Modern political parties are about more than just shared ideas and mutual support. But I agree with you : once the SPD model took flight in the late 1800s in Germany, there was no more putting brakes on that crazy train.
The Republic of Venice however had a way of dealing with corruption and coalitions that needs to be known more because it’s both effective and hilarious. Here’s how they elected their Doge
- first, 30 people were chosen at random from the City Council (think Senate)
- Those 30 were reduced to 9, again, at random
- Those 9 drafted a list of 40 appropriate candidates (not including themselves)
- Those 40 were reduced to 12 by random means
- Those 12 drafted a list of 25
- Those 25 were reduced by chance to 9
- The 9 listed 45
- The 45 were reduced by chance to 11
- Those 11 listed 41
- The final 41 voted on the Doge, who had to have at least 25 votes out of 41
Each time, the guys voting for the lists (or the Doge) were held incommunicado for the duration while the random reductions were held in public.
Basically mixing straight democracy and the Athenian system of appointing magistrates at random, this (theoretically) ensured both that the Doge was from the “right” kind of people and eliminated the “whacky” results allowed by straight sortition ; and that the ultimate appointee came into power not through the political machinations and straight-up bribery of this or that banking family but on legit merits as no one could predict who the electors would be, and thus no one knew who to bribe (and they typically chose the least inconvenient and most consensual Doge so as not to get stabbed in the neck later, Renaissance Italian politics being what they were.). By introducing randomness into the proceedings, they cut back on quite a bit of cronyism, nepotism and so on. It also allowed minority votes and voices to have a great influence along the way while still giving more weight to the most popular candidates. Ultimately that system favoured compromise and middle-of-the-road politics over partisanship.
Did it work ? Well, the system and the Republic lasted from 1268 to 1797 (at which point the French came in guns blazing) making it one of the more stable and durable democracies in European history. It seems silly, and yet !
While I agree with Washington about the dangers of political parties, I also agree with Jefferson that they are inevitable. In any free human society there will always be two general parties: as Jefferson put it, the Whigs and the Tories, or the Aristocrats and the Democrats. Put slightly hyperbolically, those who think more power needs to be given to the few to govern the ignorant masses and those who think that less power needs to be given to the corruptable few as to not tyrannize the masses. Or put even more generally, there will always be the majority and the minority.
There have always been politicians who sought compromise and those who fought it, those who were corrupt and those who resisted corruption. There was never a magical time where the opposing parties weren’t at each others throats to one respect or another. If this last election was truly the ugliest, then the election of 1800. Our country only just barely got a Constitution made without collapsing from partisan strife. We almost had a civil war before our actual Civil War when Jefferson and Burr tied for the presidency.
So while we certainly should avoid this sort of strife so that our country is not perpetually on the brink of collapse, or at least perceived to be that way, it’s arguably inevitable until we socially evolve as a species or we descend into some sort of despotism where free thought and elections are squashed.
Colorado Springs City Council has “non-partisan” elections. At least 70% of the time, it’s absurdly easy to figure out what party a candidate belongs to. And this is for local elections, where things like roads, police, parks, etc. cross party lines.
What about the ridiculous battle over the Supreme Court? Just another example of party politics ruining the country. Republicans refused to even consider any appointee by Obama, simply because he was a Democrat. Now that Trump is in office, some top Democratic Senators have said that they want to do the same thing to him.
What is going to happen if more justices die or retire?
In a larger sense, I think the erosion of political norms in favor of purely pragmatic, perhaps cynical, strategies to consolidate political power further more so than political parties themselves is at fault. These norms provided checks on such consolidated power, but political politicians decided on, and we as a voting populace consented to, these strategies a long time ago.
Specifically for the Supreme Court, I’m personally not in favor of lifetime appointments, particularly with the power the Supreme Court has been building ever since Marbury v. Madison. But the other side of that is Supreme Court justices potentially being appointed and dropped every time a new president is elected, which would arguably politicize the Court as much or more and would be more chaotic if the Court kept handing down conflicting rulings every 4-8 years.
I could potentially see a system where justices are appointed for a period of time that would span multiple administrations or at least 1.5 administrations. Or maybe a system whereby Justices are appointed and confirmed and then don’t leave the bench until they die, retire, or can have their replacement appointed by the president and approved by the Congress, which would likely require nominating moderates or having control of the Senate and Presidency.
The even larger point for me is that the government wields humongous power over our lives, some groups statistically more than others such as homosexuals, women seeking abortions, business owners, etc. And the more power they have to affect our lives, the more their dysfunction and constant swapping of power is going to produce chaos in our lives. The upside is that that chaos produces good results (ie. the Civil Rights Act). The downside is that that chaos produces bad results as well (ie. Jim Crow Laws). So it’s hard to argue that one thing or the other is blanketly good or bad, wrong or right.
Would you apply this standard to voters? Because you seem to feel strongly about this issue. If it came up in a referendum in your state, or the two candidates in your Congressional district took opposing positions on this issue, maybe you should not be allowed to vote, because you care about this issue and can’t be impartial.
He was just being silly.
Sure. I’d be happy to recuse myself. Someone lobbying for a particular position shouldn’t be the one voting on it.
To boffking, why did you open three nearly identical threads within the course of only one year?
Impractical, at very least. You’d have to give an “I’m not involved” test to every voter. What keeps me from lying? “Oh, no, the abortion issue doesn’t matter to me either way.”
The concept of Representative Democracy is representation. If you deny representation to people who hold strong opinions, you reverse the very purpose of democracy.
(At that point, you might as well throw darts or roll dice.)
Boffking, you have been told that starting nearly identical threads is not an option for you. I’m giving you a warning for this and shutting down the thread.