Both major parties are hotbeds of corruption, and that seems like an unavoidable piece of partisan politics. We used to have politicians who even when they didn’t always agree with each other, wanted what was best for the nation. It seems like now, making the opposite party look bad is more important to most politicians, especially at the national level.
I think George Washington was right about the dangers of political parties.
How exactly are you supposed to stop political parties from forming? Back in George Washington’s day they were called “factions”. These factions were simply people who worked together because they broadly agreed on certain things, and when they didn’t agree they still supported each other on the lines of “you support me on my shit that you don’t care about and I’ll support you on your shit that I don’t care about”.
Every democratic/republican system forms these factions, all the way back to the optimates and populare in the ancient Roman republic.
You can ban the official formation of political parties, that just drives factions out of public view and into the smoke filled back rooms.
In other words, everyone complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it. So what’s the plan to reduce the influence of party on politics?
Well, there is a republic in the present day that sort of lacks formal political parties. The “factions” or tendencies are relatively loose, ad hoc, temporary. That’s the Islamic Republic of Iran. But see, it’s kind of that way after having one ruling faction take over and outlaw other factions. It’s really a* one-party *state, and if the party bosses, who control the country, decide you’re undesirable, you’re out.
I think you’ll have to define corruption. I have no love for one of the two major parties (or the other one either, now that you mention it) but I don’t think they’re “corrupt” in the usual meaning of that term.
Remember the government shutdown a few years ago? That was a perfect example of what I am talking about. Many congressmen would rather screw over the country than work across the aisle.
My solution is non-partisan elections. Its how we elect the council and mayor in my town, and it works great.
What is a non-partisan election? Does it mean that registered members/supporters of a party cannot run for office, or cannot vote?
A non-partisan election is just one where the candidate’s party affiliation is kept secret from the voters.
Parties are a way of leveraging more power. Factions are also. It’s a little like a trade-union: if you work with me, I’ll work with you. We’re more powerful together than separately.
Maybe you care very, very much about abortion, while I care very, very much about the environment. We agree to support each other. Presto, we’re a party!
Huh. How would that work in practice?
I mean, at the city level – okay, maybe. But if you’re running for state office, surely people are going to notice that one candidate wants to ban abortions and keep guns legal while the other is the opposite – and if the candidates disagree on whether to execute criminals or ban the death penalty, I’m guessing you can figure out which is which in this scenario; and if one of them wants to drug test the folks who receive benefits from the state, well, I’m guessing you can figure that out likewise.
I’m also guessing you can figure out which is the Republican and the Democrat?
“Kept secret” just means “kept off the ballot”. My point is that keeping the information off the ballot doesn’t make the candidate’s affiliations go away.
That’s a problem, no doubt. But not “corruption,” necessarily.
Check out "no labels" for an example of what some people are doing.
Political parties are protected by the 1st amendment, as ruled by the US Supreme Court. As with other rights, freedom of association can be used for good or evil. That does not mean it should be taken away.
You are likely to get the same answer as when you asked the same question a year ago (almost to the day). Although you will probably get more of a response this time than when you raised the same issue yet again in July.
For many years, the San Diego County Democratic Party headquarters had a sign up, saying, “There is no such thing as a non-partisan election.”
I’m afraid that’s pretty much true.
I agree. But that doesn’t mean you have to put party affiliation on the ballot, either.
Ok, there are two ways this can go then.
-
The voter is (minimally) politically educated and knows the party of the candidates, at least the major ones, or
-
The voter is both politically ignorant and managed to miss all the campaigning, ads, rallies and news for months and months, and has no idea what party the candidates belong to. Of course, in order to do that, the voter has to be utterly ignorant of the candidates in general, and his voting (if he selects one) is basically random.
Or one of the candidates is the incumbent, and has spent the previous term of office posting his/her name all over the city, so that the voter vaguely remembers the name, and therefore votes for it.
Probably the first step would be to exclude people who care about an issue from having a vote on that issue. If you come into it already holding an opinion, then you are not levelheaded enough to consider the merits and demerits of all options which are open. And once you exclude the people who are emotionally invested, the desire to play games to win will decrease.
A simple first step there would simply to be to ask people to “recuse” themselves from issues which they care about. A simple voluntary, but professional standard could, potentially, be more than sufficient.
A more advanced and less wishy washy method:
At the beginning of every year, each legislator is given a number of “ban” tokens. They can freely allocate these tokens to block specific individuals from voting on specific subjects. If a person receives fewer than X number of bans on a topic, then he will be allowed to participate. If he receives X or greater, then he will not.
However, given the existence of parties or factions, you will find that each party or faction will arrange among themselves to maximise the number of opposing legislators receiving exactly X ban tokens. They would have to do that to retain their maximum share of votes on the issue.
(That’s leaving aside the question of deciding which bills are on specific subjects: who is going to decide that?)
Of course. The party in the majority would have a slight advantage - and that supports the will of the people a bit, which is probably fair - but votes would still come down to the people on both sides who were more reasonable on each topic.