If smaller parties were equally eligible for funding, wouldn’t that at least begin to change the situation where only the two major parties have a chance?
Maybe, but at some point there should be a limit on how much we should be willing to fund fringe groups
I could compromise. Cap the party system at, let’s say, 5. That way, it’ll give some smaller parties a chance without diluting the pool too much with extreme ideologies with no chance of gaining a foothold. Evenly distribute money to these 5 and all 5 candidates get equal time by eliminating all local state laws governing elections (such as one state having a filing deadline earlier than another, or one state requiring a certain % of signatures to get on the ballot). Things like that
Then fight it out in a national election. The party with the lowest percentage of votes is dropped from the 5 party rolls and the next biggest replaces them. Repeat every 4 years
If the Radical Hippy Frisbee Party outpolls the Judean Peoples United Front (1% of the voting population over .9%) to take that fifth place, low man on the scrotum pole, then the RHFP vaults to national prominence while the JPUF goes to suck eggs. This creates an unreasonable power reward for a piddling difference in loyalty amongst the people.
As one commited, against all reason, to democracy, I must be skeptical of any scheme that artificially enhances the political power of one set of people over another. Same sort of problem with multi-party democracy schemes everywhere, and that is the cold equations of coalition. Sooner or later, one vanishingly small collection of nutbars inherits unreasonable political power based on which coalition it chooses.
If the Republicans wanted to debate that they’d be welcome to. That is actually the purpose of the filibuster. To make sure even the minorities opinions can be heard.
The Republicans however don’t offer debate they use the filibuster as a way to stop debate on any given subject.
The vote wasn’t to approve or deny the Disclose Act, it was to move it to the floor for debate. They would have been able to filibuster it at any later time if they so chose.
You could argue for them talking reasonable action to filibuster when the Democrats unconditionally approved of union donations and refuse to allow it amended out.
Instead they said to the American people ‘we’d rather not even talk about our broken system of campaign finances, we’re fine with it how it is.’
I don’t expect that party #4 and #5 will get much more prominence even with this system. People would expect the lowest to be easily dropped. This is just a way for them to get a leg up on the dominant 2 parties currently running the country for the last 150+ years
I think that this is very naive. Both sides have used the filibuster as a tool to force the majority party to either become a lot more vocal about passing bad (in the minority’s eyes) legislation, or make deals.
Given that the Republicans are in the minority still, this seems to be their only option to stop such a blatantly unfair law. Coming soon to a theater near you, more filibusters for CardCheck and possibly The Fairness Doctrine, both of which I suspect will be attempted to be rammed through before the GOP makes their likely big gains in 3 months.
Once again: Don’t re-invent the wheel. Study how they handle the problem in countries that have full public financing of elections, such as France. I don’t know the answer. Anybody here know?