keeps libertarians and greens out of office, not any conspiracy over eligibility and signature requirements. when these also-run parties do get on the ballot, why dont they perform? could it be that american values are represented by major parties in the first place?

I'm separating the issues here. I see what you're talking about, the partisan tactics of advancing an agenda including both individual candidates' campaigns and the inner struggle over ideology in policy, as very different from the procedural workings of government and also from the structural integrity and institutions of government. So I'm dealing with each one separately, even though yes, they do influence each other to some extent. But when you're talking about government legitimacy, it's the procedures and most important the structural integrity and institutions that matter.

Tactics evolve, they're as fluid and temporary as the individuals and issues du jour they are developed to promote. But when we're looking at governance, the actual business of government, the procedural framework and most important the structure and institutions - the "system" - are permanent and vital and must remain so to maintain stability and legitimacy. People and parties come and go, strategies change, but the Government as an entity absorbs the changes and remains standing.

If there suddenly stopped being a partisan label of "Republican" tomorrow, or of "Democrat" for that matter, tactics would change to some extent. But what would be the difference in a procedural sense, in a systemic sense, or in the people who currently carry those labels? Would they change their ideology overnight and suddenly no longer be opposition voices - or come together to work as a majority for that matter? What would actually be lost as far as legitimacy or function of governance? Nothing but the current tactics used to advance that party's ideological agenda. And tactics and labels can and do change on a regular basis without losing anything as far as procedural or structural integrity.

That's the point I was making as far as the parties as private institutions that only deal in tactics to promote their own private agendas - if any partisan label disappeared tomorrow, to be replaced with a different label or none, I submit the actual government would be relatively unaffected and still functioning as it always has been. Which is the ultimate test of whether the duopoly is actually "necessary" or "integral" to government. It is not.

 

[antagon]

if it were a semantic change like swapping their names over i would agree that it would be business as usual. there's really no escaping that because you are describing a transition from the way the country works and has worked for 200+ years. if parties never evolved within their own capability to affect government as a coalition of elected officials, i think there would be a difference in the way things would pan out.

there are procedures and protocols within the parties which organizes their actions. this includes the partisan agenda. that term 'partisan agenda' carries some negative connotations with it, but what it is is a pre-determined bite of what a party feels it can practically chew. it presents that as a manifesto to the public for their support, and then uses the collective voting and legislative power they possess to see it through. this cant be organized without caucusing, whips, conventions, member candidates and collective exploitation of procedure. this is government. the procedures of parliamentary process are well thought out and evolved over 300 years or more -- some date to greek and roman republics. an advantage is gained by the sort of cooperation which parties afford their agenda within such systems. if you change their names, they'll stay due to this demand. if you dismantle them, they will build back...

if you dismantle the many systems which temper the plurality of parties in government, then many of them with mixed mandate will participate. in this latter scenario, party agendas will not have the same sort of advantage as an incumbent/opposition system provides. this multi-party setup is inferior for that reason (among those i've pointed out earlier). it relinquishes the value of agendas which strike a political theme from a number of initiatives (a package), by reducing the size of the bite which participants can reasonably hope to chew once the government is in session.

wouldn't policies without policy packages be less valuable, politically? wouldn't the weak mandate strike odd coalitions begging compromise of the values which garnered the parties or candidates their mandate in the first place? wouldn't the liberal and conservative coalition in the UK warn about this problem? politics is scrutinized for its pork-barrel bargaining as things are. how much worse will that become when everyone is slinging the largess for cooperation on local promises?

 

[goldcatt]

if it were a semantic change like swapping their names over i would agree that it would be business as usual. there's really no escaping that because you are describing a transition from the way the country works and has worked for 200+ years. if parties never evolved within their own capability to affect government as a coalition of elected officials, i think there would be a difference in the way things would pan out.

there are procedures and protocols within the parties which organizes their actions. this includes the partisan agenda. that term 'partisan agenda' carries some negative connotations with it, but what it is is a pre-determined bite of what a party feels it can practically chew. it presents that as a manifesto to the public for their support, and then uses the collective voting and legislative power they possess to see it through. this cant be organized without caucusing, whips, conventions, member candidates and collective exploitation of procedure. this is government. the procedures of parliamentary process are well thought out and evolved over 300 years or more -- some date to greek and roman republics. an advantage is gained by the sort of cooperation which parties afford their agenda within such systems. if you change their names, they'll stay due to this demand. if you dismantle them, they will build back...

if you dismantle the many systems which temper the plurality of parties in government, then many of them with mixed mandate will participate. in this latter scenario, party agendas will not have the same sort of advantage as an incumbent/opposition system provides. this multi-party setup is inferior for that reason (among those i've pointed out earlier). it relinquishes the value of agendas which strike a political theme from a number of initiatives (a package), by reducing the size of the bite which participants can reasonably hope to chew once the government is in session.

wouldn't policies without policy packages be less valuable, politically? wouldn't the weak mandate strike odd coalitions begging compromise of the values which garnered the parties or candidates their mandate in the first place? wouldn't the liberal and conservative coalition in the UK warn about this problem? politics is scrutinized for its pork-barrel bargaining as things are. how much worse will that become when everyone is slinging the largess for cooperation on local promises?

This is the part I don't understand. How exactly does a single ideology "package" vetted only by a single ideology "opposition" which may or may not have any power to seriously affect that one-sided agenda translate into an advantage as far as the fundamental stability and legitimacy of government?

Is it not better to vet policy from a number of different agendas and points of view in order to come up with the best, most well-proven proposals?

I realize from a tactical standpoint the more chefs there are, the messier the kitchen gets. But looking at the actual desired outcome, is a bit of a mess so much to deal with in order to get the best proposals - major policy packages, if you will. Ones that affect how we live, how we spend and how we function for often decades? Don't we want the best we can possibly get, not just the most ideologically acceptable to the partisan majority at the time?

 

[antagon]

This is the part I don't understand. How exactly does a single ideology "package" vetted only by a single ideology "opposition" which may or may not have any power to seriously affect that one-sided agenda translate into an advantage as far as the fundamental stability and legitimacy of government?

individuals dont maintain a single ideology, and for that reason vetting and debate within a party cant be characterized as you have. was this the case when the democrats decided to back a civil rights agenda? stability comes from there being a focus on a single agenda comprised of several complimentary components, and pitting that against the opposition and their agenda, as opposed to the messy kitchen as you describe it. legitimacy comes from the larger mandate afforded stronger parties than is available in systems which support a plurality of smaller parties.

Is it not better to vet policy from a number of different agendas and points of view in order to come up with the best, most well-proven proposals?

this happens before parties profess their manifestos. congress is not a forum which facilitates multi-lateral debate effectively. it is not an innovation forum. it is a voting mechanism. countries which have not taken this to heart have fist-fights in their legislatures.

I realize from a tactical standpoint the more chefs there are, the messier the kitchen gets. But looking at the actual desired outcome, is a bit of a mess so much to deal with in order to get the best proposals - major policy packages, if you will. Ones that affect how we live, how we spend and how we function for often decades? Don't we want the best we can possibly get, not just the most ideologically acceptable to the partisan majority at the time?

tactics lend directly to outcomes. this is why there are tactics and procedures. we dont have a referendum government like california's for example. we need to back politicians together with an agenda and send that mandate to washington. the legitimacy of government is compromised by the promise of an agenda without the wherewithal to see that through. parties align that wherewithal with the agenda professed in the first place. the policies + the congressional votes.

the minor party free-for-all is a mess. the outcome is the policies without the congressional votes. compromising using votes and policy is bad. it is not as rosy as you make it. it votes pork into effect, and leads to inane stubs of policy. this is bad government. i'm not speculating. there is proof...

here some of turkey's seven incumbent parties vet policies from a number of different agendas

 

[goldcatt]

I understand what you're saying here, but earlier you based your argument on the efficiency of the process of whipping the rank and file partisans into unanimity behind the single ideological platform. So the platform, or agenda, or whatever you wish to call it is set by the nongovernmental Party organization and the members are cajoled and threatened into line. If all you're concerned about is efficiency of voting, then yes - this works well. But single party totalitarian regimes are the most efficient in this regard, dispensing with a parliament or Congress altogether and ruling by fiat is the most effective of all. If our government was designed merely to be the most streamlined, efficient machine possible, why do we have a multilayered, separated representational constitutional republic instead?

And who or what exactly is to be represented by the officials who fill the seats of government? Partisan organizations and their ideologies? Or if you go back and read the debates and materials, is it supposed to the States and citizens regardless of ideology or partisan affiliation? Look at the debates, drafts and arguments surrounding the composition of Congress and the 9th and 10th Amendments, for starters. Or the Electoral College. Or the purpose for marrying the rights of speech and association/assembly within the First. The purpose of our system of government is not to be the most efficient voting mechanism possible, far from it. It is designed to represent the interests of the citizens and the States in which they reside through a multilayered and complex system of checks and balances made specifically to foster debate among the various branches and interests. The rights enshrined in the First are specifically designed to promote, among other things, the free organization, creation, dissolution and evolution of their political associations - according to their wishes, not those of the State and the partisans who wield the State's power. If you look at the specifics of the Congressional rules, both House and Senate, they are also (other than the cherished right of filibuster) designed to foster civil, structured debate - whether they are currently used for that purpose is a tactical strategy, but they exist for that purpose.

Nor does the comparison to European-style multiparty systems wherein the parliamentary partisan ratios determine both the stability and composition of all branches of government hold water. There are no partisan requirements for any office held under the US Constitution, nor does a member of Congress switching parties or going independent or a change in majority membership cause any upheval in government but internal changes in partisan leadership. Nor does civility and professionalism of the members depend on the duopoly for its existence. I've been on the floor in a State House when the fists started flying between members of the two major parties, it was an interesting experience. But the fact remains that a D or R next to a person's name does not determine whether deliberations will turn ugly. The person determines whether debate will turn ugly.

I simply do not share the priority you place on efficiency, not when you look at the facts of what the system is designed to absorb and especially not when balanced against the larger principles of free association, free choice and the representational ideal of our government.

 

[antagon]

you might have to argue that parties dont or haven't effectively represented citizens if you would propose that the status quo is not designed to do so. i argue that they have. i agree that if efficiency were the top priority, that an authoritarian setup would be best. even with two parties, our system does not reflect that top priority. arguing for the status quo, i'm not sure how my contention could be mistaken for prioritizing efficiency ahead of substance, either. i just argue that efficiency can bring substance to effect. if those effects are representation for voter mandate and consideration and passage of legislation i argue that the system in the US does that where few multi-party systems can compare.

 

[antagon]

what would make our government better for the presence of more parties? how would you characterize that environment?