ARTICLE: Is Government Legitimate Without the Right to Vote?

[The T]

This is a interesting issue, so far the two parties have worked pretty well. But consider the various populist movements that interfere in sometimes a good way in the electoral process. Progressives last century and tea party today. Given our recent elections it would seem it better or easier to run your candidate against the opposition, if you think they are strong enough to win. But then the assumption is 'your party' has new ideas. Elect a few of these candidates and then they can later form their own party. Look a Bernie Sanders as an example. I've heard Italy can get nothing done because of too many parties, but having been there they must be picking some ok social democrats. lol

YouTube - 09.29.08: God Bless Our Two-Party System

Really? As a matter of course they haven't...and the very Constitution they had sworn to uphold and defend has been set aside, and they have been more of party than Constitution resulting in the unweildy behemoth we see before us.

 

[goldcatt]

We have had dozens of third parties. All they seem to do is suck votes away from either the Dems or Reps. thus insuring the dominance of one party. I prefer to see more independents.

From a tactical standpoint in the current climate I tend to agree with you. From a policy and systemic standpoint all candidates and parties should have equal access to the ballot, no matter how small the party or "fringe" the candidate. No individual or party should have a higher threshhold than any other. And that threshhold cannot be so high as to be a back door deterrent to all but the biggest players, it needs to be merely enough to certify the candidate or party and fit its stated purpose.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We have had dozens of third parties. All they seem to do is suck votes away from either the Dems or Reps. thus insuring the dominance of one party. I prefer to see more independents.

From a tactical standpoint in the current climate I tend to agree with you. From a policy and systemic standpoint all candidates and parties should have equal access to the ballot, no matter how small the party or "fringe" the candidate. No individual or party should have a higher threshhold than any other. And that threshhold cannot be so high as to be a back door deterrent to all but the biggest players, it needs to be merely enough to certify the candidate or party and fit its stated purpose.

The only law that need be changed is that people register as a party with the right to change said party anytime they want. If enough people in a State are registered as a party then that party has access. If no party then they need x number of signatures to be added.

Funny how here in NC the two big parties are NEVER the only parties listed on election ballot material.

 

[goldcatt]

We have had dozens of third parties. All they seem to do is suck votes away from either the Dems or Reps. thus insuring the dominance of one party. I prefer to see more independents.

From a tactical standpoint in the current climate I tend to agree with you. From a policy and systemic standpoint all candidates and parties should have equal access to the ballot, no matter how small the party or "fringe" the candidate. No individual or party should have a higher threshhold than any other. And that threshhold cannot be so high as to be a back door deterrent to all but the biggest players, it needs to be merely enough to certify the candidate or party and fit its stated purpose.

The only law that need be changed is that people register as a party with the right to change said party anytime they want. If enough people in a State are registered as a party then that party has access. If no party then they need x number of signatures to be added.

Funny how here in NC the two big parties are NEVER the only parties listed on election ballot material.

Problem is that leaves out the nonpartisans. Forcing an individual to associate is just as bad as punishing them for associating with the "wrong" group.

ETA: I'm sure other parties and independents raise the funds and find volunteers willing to jump through the hoops for at least the local races, which have different requirements. But that's money and time the majors don't have to spend....detracting from their ability to compete....see the cycle built in here?

 

[antagon]

i'm just putting forward a fact of the matter as i see it. from my view, there's nothing desperately disconnected with american politics. it is in my estimation more democratic than it has ever been. despite that, i just think that it is disingenuous to call a totalitarian regime illegit if it could maintain the rule of law. i dont think it makes much sense to ascribe legitimacy to democracies which cant. democracy is a tool whereby nations can maintain the rule of law with less expenditure of force. the legitimacy is in whether or not they can sustain the act, no matter how it is configured.

No question. But one would suppose that such a government would respect and hold in high esteem the documents ratified to make it what it is.

We see before us now that isn't the case. Those in power have no reguard for the Documents, and do their level best to skirt, to circumvent it while telling the masses that the law they pass is something other than what it truly is.

That practice has caught up to them. And the governed aren't a bit pleased that they have been lied to, and their trust has been besmirched to the point that normally politically inactive have had their lives torn asunder to the point to where they have had to act to counter the breach of trust.

That is what the Tea Party is. Like it or not...the Governed calling into question of the legitimacy of those they thought they could trust.

Elections do indeed have consequences. And those consequences are paying negative dividends as to liberty in favour of government.

Those who gave stock, are demanding repayment...and it is going to be paid by both parties no matter the word or deed of either party. It's a matter of trust. And they are overdrawn.

i personally don't see a legit argument for your contention that the government is out of step with the constitution. i think the arguments laid by injustices upholding laws challenged for their constitutionality are convincing. not to disregard the eloquence of the dissent, though. in the end, i think it is a progression of the human government intended by our founding documents, rather than the paper government advocated by strict constructionists who don't really have the mandate of the documents themselves in my view.

while third parties are welcome, they have a big disadvantage. i've argued it is a righteous disadvantage, which insures that if one obtains the legitimacy of a major party, that it would be a well-vetted movement possessing consistent popular support. it will make that support more likely into the future. that's how our current parties have got where they're at.

tparty's certainly not my thing, but approaching the challenge of being a major contender is admirable.

 

[antagon]

The problem I have is not with a 2-party system per se, IF the two parties that gained ascendancy did it on a level playing field and by being the natural choice of voters.

The problem I have is when we have a system like the current one, wherein the two dominant parties (themselves private entities, remember - not public) are able and willing to use public funds and the power of the laws to promote, maintain and enforce their own dominance. In the process, we as individuals lose the power of choice and the parties themselves lose their ability to evolve, dissolve and reform as the political climate demands.

We end up stuck in a static system where two private entities become more and more distant from both the people they claim to serve and the real issues of governance, and without any formal accountability dictate all public choices. Alternative voices face enormous obstacles or are shut out of the process altogether.

Perhaps if two private entities wish to control the public electoral process to this extent, they should also be required to pay for the elections.

What's not to love about that tradition, right?

i think there's dividends to a two-party system not accounted for in your appraisal, goldcatt. that said, i think it is in the purview and interest of government to maintain that by way of soft restrictions like steep signature requirements. i could reterm your idea of reforming and evolving political representation as political volatility. i dont think that government should jerk policy around like that, personally. i argue that a plurality of opinion as to how will lead to less effectiveness than the status quo, too.

i could summarize the proceeds of a two party system with the word mandate. in terms of the extract of suffrage which lends to the legitimacy of government, i think mandate is what really does it. mandate for leadership in multi-party systems is too weak. if victory can be achieved with 20% of the vote as it can in italy, the victor cant demonstrate that they have the backing of a majority or even close. this is a problem.

The system is designed to stabilize itself without the presence of political parties at all. What the parties themselves represent is not government stability, but entrenched interests and advancement of private organizations and agendas in the public arena, using public resources and monopolizing the public discourse.

What other private, nominally nonprofit entities are granted this type of control and have it protected by law, using public funds to carry it out?

fewer, stronger parties are at the core of our government system. i don't think that contending otherwise is historically accurate. it goes back to british parliamentary rules favoring strong governments, but is different in that it does not do so mandatorily.

i believe that you've characterized politics altogether. do you think the trappings of power settle in the hands of politicians just because they're organized into parties?

 

[goldcatt]

i think there's dividends to a two-party system not accounted for in your appraisal, goldcatt. that said, i think it is in the purview and interest of government to maintain that by way of soft restrictions like steep signature requirements. i could reterm your idea of reforming and evolving political representation as political volatility. i dont think that government should jerk policy around like that, personally. i argue that a plurality of opinion as to how will lead to less effectiveness than the status quo, too.

i could summarize the proceeds of a two party system with the word mandate. in terms of the extract of suffrage which lends to the legitimacy of government, i think mandate is what really does it. mandate for leadership in multi-party systems is too weak. if victory can be achieved with 20% of the vote as it can in italy, the victor cant demonstrate that they have the backing of a majority or even close. this is a problem.

The system is designed to stabilize itself without the presence of political parties at all. What the parties themselves represent is not government stability, but entrenched interests and advancement of private organizations and agendas in the public arena, using public resources and monopolizing the public discourse.

What other private, nominally nonprofit entities are granted this type of control and have it protected by law, using public funds to carry it out?

fewer, stronger parties are at the core of our government system. i don't think that contending otherwise is historically accurate. it goes back to british parliamentary rules favoring strong governments, but is different in that it does not do so mandatorily.

i believe that you've characterized politics altogether. do you think the trappings of power settle in the hands of politicians just because they're organized into parties?

Our government system was designed and put into place at a time when there were no formalized political parties as we know them, and it worked just fine. The internal structure is designed to force compromise between competing branches, powers and levels within the Federal structure itself in order to vet policy. There is no need for two competing formalized command structures dictating policy positions to the rank and file to make it work. It works with no parties at all, with two, or with fifty. Tactics would change, but systemically the structure will absorb it and continue to allow stable governance.

I think a lot of people are so used to the issues being lumped together as "politics" they fail to make the distinction between political tactics, policy making or governing and the stability or integrity of the governmental structure. They are three different things. Changing the stranglehold the two parties have on politics and policy will fundamentally shake up tactics, I have no argument with that. But the system would not lose integrity nor would policy fail to be made. The COTUS itself and the structures as created by it are not dependent on partisan afilliation to function and function well.

 

[antagon]

The system is designed to stabilize itself without the presence of political parties at all. What the parties themselves represent is not government stability, but entrenched interests and advancement of private organizations and agendas in the public arena, using public resources and monopolizing the public discourse.

What other private, nominally nonprofit entities are granted this type of control and have it protected by law, using public funds to carry it out?

fewer, stronger parties are at the core of our government system. i don't think that contending otherwise is historically accurate. it goes back to british parliamentary rules favoring strong governments, but is different in that it does not do so mandatorily.

i believe that you've characterized politics altogether. do you think the trappings of power settle in the hands of politicians just because they're organized into parties?

Our government system was designed and put into place at a time when there were no formalized political parties as we know them, and it worked just fine. The internal structure is designed to force compromise between competing branches, powers and levels within the Federal structure itself in order to vet policy. There is no need for two competing formalized command structures dictating policy positions to the rank and file to make it work. It works with no parties at all, with two, or with fifty. Tactics would change, but systemically the structure will absorb it and continue to allow stable governance.

I think a lot of people are so used to the issues being lumped together as "politics" they fail to make the distinction between political tactics, policy making or governing and the stability or integrity of the governmental structure. They are three different things. Changing the stranglehold the two parties have on politics and policy will fundamentally shake up tactics, I have no argument with that. But the system would not lose integrity nor would policy fail to be made. The COTUS itself and the structures as created by it are not dependent on partisan afilliation to function and function well.

this is not historically accurate, goldcatt. i dont believe that non-partisan or multi-party systems can be seen as efficient either. deliberate mind has been paid to incorporating minimalized party participation in our national government for a reason. ignoring that ad lapidem without acknowledging the consequences borne out in systems which are structured around a bunch of parties isn't reasonable.

on the topic of dictating to the rank and file, i argue that this is precisely what was envisaged by our founders. i argue that without that, congress will be the sort of fist-fighting chaos you see in other country's legislatures.

 

[goldcatt]

fewer, stronger parties are at the core of our government system. i don't think that contending otherwise is historically accurate. it goes back to british parliamentary rules favoring strong governments, but is different in that it does not do so mandatorily.

i believe that you've characterized politics altogether. do you think the trappings of power settle in the hands of politicians just because they're organized into parties?

Our government system was designed and put into place at a time when there were no formalized political parties as we know them, and it worked just fine. The internal structure is designed to force compromise between competing branches, powers and levels within the Federal structure itself in order to vet policy. There is no need for two competing formalized command structures dictating policy positions to the rank and file to make it work. It works with no parties at all, with two, or with fifty. Tactics would change, but systemically the structure will absorb it and continue to allow stable governance.

I think a lot of people are so used to the issues being lumped together as "politics" they fail to make the distinction between political tactics, policy making or governing and the stability or integrity of the governmental structure. They are three different things. Changing the stranglehold the two parties have on politics and policy will fundamentally shake up tactics, I have no argument with that. But the system would not lose integrity nor would policy fail to be made. The COTUS itself and the structures as created by it are not dependent on partisan afilliation to function and function well.

this is not historically accurate, goldcatt. i dont believe that non-partisan or multi-party systems can be seen as efficient either. deliberate mind has been paid to incorporating minimalized party participation in our national government for a reason. ignoring that ad lapidem without acknowledging the consequences borne out in systems which are structured around a bunch of parties isn't reasonable.

on the topic of dictating to the rank and file, i argue that this is precisely what was envisaged by our founders. i argue that without that, congress will be the sort of fist-fighting chaos you see in other country's legislatures.

I disagree as to your characterization of the early political parties. They existed, certainly - but they were fluid, more or less informal entities and associations formed around an individual or group of like-minded indivduals in power. As the mutliple changes in the partisan structure indicated. It wasn't until the 20th Century that the modern formalized political partisan entity developed and received the systematic backing of the public trust - and treasury.

I'm baffled at your assertion that the Founders designed Congress in order to accommodate two ascendant political parties dictating to the members. Where in any of the Founding documents or the primary supporting sources do you find this information? I am not familiar with any debate or discussion on the subject of designing a two party system to accommodate their design, or designing government with a particular partisan system in mind.

 

[antagon]

Our government system was designed and put into place at a time when there were no formalized political parties as we know them, and it worked just fine. The internal structure is designed to force compromise between competing branches, powers and levels within the Federal structure itself in order to vet policy. There is no need for two competing formalized command structures dictating policy positions to the rank and file to make it work. It works with no parties at all, with two, or with fifty. Tactics would change, but systemically the structure will absorb it and continue to allow stable governance.

I think a lot of people are so used to the issues being lumped together as "politics" they fail to make the distinction between political tactics, policy making or governing and the stability or integrity of the governmental structure. They are three different things. Changing the stranglehold the two parties have on politics and policy will fundamentally shake up tactics, I have no argument with that. But the system would not lose integrity nor would policy fail to be made. The COTUS itself and the structures as created by it are not dependent on partisan afilliation to function and function well.

this is not historically accurate, goldcatt. i dont believe that non-partisan or multi-party systems can be seen as efficient either. deliberate mind has been paid to incorporating minimalized party participation in our national government for a reason. ignoring that ad lapidem without acknowledging the consequences borne out in systems which are structured around a bunch of parties isn't reasonable.

on the topic of dictating to the rank and file, i argue that this is precisely what was envisaged by our founders. i argue that without that, congress will be the sort of fist-fighting chaos you see in other country's legislatures.

I disagree as to your characterization of the early political parties. They existed, certainly - but they were fluid, more or less informal entities and associations formed around an individual or group of like-minded indivduals in power. As the mutliple changes in the partisan structure indicated. It wasn't until the 20th Century that the modern formalized political partisan entity developed and received the systematic backing of the public trust - and treasury.

I'm baffled at your assertion that the Founders designed Congress in order to accommodate two ascendant political parties dictating to the members. Where in any of the Founding documents or the primary supporting sources do you find this information? I am not familiar with any debate or discussion on the subject of designing a two party system to accommodate their design, or designing government with a particular partisan system in mind.

the founders knew how politics worked. by the turn of the 19th century, all of what you ascribe to the 20th was in full effect. the Rs and Ds have dominated politics since the 1850s. color me baffled.

an anecdote:

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, liberals and serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, whigs and tories, republicans and federalists, aristocrats and democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last appellation of aristocrats and democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all."

-- thomas jefferson ...in a letter affirming his view on the facts of partisan politics.

 

[Flopper]

The two party system is more the exception than the rule. Most countries are ruled by a single dominate party or multiple parties. More than two parties mean coalitions which I think could be either good or bad.

 

[goldcatt]

this is not historically accurate, goldcatt. i dont believe that non-partisan or multi-party systems can be seen as efficient either. deliberate mind has been paid to incorporating minimalized party participation in our national government for a reason. ignoring that ad lapidem without acknowledging the consequences borne out in systems which are structured around a bunch of parties isn't reasonable.

on the topic of dictating to the rank and file, i argue that this is precisely what was envisaged by our founders. i argue that without that, congress will be the sort of fist-fighting chaos you see in other country's legislatures.

I disagree as to your characterization of the early political parties. They existed, certainly - but they were fluid, more or less informal entities and associations formed around an individual or group of like-minded indivduals in power. As the mutliple changes in the partisan structure indicated. It wasn't until the 20th Century that the modern formalized political partisan entity developed and received the systematic backing of the public trust - and treasury.

I'm baffled at your assertion that the Founders designed Congress in order to accommodate two ascendant political parties dictating to the members. Where in any of the Founding documents or the primary supporting sources do you find this information? I am not familiar with any debate or discussion on the subject of designing a two party system to accommodate their design, or designing government with a particular partisan system in mind.

the founders knew how politics worked. by the turn of the 19th century, all of what you ascribe to the 20th was in full effect. the Rs and Ds have dominated politics since the 1850s. color me baffled.

an anecdote:

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, liberals and serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, whigs and tories, republicans and federalists, aristocrats and democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last appellation of aristocrats and democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all."

-- thomas jefferson ...in a letter affirming his view on the facts of partisan politics.

I think we're talking about two different things here. You're addressing a letter from Jefferson, a known proponent of partisan politics, opining on the coalescence of the two basic ideological camps originating with the Federalists and Anti-Federalists into groups and an identity being attached to each group. I'm talking about the formalization of those groups into the modern partisan entity and the formation of the current public welfare system propping up and protecting those organizations from competition - and themselves.

One is a more or less natural occurrence (assuming each of these "parties" can naturally be gathered under a single umbrella - as the struggle among partisan factions illustrates is not necessarily a natural occurrence in itself) and was addressed in one of my earlier posts, where I stated I have no problem with a two party system per se so long as all players are given a level playing field and free choice.

The problem I have is not with people voluntarily organizing, or forming parties, or any other group of whatever name you want to apply - grassroots movements and the like. That's association. The problem I have is with the modern system wherein the two main parties are given systemic preferential treatment and all potential competition is squelched, by official means such as decertification or higher ballot fees as well as unofficial but just as damaging means such as being blocked from access to candidate debates.

I am disgusted for example by any system that allows private organizations to choose their club's approved candidates by public ballot, but then may close those elections to all but their own club's members claiming they are Party events - and hold a hand out for the States to administer and finance them. Or by laws on the books such as those in the OP, that place higher threshholds for ballot access on minor parties or nonpartisans and attempt to pretend it's anything but favoritism. We cannot have a religious test for office, but we may have a partisan one to even get on the ballot? It's irrational.

I disagree completely with the assertion that the system is in any way dependent upon a formalized two-party political process with two publicly protected, lockstep voting blocs in order to function. For every Jefferson, a known partisan, there was a Washington, who is famous for his distrust of formalized political parties. There was no consensus on a formalized, coddled, protected two-party system to run the goverment they were creating.

The system is designed with more than one basic tension reflective of the compromises inherent in its design. It just so happens only one divide is reflected in modern partisan politics - so we tend to miss the governing and systemic nuances in favor of partisan tactics. "Red" and "Blue" are artifical constructs, there is room for a rainbow of colors in the issues out there as there were among the Founders themselves.

 

[antagon]

the founders knew how politics worked. by the turn of the 19th century, all of what you ascribe to the 20th was in full effect. the Rs and Ds have dominated politics since the 1850s. color me baffled.

an anecdote:

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, liberals and serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, whigs and tories, republicans and federalists, aristocrats and democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last appellation of aristocrats and democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all."

-- thomas jefferson ...in a letter affirming his view on the facts of partisan politics.

I think we're talking about two different things here. You're addressing a letter from Jefferson, a known proponent of partisan politics, opining on the coalescence of the two basic ideological camps originating with the Federalists and Anti-Federalists into groups and an identity being attached to each group. I'm talking about the formalization of those groups into the modern partisan entity and the formation of the current public welfare system propping up and protecting those organizations from competition - and themselves.

One is a more or less natural occurrence (assuming each of these "parties" can naturally be gathered under a single umbrella - as the struggle among partisan factions illustrates is not necessarily a natural occurrence in itself) and was addressed in one of my earlier posts, where I stated I have no problem with a two party system per se so long as all players are given a level playing field and free choice.

The problem I have is not with people voluntarily organizing, or forming parties, or any other group of whatever name you want to apply - grassroots movements and the like. That's association. The problem I have is with the modern system wherein the two main parties are given systemic preferential treatment and all potential competition is squelched, by official means such as decertification or higher ballot fees as well as unofficial but just as damaging means such as being blocked from access to candidate debates.

I am disgusted for example by any system that allows private organizations to choose their club's approved candidates by public ballot, but then may close those elections to all but their own club's members claiming they are Party events - and hold a hand out for the States to administer and finance them. Or by laws on the books such as those in the OP, that place higher threshholds for ballot access on minor parties or nonpartisans and attempt to pretend it's anything but favoritism. We cannot have a religious test for office, but we may have a partisan one to even get on the ballot? It's irrational.

I disagree completely with the assertion that the system is in any way dependent upon a formalized two-party political process with two publicly protected, lockstep voting blocs in order to function. For every Jefferson, a known partisan, there was a Washington, who is famous for his distrust of formalized political parties. There was no consensus on a formalized, coddled, protected two-party system to run the goverment they were creating.

The system is designed with more than one basic tension reflective of the compromises inherent in its design. It just so happens only one divide is reflected in modern partisan politics - so we tend to miss the governing and systemic nuances in favor of partisan tactics. "Red" and "Blue" are artifical constructs, there is room for a rainbow of colors in the issues out there as there were among the Founders themselves.

i'd agree that there has been an evolution in the formality of political parties, but not that the resolve for partisan operation was not cast in place in the very early 19th century. washington's opposition to the idea was from never having participated in a competitive election, perhaps. by the time the nation's first competitive election came around, it was clear that only a party can mount an opposition to the federalist status quo, and that if the feds wanted to retain power, they would have to form a party too. the same ease of association between a candidate and a platform associated with other esteemed members which is afforded voters today was established in the 1790s. i've got to remind that one of the first of the pro-partisan legislations was the 12th amendment, something like 1803(?), following concerns being raised over the implications of non-partisan coalition in the exec branch. certainly you can appreciate that congressional rules have always lent to the sort of consensus which paties facilitate to this day. parties were already holding nominating conventions or caucuses by the time the 12th was ratified. partisan connections in funding and media were rock solid by the jacksonian era. certainly the rules for campaign funding are better off now than they were then with respect to party backing.

there are problems with multi-party systems which renders them less efficient than systems which allow multiple parties, but favor narrower races. there's several systems which work without the advantages you want to eliminate from the US system. do you contend that there is more efficiency in these systems? have you considered that the character of these governments is the result of the party free-for-all that they host? i think that the resources available to the major parties makes them better representative of the nation's concerns. their size precludes the radicalism which i think characterizes the vast majority of 'third' parties. independent contenders lack the stability of those backed by our major parties. i dont mourn the support which government lends to these parties for the dividends they pay.

although i dont support any party over another, i support the idea of platforms, debates, nomination, consensus, whips, coalition, cooperation and collective bargaining facilitated by a system with dominant parties. the rules and advantages you dislike are the reasons why we've had a stable system like the one we have. i think it is the best in human history. period. for this reason, political change ought function through this categorically superior setup, rather than circumvent it or feel justified in changing it.

the evolution which we both agree on has afforded us what i argue is vastly superior to level play from any and every party idea out there.

 

[goldcatt]

I'll come back to your points in a few minutes. But I want to ask a direct question here relating back to the OP. Do you agree with using the law to place obstacles in the path of minor parties and nonpartisans attempting to run for office, which has the effect of government acting as gatekeeper sanctioning the two institutionalized major parties? And if so, what do you see as the difference, if any, between the official sanction of two select parties and the official one-party systems in nations we would call "totalitarian"?

 

[goldcatt]

the founders knew how politics worked. by the turn of the 19th century, all of what you ascribe to the 20th was in full effect. the Rs and Ds have dominated politics since the 1850s. color me baffled.

an anecdote:

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, liberals and serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, whigs and tories, republicans and federalists, aristocrats and democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last appellation of aristocrats and democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all."

-- thomas jefferson ...in a letter affirming his view on the facts of partisan politics.

I think we're talking about two different things here. You're addressing a letter from Jefferson, a known proponent of partisan politics, opining on the coalescence of the two basic ideological camps originating with the Federalists and Anti-Federalists into groups and an identity being attached to each group. I'm talking about the formalization of those groups into the modern partisan entity and the formation of the current public welfare system propping up and protecting those organizations from competition - and themselves.

One is a more or less natural occurrence (assuming each of these "parties" can naturally be gathered under a single umbrella - as the struggle among partisan factions illustrates is not necessarily a natural occurrence in itself) and was addressed in one of my earlier posts, where I stated I have no problem with a two party system per se so long as all players are given a level playing field and free choice.

The problem I have is not with people voluntarily organizing, or forming parties, or any other group of whatever name you want to apply - grassroots movements and the like. That's association. The problem I have is with the modern system wherein the two main parties are given systemic preferential treatment and all potential competition is squelched, by official means such as decertification or higher ballot fees as well as unofficial but just as damaging means such as being blocked from access to candidate debates.

I am disgusted for example by any system that allows private organizations to choose their club's approved candidates by public ballot, but then may close those elections to all but their own club's members claiming they are Party events - and hold a hand out for the States to administer and finance them. Or by laws on the books such as those in the OP, that place higher threshholds for ballot access on minor parties or nonpartisans and attempt to pretend it's anything but favoritism. We cannot have a religious test for office, but we may have a partisan one to even get on the ballot? It's irrational.

I disagree completely with the assertion that the system is in any way dependent upon a formalized two-party political process with two publicly protected, lockstep voting blocs in order to function. For every Jefferson, a known partisan, there was a Washington, who is famous for his distrust of formalized political parties. There was no consensus on a formalized, coddled, protected two-party system to run the goverment they were creating.

The system is designed with more than one basic tension reflective of the compromises inherent in its design. It just so happens only one divide is reflected in modern partisan politics - so we tend to miss the governing and systemic nuances in favor of partisan tactics. "Red" and "Blue" are artifical constructs, there is room for a rainbow of colors in the issues out there as there were among the Founders themselves.

i'd agree that there has been an evolution in the formality of political parties, but not that the resolve for partisan operation was not cast in place in the very early 19th century. washington's opposition to the idea was from never having participated in a competitive election, perhaps. by the time the nation's first competitive election came around, it was clear that only a party can mount an opposition to the federalist status quo, and that if the feds wanted to retain power, they would have to form a party too. the same ease of association between a candidate and a platform associated with other esteemed members which is afforded voters today was established in the 1790s. i've got to remind that one of the first of the pro-partisan legislations was the 12th amendment, something like 1803(?), following concerns being raised over the implications of non-partisan coalition in the exec branch. certainly you can appreciate that congressional rules have always lent to the sort of consensus which paties facilitate to this day. parties were already holding nominating conventions or caucuses by the time the 12th was ratified. partisan connections in funding and media were rock solid by the jacksonian era. certainly the rules for campaign funding are better off now than they were then with respect to party backing.

there are problems with multi-party systems which renders them less efficient than systems which allow multiple parties, but favor narrower races. there's several systems which work without the advantages you want to eliminate from the US system. do you contend that there is more efficiency in these systems? have you considered that the character of these governments is the result of the party free-for-all that they host? i think that the resources available to the major parties makes them better representative of the nation's concerns. their size precludes the radicalism which i think characterizes the vast majority of 'third' parties. independent contenders lack the stability of those backed by our major parties. i dont mourn the support which government lends to these parties for the dividends they pay.

although i dont support any party over another, i support the idea of platforms, debates, nomination, consensus, whips, coalition, cooperation and collective bargaining facilitated by a system with dominant parties. the rules and advantages you dislike are the reasons why we've had a stable system like the one we have. i think it is the best in human history. period. for this reason, political change ought function through this categorically superior setup, rather than circumvent it or feel justified in changing it.

the evolution which we both agree on has afforded us what i argue is vastly superior to level play from any and every party idea out there.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say independent contenders lack the "stability" of partisan players. There are those among us who favor independent thinkers over those who champion a partisan agenda, driven by unelected and unaccountable tacticians employed by the private organization that is the Party. Or who simply reject the agendas of both officially sanctioned parties and would like to see new ideas emerge and compete, ideas which will never come to the forefront without challenge to the ossified echo chambers our officially sanctioned parties have become with public protection from external competition and the consequences of their own failures.

As a civil libertarian I reject the idea of officially squelching any and all debate out of principle, of course. I believe strongly in the value of the marketplace of ideas over the principle of limiting access as a means of tactical political stability. I simply do not credit internal Congressional rules with more weight than the larger principles of free association, freedom to obtain ballot access on equal footing and free choice of representation. Nor does the mixture of public and private to the clear advantage of the private institution appeal to me.

I understand you are addressing elections and tactics, and favor tactical stability over the broader principles as a practical matter. But step back and look at the larger picture from a standpoint of first governance and then the system itself for a moment. It's so easy to get bogged down in tactics and fail to grasp the larger principles, the actual end to which all the tactics are the means. Parties and association are natural, but the two we champion now are hardly necessary to the overall structure or stability of the system.

What would be the difference systemically or from a standpoint of actual governance between a third party or independent bloc acting as a buffer and power broker and the current coalitions of so-called Blue Dogs and RINOs? Tactically, of course it would make a difference. But on the broader scale, what do you see as fundamentally destabilizing about taking away the D or R from their names and giving them a caucus or two of their own?

 

[antagon]

I'll come back to your points in a few minutes. But I want to ask a direct question here relating back to the OP. Do you agree with using the law to place obstacles in the path of minor parties and nonpartisans attempting to run for office, which has the effect of government acting as gatekeeper sanctioning the two institutionalized major parties? And if so, what do you see as the difference, if any, between the official sanction of two select parties and the official one-party systems in nations we would call "totalitarian"?

yeah, i do agree that there should be a hurdle to traverse before introducing a new party to the election process. it's just signatures. in referendum gov'ts like california, if you have an idea, you have to gather signatures for it to be viable. i see merits in such a requirement for parties. i see problems of a free-for-all without these restrictions. in some jurisdictions which i'm more familiar with, after you have put a party on the table, you are grandfathered in. in others you have to get sigs each time, even if you're an R or D. for them, however, it is a flick of the wrist. this is structured democracy -- republican if you will -- it contains barriers for side-show acts.

it is more totalitarian. it would depend on which totalitarian setup you had in mind what the specific differences are, but like i contended earlier, i dont fault systems along ideology as much as for their effectiveness. i think ease of access to politics is an inferior principle to security that a candidate is serious and has the wherewithal to demonstrate public mandate for their candidacy. it says a lot about their organization and resources -- crucial to national politics in my view. this is the united states: the most important government on the planet. these requirements facilitate the vetting of this capacity.

 

[goldcatt]

I'll come back to your points in a few minutes. But I want to ask a direct question here relating back to the OP. Do you agree with using the law to place obstacles in the path of minor parties and nonpartisans attempting to run for office, which has the effect of government acting as gatekeeper sanctioning the two institutionalized major parties? And if so, what do you see as the difference, if any, between the official sanction of two select parties and the official one-party systems in nations we would call "totalitarian"?

yeah, i do agree that there should be a hurdle to traverse before introducing a new party to the election process. it's just signatures. in referendum gov'ts like california, if you have an idea, you have to gather signatures for it to be viable. i see merits in such a requirement for parties. i see problems of a free-for-all without these restrictions. in some jurisdictions which i'm more familiar with, after you have put a party on the table, you are grandfathered in. in others you have to get sigs each time, even if you're an R or D. for them, however, it is a flick of the wrist. this is structured democracy -- republican if you will -- it contains barriers for side-show acts.

it is more totalitarian. it would depend on which totalitarian setup you had in mind what the specific differences are, but like i contended earlier, i dont fault systems along ideology as much as for their effectiveness. i think ease of access to politics is an inferior principle to security that a candidate is serious and has the wherewithal to demonstrate public mandate for their candidacy. it says a lot about their organization and resources -- crucial to national politics in my view. this is the united states: the most important government on the planet. these requirements facilitate the vetting of this capacity.

We're not necessarily talking about new parties here. How long have the Libertarians been in existence? The Constitutionalists? The Greens? The Socialists? How many elections have taken place since they were formed? Not that I necessarily favor any of these parties, but they are certainly not "new" nor should they be discriminated against based on content of their message. Whether their message is favorable should be for the voters to decide, not the State and certainly not the two dominant rival parties.

Although I have no problem with new parties being introduced either, or with nonpartisans, or with certification hurdles so long as they are reasonable for their purpose and the same for all players. Legitimacy is legitimacy and the ballot is the ballot, right? Why should one party be considered legitimate with x number of signatures but another require an exponentially higher number of signatures in order to be considered legitimate for the exact same purpose?

The issue I have is with official sanction and protection of one or two parties over all others, not with reasonable processes to be followed by all parties.

Organization and resources may be crucial to national tactics - but what about local or statewide office, which is how one builds a base from which to challenge on the national level? And how does the amount of money a candidate or party can raise translate to their ability to govern, or to the stability of the system as a whole? Tactics are fluid and parties adaptable (or would quickly become so if they had to compete), but how would it affect the greater system?

 

[antagon]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say independent contenders lack the "stability" of partisan players. There are those among us who favor independent thinkers over those who champion a partisan agenda, driven by unelected and unaccountable tacticians employed by the private organization that is the Party. Or who simply reject the agendas of both officially sanctioned parties and would like to see new ideas emerge and compete, ideas which will never come to the forefront without challenge to the ossified echo chambers our officially sanctioned parties have become with public protection from external competition and the consequences of their own failures.

i mean performances like perot's are unstable. having a third party is neato, but major candidates are not likely to waiver as he did. there's not a necessary mutual exclusive relationship between independent thinkers and ideas and the two party system. i do think that the system lends intrinsic conservatism to our politics and tempers policy with the burden of legacy, something which here today gone tomorrow independents are not burdened with. new ideas emerge within parties as much as from other parties altogether, but they are digested by the onus of parties to appeal to voters.

As a civil libertarian I reject the idea of officially squelching any and all debate out of principle, of course. I believe strongly in the value of the marketplace of ideas over the principle of limiting access as a means of tactical political stability. I simply do not credit internal Congressional rules with more weight than the larger principles of free association, freedom to obtain ballot access on equal footing and free choice of representation. Nor does the mixture of public and private to the clear advantage of the private institution appeal to me.

it is a stretch to tie state-sanctioned ideological preference to the mechanisms which favor incumbent parties and their politicians. i think the methods of that favoritism have borne their value out in our history. again, what you are proposing are principles valued by other systems which i feel are inferior specifically because of what you propose. why bring that here? why support principle which bring about inferior results than those which support superior outcomes?

I understand you are addressing elections and tactics, and favor tactical stability over the broader principles as a practical matter. But step back and look at the larger picture from a standpoint of first governance and then the system itself for a moment. It's so easy to get bogged down in tactics and fail to grasp the larger principles, the actual end to which all the tactics are the means. Parties and association are natural, but the two we champion now are hardly necessary to the overall structure or stability of the system.

i think my perspective is one of the forest from the trees so to speak. rather than looking at the political tactics and procedures which are employed and getting riled up by their ostensible ineptitude, a broader view of the proceeds of these mechanisms can afford an appreciation of why they have evolved and how they support the larger principles our government is tasked to steward. presuming that american politics doesnt work is not accurate, so how can presuming that it is structurally flawed be accurate? my step back and look assumes that there is something to learn about the system which has managed laudable governance for longer than any other, contiguously. it concludes that lessons about the role of procedure and structure can lend to good government over centuries notwithstanding the individual participants.

independent thinkers whose positions aren't palatable to the status quo or its organized opposition, and who refuse to compromise the principles to which they're endeared in reaction to the arguments of those potential colleagues who are in a major party -- well, they're on their own. by maintaining this reticent-to-compromise disposition about what they believe, they have already demonstrated a political handicap which will hamper their ability to get things done in a rep. democracy -- if not their very incompatibility with our government. if organized into parties outside the major incumbents, these harder-headed likely more radical or uncooperative politicians rightfully should have to demonstrate convincing popular support before they infiltrate the US election system.

when i spoke of organization and resources earlier, i speak as a realist that national politics is not a grass-roots, half-assable process. i think the party-specific requirements in local governments are far more lax. this is why libertarians, greens and independents have managed limited success at this level. exploiting the accessibility of a ballot process to facilitate corruption or finance one's own popularity is a real issue which free-for-all systems welcome. witness the gubernatorial election in california. pamela anderson?

What would be the difference systemically or from a standpoint of actual governance between a third party or independent bloc acting as a buffer and power broker and the current coalitions of so-called Blue Dogs and RINOs? Tactically, of course it would make a difference. But on the broader scale, what do you see as fundamentally destabilizing about taking away the D or R from their names and giving them a caucus or two of their own?

parties have a system to whip unanimity among members in a hope that what they've promised the people who put them in office -- their unified platform -- stands a chance of being achieved. parties offer their members expediency in their agenda and support in elections in exchange for this discipline. without that barter, i argue that pork-barreling would be even more dominant. i'd imagine that natural coalitions would still exist, but that they would be more of them and commensurate chaos. legislation would be even more a tool for political bargaining than ideology. there is a degree which it is now, but that is tempered by having to defend a platform nationwide in an election for a reputable party.

how do you see a party-free system or multi-party system being better than the U.S. government?

 

[goldcatt]

how do you see a party-free system or multi-party system being better than the U.S. government?

I snipped this off because I feel this is the fundamental disagreement we have. I do not see the political parties as the U.S. Government. And beyond some internal procedural rules in Congress which are easily changed if need be, there are no partisan requirements within the actual institutions of government.

The parties are private entities formed by individuals that exist through the rights of speech and association, which all individuals enjoy or should enjoy equally whether they ascribe to the "correct" partisan view or not. The government is the collection of public institutions laid out by the COTUS that would exist and function regardless of the existence of Republicans and Democrats.

We do not have a parliamentary system wherein the head of State or the cohesion and legitimacy of the government itself is contingent on a majority coalition forming and staying together, the major drawback of European style multiparty systems. We have instead concrete terms of office, separate and individually selected branches of government, and no provisions for a government to fall or be dissolved by a vote of no confidence or failure to reach a working majority coalition as far as mere head count.

For example, we have had Executives on several occasions elected by plurality as far as popular votes, and they were just as legitimate as those elected by an outright majority. And the COTUS itself sets forth the procedure by which an Executive is selected should there fail to be a candidate obtaining a majority of Electoral College votes - a clear indication of a system designed to accommodate the possibility of three or more competitive partisan or nonpartisan candidates without losing legitimacy. What makes Congress different?

What multiple parties or a bloc of nonpartisans would accomplish is a moderating force, requiring the major parties to play ball and actually promote and defend their proposals, which would be vetted by more than a relatively powerless minority, in order to acheive a tactical majority when making policy. They would have to both demonstrate the strength of their proposals and compromise as necessary to make them palatable to members of more than one ideological background.

Their constituents would still be free to evaluate their performance and accept or reject it individually at the polls, regardless of partisan affiliation. The change in or lack of a partisan label does not change anything about our actual government as a process or institution, the institutions were designed to accommodate free assembly and multiple choices. Only the tactics employed to promote a specific agenda would have to change.

It's a subtle distinction, but an important one IMO.

 

[antagon]

i think that because the partisan system is older than our government and was assumed into our government in the run-up to the election of the second congress, it is a non-distinguishable and inseparable part of how our political system works.

countries with a plurality of parties have problems which i feel are directly attributable to their system of partisan participation and the fact that it does not achieve the moderation that ours does.

i argue that examples of close-margined elections in the US are subject to this system and are different than those issues raised by multi-party systems. in those set-ups, it is not uncommon for a candidate to receive the highest amount of votes, but only have 20% or 30% of the voters support with the remainder shared among other contenders. i say such a weak mandate is not acceptable on a routine basis. not in congress; not in the exec.

i think that a two party system provides more opposition and accountability than marginal parties could offer. we need not look any further than the republicans who have been reduced to a marginal party (without the capacity to throw even a filibuster). they were unable to moderate government in a way i feel is effective or characteristic of typical american politics. when they're back into their own next year, i think our government will have more balance than you propose is possible with blocs.

there's less subtlety in this for me. i see multi-party governments as chaotic. as annoying as individuals who have chosen to support policy exactly as a party has organized it may seem, it is more sensible than the fist-fights and deadlocks in southern europe.