Parliamentary systems have their advantages, but there’s a reason we didn’t adopt such a system. Our founders wanted a lot of checks and balances, which aren’t present in Parliamentary systems. There are tons of veto points in the system that prevent anything from passing except laws that are broadly supported.
We came from a different place culturally. Most democracies aren’t revolutionary, they were transitions from monarchy to democracy, in which power was handed over from the monarch to the people. But the power remained pretty close to absolute. In the US, rather than do that, we went for a limited government of enumerated powers. We were turned off of Parliamentary democracy by the practice of Parliament thinking they could just command whatever they wanted from the colonies.
Factions are one thing, organized political organizations outside of the congress are another. Those outside organizations have too much influence. The Speaker is not a position that requires or endorses the political parties the way the majority/minority leader positions do. We are supposed to have individuals representing us, not tribes.
Yes, political parties should exist. They are beneficial to the public at large in that they provide structure for people to use their ballots to influence the political situation. Mere collections of individuals may (or may not) act wisely but they are not predictable. Without the tradition of an organized group to direct them independent politicians can only make decisions based on what they believe is best. Voters won’t know ahead of time which side of the question candidates will fall. That’s a bad thing from my populist view. I believe representatives properly are the agents of their constituents and should bow to their views. A more elitist point of view is to see representatives as independent actors who serve the public not by carrying out popular policies but by relying on their own judgement. I want no part of that. I want to know what I’m getting.
We should embrace political parties and look to strengthen them. Reform our elections so that more major parties can form. Eliminate the public primary system and return matching federal funds to the parties rather than individual candidates to encourage party loyalty. This would lead to more diverse and coherent politics than we have in America today.
The Founders were premodern thinkers. Giants though they were in their day the world has vastly changed in the 2 centuries since. Seeking George Washington’s advice on modern politics makes as much sense as asking his coachman to get behind the wheel of your car. Whig political thought didn’t see society as a collection of competing but legitimate interests. It was believed (naively from our point of view) that each nation had a single organic interest. Since any disinterested gentlemen with sufficient education and experience could determine that interest no organization was required to carry out policies to further the common good. Therefor any faction that did form had to be organized around selfish and illegitimate goals. This belief led to a lot of trouble but gradually politicians like Madison came to more modern understanding of society and politics.
It’s not the parties limiting viable candidates in the electoral process. It’s the electoral process that limits the choices. The very nature of plurality elections creates an either/or situation. EITHER you vote for the candidate closer to your viewpoint who has a good chance to win (even though another candidate in the race represents you exactly) OR the other strong candidate you disagree with more will win. If we had proportional representation you would not make undesirable outcomes more likely by voting your true preference. The Democrats and Republicans dominate our politics not because they are political parties but because the electoral system punishes those who seek other alternatives.
And while the major political parties are hotbeds of corruption so is everywhere else in Washinton. We are swimming in a sea of political bribery. Again there are outside forces at work. Without going into those but assuming they could be brought under control it is easier to monitor and punish corruption within an organization than with a collection of individuals. Parties have traditions, histories, and broad reputations that individual politicians simply can not have.
Well, Washington was pretty much ignored from the start. And I agree about the advantages of political parties. I just think those advantages are great enough that they don’t need to become a formal part of our electoral system. ANd in fact I’d like them to be removed from the ballot to cut down on the number of ignorant votes.
The parties routinely determine who can run under their banner, and make it extremely difficult for independents to participate. The primary system is an abomination designed to ingrain the selection process within large established parties.
In other words, parties make the corruption more organized? But that doesn’t help to monitor and punish corruption when all the legistlators are members of the corrupt organizations.
I don’t see how listing the candidate’s party affiliation on the ballot leads to more ignorant votes. On the contrary, the R or D is arguably the most important information a person can know before voting. Certainly that is enough to decide a person’s vote in congressional elections. The elections for Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader are by far the most influential vote any member of Congress will participate in. Those outcomes determine the course of the entire congressional term. Paul Krugman (warning: NYT link) considers those Massachusetts voters who voted for Scott Brown based on his character to be idiots. He allows that there may be other valid considerations for gubernatorial elections and in some states perhaps that is so. Here in Pennsylvania the I don’t consider that to be the case. R or D is the overriding consideration for governor or state legislature.
And this is given our dumbed down version of party democracy. In a system with more viable parties the choices would be more stark as party philosophies would be more coherent.
The public primaries don’t make it more difficult for independents or members of minor candidates to run. Your beef seems to be with the 2 Party System rather than political parties themselves. Certainly the major parties seek to manipulate ballot access to their own advantage but we don’t have to allow them to get away with it nor would the problem disappear if there were no parties. Powerful and well financed independent politicians could also seek to use ballot access to limit competition by making it expensive, for example.
I was saying that organization makes it easier to combat corruption. Parties have more to lose than individuals. Assuming we can limit the political bribery in the first place making it remarkable and reprehensible instead of ubiquitous and expected then an individual who is exposed as corrupt would only lose his or her seat. A political party would have an interest in policing itself since corrupt members would threaten not just their own seats but those of the rest of their compatriots as well. Further, parties have traditions that go beyond election cycles. An independent might start carrying water for energy companies without much notice being taken but if members of the Treehuggers Alliance start voting to Drill Baby Drill then it would be pretty obvious that something was amiss. Certainly political corruption is a huge issue in the USA but I don’t see anything inherent in political parties themselves that encourages this.
Should doesn’t really factor in. Unless you have a totalitarian one party state, enforced by violence you are going to have the things, regardless. It’s really the only way anything could ever get done in anything remotely resembling a democratic system.
I understand why Krugman or another partisan would think so, but I strongly disagree. I am a libertarian/conservative, so my first instinct is always to vote Republican. But I also recognize that bad Republicans tarnish the brand. I also recognize that some Democrats are outstanding candidates. And this isn’t rare, my actual voting habits are about 70/30 GOP. My first Republican vote for President was John McCain in 2008.
The two parties’ fortunes rise and fall based primarily on the majority party screwing up. And they screw up in part because there are a lot of people who will vote for one party regardless of the quality of the candidates. I voted for John Kerry in 2004 because Bush was ruining the party. Screw it, he was ruining conservatism in general. No one takes us seriously on the deficit, which used to be OUR issue, no one takes us seriously on the Constitution, which also used to be our issue. And we even lost our national security edge. All we’ve got now is taxes.
Besides, there’s another advantage to voting for the other party. If your vote is up for grabs, they’ll want it. Scott Brown had to win some Democratic voters to win the election. So he made sure to stay on their good side, and sure enough he was reasonably popular with Democrats throughout his tenure. The only reason he lost in 2012 is becuase he was up against someone Democrats really love, their version of Marco Rubio.
Look, this whole “nonpartisan” idea has roots in the Progressive Era. Progressives fought for nonpartisan local elections (among many other things intended to break the power of the urban party-political machines of the time, such as ballot initiatives and recall elections). One of the Progressives’ slogans was, “There is no Democratic or Republican way to pave a street.” A purely technocratic vision of government, purportedly transcending ideologies and interests.
But, if you think about that, they were flat wrong. Even such a simple thing as getting a street paved involves decisions to which both group-interests and political ideologies are relevant – e.g., how it is to be paid for, who is to be taxed to pay for it and how, who gets the contracts, and which streets will and will not be paved.
That’s how it is, but things have continued to get better and the public should continue to push to remove politics from administration of government. The place for politics is in the legislatures, not the executive branch.
I have to politely disagree. Politics is everywhere - in the legislature, the executive, the home, the workplace, the church, the school, everywhere. It’s human interaction over how something should work. You can’t escape it being in the Executive, especially when that post is elected.
There’s a reason why judges tend not to be elected, or that parliamentary states tend not to have the Head of State elected (be it inherited or chosen by Parliament or somesuch) - it’s deliberately to minimise as much as possible the pervasion of party. Once the post is up for election, it becomes more political than otherwise.
The executive’s job is to enforce the law. That must never, ever, be political, and to the extent that it is, it has to be stopped to the greatest extent possible.
You are drawing a false dichotomy there. It is impossible for a government executive to act without making discretionary policy-decisions, irreducibly political in nature.
It’s foolish to think that in a large and complex system, it is possible to “vote for the person” and have any meaningful result. We don’t give decision-making power to individuals, so we shouldn’t vote for them as individuals as if they had such power.
Even then, no one could stop Lieberman from don’t hint to call himself a Democrat, if that’s what he wanted to do.
And by 2004, U.S. Sen. Zell B. Miller (D-Ga.) hardly ever voted with his party and was actively campaigning for George Bush. Still, the party couldn’t stop him from being a Democrat.
That some have different priorities does not change the fact that the major parties are on opposite sides of the major political issues of the day. Voting simply by D or R is not ignorant.
David Duke is a Republican, Lyndon LaRouche is a Democrat, just because they say so, and no party official can gainsay them. That’s the American “party” “system”; hardly qualifies as one at all by international standards.
As BrainGlutton below your post said, the Executive inherently makes decisions political in nature, so your point contradict all that’s known of statecraft.
If the Founding Fathers had sought an Executive unable to get involved in politics, they wouldn’t have given it a veto, for one thing.
In my plan political parties would have to disband after an election cycle and have one month to dispose of all funds.
The first problem with this is: what is an election cycle?
Maybe local, state and national elections would need independent parties.
The second problem is the heads of the parties would roll their eyes and just go back to business as usual as soon as it’s allowed to reform.
I would expect that may happen the first few times. I think eventually the nutters will ask themselves why they are joining the party and either make demands that it conform to their nutty ideals, and drive away most middle of the road voters, or they will form their own parties. Either way fragmentation will mean hardcore fringe voters will hold less sway then they do now where they unbalance the two parties to the extremes.