This is a good point, and what the discussion should be about. The parties not only dominate the electoral process by limiting the candidates we can vote for, they also exert influence on the those elected, regularly violate the weak campaign laws that exist, and are part of the general practise of corruption. I think the only thing standing in the way of ending those practices are the parties themselves who control all of the politicans and won’t let them pass legislation which to even attempt to eliminate these problems.
At least in Canada, it depends on how you define ‘compelled to vote with their party’.
The party can boot you out of the caucus and you would loose all of the benefits of being associated with the party. You still retain your seat in the house. My understanding is that the situation is the same in the states.
No. Party membership is voluntary. Of course, in practice, almost all members of parliament represent political parties. But there is no rule saying that that must be the case, and indeed sometimes there are independent MPs.
From time to time, especially on controversial issues, MPs do vote against their own party, although it is usually backbenchers or otherwise out-of-power MPs who do it.
[edit] You may be thinking of the “whip” system. whereby parliamentary parties keep their lesser members in line. This system does exist, and is important, but it does not amount to compulsion. Although, from what I’ve heard, it’s bloody close to it ;).
US political parties have a much more tenuous hold on their members’ votes. The Senate Majority leader and Speaker of the House often pull legislation because they can’t get their own members to vote for it in sufficient numbers. Parties only wield power if their members believe that it is in their own best interest. It does you no good to vote the party line if you get defeated in the next election because of your vote.
It’s not the matter of the party line. Simply having majority leaders is part of the problem. Why should our legistlative rules be based on the existence of political parties? And individual representatives are often affected by the local party which may be at odds with the national organization, but they still can control many sitting representatives and candidates through the primary process. The parties are also a key part of the system of bribery called political donations.
The only way to boot someone out of a party is by them losing a primary election as Joe Lieberman did. That power is in the hands of the people, not the party leadership. The only thing the party leadership can do is remove rebellious members from committee assignments.
It bears repeating but political parties are an inevitable product of representative democracy. People simply don’t have the time to analyse the precise policy attitudes of their local candidates but will tend to vote nationally, and use their vote to express how the country should be run. Political parties offer a means of expressing their preference for a set of policies and attitudes.
It also means members can be made more accountable by holding them against this set of policies and attitudes, and can be reminded of pledges they made to it.
This is why the parliamentary whip in the UK and elsewhere is so notorious. It has power because the party whips remind MPs that they were elected on the basis of party resources and their public adherence to the election manifesto: they specifically pledged to the country that they would support and carry out those promises. They are free to renege on that promise but they would compromise their party membership, denying them the resources to remain in place at the next election, but also probably be punished for reneging by the electorate.
The strength of the party whip comes from this, and the high degree of national focus for policies in the UK - not through some constitutional recognition of parties. I understand the whip is less strong in the US, but this is a combination of the presidential system which separates Congressional and executive elections, but also from a higher degree of regional concerns thanks to federalism.
They can’t be stripped of party membership? So there’s nothing to stop Democrat-leaners from joining the Republicans and using their resources to get Democrats to win?
I understand why parties are preferred, but our country was trying to avoid that in favor of voters voting for people. It’s often said that corporations aren’t people, but then those same people tend to like to vote for a corporation(which political parties are) over actual people.
They can’t be stripped of party membership, but they can be left on their own without money from the party leadership.
However, since in the US most candidates raise their own money and only rely a little on the party for money, that’s not a huge deal.
This is one reason I don’t like campaign finance reform. It enhances the power of the parties by making candidates more dependent on them for money.
Well I suppose this is the crux of where it differs. Most candidates in the UK rely on party funds; moreover, party finance laws in the UK are much more stringent than the US for this reason and so while backhander donations are possible the threshold for how significant they must be before public declaration is much lower. Party funding also means people from poorer backgrounds can get into politics - although the UK’s record there isn’t terribly good as of late.
I’d rather candidates were more dependent on a party punishable by votes than dependent on a business which isn’t.
And the primary system. Going against the whip on a major vote can secure someone’s renomination in some cases rather than put it in jeopardy.
There is that, too, yes.
The source of campaign money in the US is actually more diverse than that. Where do parties in the UK get their money?
A blend of party member dues, donations and trade union funds, principally.
Donations to the central party over £5000 must be publically declared, and donations to local party organisations over £1000. They recently altered it so that loans must also be declared.
Well, that explains why trade unions dominated British politics before Thatcher.
The Speaker of the House is a constitutional position. He or she is going to have supporters and opposition no matter what. At some point factions will form and rules are needed to accomplish anything; it’s the nature of politics. The legislative rules would be there in one way or another. The fact that they are drawn up by party line is IMO a detail.
I think that was more the repeated strikes that they did. They still donate money to Labour now as they have always done but they are a shadow of their former selves.
That’s not a bug, that’s a feature!
Strong party discipline, combined with majority governments, mean that when the people give a majority to a particular party, that party has no excuses for not carrying through on the policies it campaigned on. They can’t point to the members in the other house, or to the executive, or to the strong opposition, and say, “That’s why we didn’t do what we promised to do.”
It also means that a party with a majority can put through policies which it believes are in the best interests of the country, even though they may be politically unpopular with some.
In Canada, two cases in point: the Muloney/PC government’s decision to replace a hidden excise tax with a federal GST, and the Chrétien/Liberal government’s decision to make eliminating the federal deficit a primary political goal. Both decisions were highly unpopular with many, but were carried through. Once the party as a whole made that policy, the MPs either had to vote for it, or quit the party.
In my opinion, strong party discipline and majority governments enhance democracy, both by giving the government the authority to do what it campaigned on, and by giving the government the responsibility to be accountable to the people for its decisions.
Well said, Northern Piper!