Doesn’t Powell v. McCormack say that Article I, Section 2 provides the exclusive list of qualifications? Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 550 (1969) ("*n judging the qualifications of its members Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution.").
FairVote is a good place to start.
AFAIK, that clause has never been interpreted to require a state to allow minor-party nominees (or nonpartisan independent candidates) who meet the listed constitutional qualifications to appear on the ballot automatically. They get to impose petition-signature requirements, etc.; and there is no constitutional bar to a state imposing such requirements on minor-party candidates while allowing the Dem and Pub nominees on the ballot automatically, which I believe is exactly what every state does.
I did not mean to suggest it compelled a state to allow candidates on the ballot. It does not. I was suggesting it prevents the states or the federal government from imposing term limits as a qualification for election (e.g. 25+ and has not served more than two terms).
Your assertion that a multi-party system is more stable seems to be flying in the face of evidence. The US has a two party system and is one of the most stable governments in the world and has been since the passage of the constitution, which is, after Iceland, probably the oldest continuous constitution in the world.
I’ve often thought that the founders, who were aware of factions (parties) and didn’t much approve of them. A review of Greek, Roman and English history being available to them, one can see why. Did they intend the new constitution to strongly favor the number of factions as two, which has been the history of US politics since the Constitutional Convention of 1787? Probably not. They were really smart and really well educated and had a lot of life experience, but they didn’t have game theory or set theory. I think that they foresaw factions in the various branches, but not the number two.
BG proposes that multi-parties would be better in a strong constitutional government with separation of powers in a strong executive model, which is what we have. I think that our model of government precludes much of the benefit BG imagines because the executive cannot be removed on no confidence like a prime minister in a parlimentary system can, nor is he elected that way, although with a multi-party system may do something like that through the electoral college. It seems to me that the reason that the electoral college was invented (rather than just use congressmen and senators) was not winner take all for each state (as it has turned out to be in most instances) but rather to give the slave states less votes for per slave than their actual numbers if counted as non-slaves.
What the founders called factions are not what we call parties. A faction is an interest group, like environmentalists or dairy farmers from Iowa. A party is a different animal entirely. It has no or few stable political interests. It shifts positions to secure votes, and aggregates power in a way competing factions never could. Madison’s whole point about factions was that they could never become like the Democrats and Republicans because they were inherently too fractured and parochial. By creating a huge system spanning the continent and by setting branch against branch, state against state, the idea was that no mere faction would ever have control. But nearly by definition, in a first-past-the-post system, one party or the other will always have majority control.
Indeed, perhaps the founders biggest mistake of political theory was the failure to account for the development of political parties, which has fundamentally altered the way our democracy functions from their 18th Century vision.
Sorry, but I hadn’t noticed the present system was broken. From what I can see, it forces single-issue voters to side with one or the other party, but that’s how we keep from being run by the Mandatory Guns for Everyone or Mandatory Abortions parties. I have watched the compromises and sellings out required in multi-party states, and how fragile those coalitions are, and I really don’t see any advantage. Keep the compromises in the back rooms so things can get done, thankyouverymuch. :rolleyes:
Getting back to the OP, I have a question for those against three or more viable parties.
What do you suggest for people who are disenfranchised with their party, yet do not agree enough with the opposing party to switch, and know that they’d be throwing their votes away by voting for third party candidates who, under our current system?
Edit: When I typed this, there were still mostly posts about term limits. I was away from the computer for a while before coming back and hitting enter.
If we’re talking about disenfranchisement in the sense of political distance from the available candidates’ platforms, I would first suggest that the point of party primaries is to calibrate each candidate without the influence of the opposing party’s voters. The primary is your opportunity to pull the candidate in your direction.
Aside from that, I would suggest they need to get over themselves. Even in a multi-party system, an election is always about choosing the available candidate that most approximates how you personally would decide each issue. It is true that some people are objectively further from a candidate’s center of mass than others, but so what? Democracy is compromise and representation is about the averaging and aggregation of interests.
In a democracy, you have to persuade others to agree with you. You have to engage in the push and pull of politics. You don’t just get to sit in your house and expect that someone will represent your ideas in government. So if you think your political beliefs are better than those currently being represented, get out there and convince a critical mass of others that this is true.
People unhappy with both parties need to “get over themselves.” I see.
Absolutely. Most of us have the time, money, and charisma to reach and influence a large number of people.
An interesting way to boil down my post. But yeah I guess that’s the gist of it. Feeling that no party even comes close to representing you doesn’t mean some faceless institution is oppressing you. It means that you’re incapable of compromise or that all your positions are so radical that the vast majority of people disagree with you. Either way, I don’t see why that’s a problem for anyone but you (the hypothetical you, of course).
You don’t have to launch an expensive advertising campaign to spread a persuasive idea. Especially not in this century. The reason the Green Party doesn’t get more votes in the US isn’t because people haven’t heard of them.
First, BG, on the Constitution thing, I think you raise valid points, and while I don’t fully agree with your views, it would have been better if I said something like, “I think it is unfair to prevent a candidate who has the support of his constituents from running for reelection, barring some kind of conviction for misconduct or something.”
I say that people should vote for the candidate and not the party. Barbara Lee, congresswoman from Berkeley, CA, is a Democrat, but do you think people there vote for her because she’s a Democrat? A member of the same party as Senator Ben Nelson? Does that mean that Berkeley voters would also support Democrat Ben Nelson? No!
I fail to see how being disenchanted with one’s party should impact on one’s vote. And I believe that more Americans vote on the candidate rather than the party, and that candidates within a particular district certainly have views more in tune with their electorate without needing to form a separate party to represent their constituency. For example, why should there be a Peace and Environment Party if Barbara Lee represents those views while being a Democratic Congresswoman from Berkeley? What is the need for a Farmers and Fiscal Responsibility Party if Ben Nelson represents those views while being a Democratic Senator from Nebraska?
Ultimately, I think a lot of the frustration at the non-success of third parties is due to frustration at how few voters see things the way that supporters of fringe candidates do. As in, if Berkeley voters Rainbow, Cloudy, and Che (real names of kids I went to school with in Berkeley) see that Wavy Gravy doesn’t stand a chance of being elected, then they blame the party system, rather than the candidate that they like.
Whenever I see these weird criticisms of STV, I wonder what the critics are looking at.
For the record, I think an open list system would be welcome in state legislatures. Let one chamber keep the current gerrymandered districts, make the other PR via open list. (Though I would also like STV, & would accept SNTV.)
:cough: The Democratic Party, at present, IS a loose coalition of disparate caucuses, from Blue Dogs to the Black Caucus. It’s already riven & ungovernable. BG’s ideas don’t introduce that, it’s already there.
This. How do I fit this on a T-shirt?
I wasn’t convinced, because I don’t read Conspiracy Theorist dialects of Martian.
Not if the party list is set by the voters. Either use an open list or set the list in the primary.
This is the reason the Roman emperors tried to keep governors of conquered lands in one place for long stretches. Limiting terms to no more than eight years would be seen as an invitation to repeated mischief.
And strangely, I don’t read that either (sadly, I neither read nor speak Martian), while being at least nominally convinced. shrug…MMV
-XT
Thanks for sharing. Perhaps you could add just a little bit of substance to your post so that I or others can respond.