I am sure it is time to ban political parties
I have come to the conclusion that political parties are the problem. Not to have politics, but the parties and affiliations themselves would remove a lot of the crap we are seeing. I would suggest no parties, if you want to run for Senate, you must have 5 years residency in that state (to prevent migrant senators), same for House. Elections are government funded ( I know, I know but wait..) 50,000 for House, 50,000 for Senate, paid for from a fund established by selling off current party assets (both of them and all the rest of them as well) and the money put in a 401K (which , if it's good enough to fund military retirements, it is good enough to fund political races). Now, I am not proposing we junk the whole party idea, and the subsequent screaming about rights, freedom to do what they want etc. You can still have a philosophy, even a group, you just have no "Dumbocrap" or Republicrat, as such running. The top 2 vote getters in a Senate race are in, the top "X" in the house race get in (unless we choose to break it up by population, but then that starts to allow for groups to form again). Lobbying in banned, no need to feed the political pigs, they all get the same salary as the median income of all the governors of the 50 states. It seems like this would alleviate an awful lot of the current crap we see: Bought politicians, rigged elections, slanted news, outright lies, laws ignored, unequal treatment across the board, you name it. It also heads us back to the land of the individual, and where people who want to represent me in the seat of government are actually doing that, and not the money they had to grub to get there. I would say this would be much more of an equitable system and eliminate a huge subclass of people wanting to mooch for a living.
But a more productive reform would be to elect the House of Representatives using the Single Transferable Vote (a form of preferential ballot that gives each party seats in proportion to its total nationwide popular vote, even if it doesn't have a majority in any one place). Not only does STV do away with the "spoiler effect", it also makes it impossible for any member to send pork home to his district -- because they won't have districts.
But from a purely practical standpoint, good luck with that.Things would have to be done by putting like-minded peope in place until there are enough to make some moves. However, if Clinton is elected, forget everything, and with Trump you got to just cross your fingers.
Unless, of course, you're thinking of the use of force -- also not possible at this stage.
The Constitution is a very short document giving very limited powers to the Federal government and very broad protections to the citizens. The First Amendment protects our right to speech and assembly/association. Thus, the SCOTUS was correct in upholding Citizens United.
All you are proposing is more rules and laws to restrict people's behavior. No matter what we do using that approach, people will figure out ways to game the system to their advantage and, ultimately, nothing is likely to change.
I had to study Texas history as a requirement in college. I never forgot a major reason the 1876 Texas Constitution (after 10 years of carpetbagger rule following the Civil War) stipulated that the Texas Congress would meet only every other year for no more than 60 days. Their reasoning was that the politicians could do only a limited amount of damage to the people in 60 days!
I agree with Milton Friedman that throwing the bums out (term limits) is not the answer. We keep replacing them with more bums! He said the answer is to change the incentives for politicians so that it is politically more profitable to do the right thing for the citizens than the wrong things!
Reducing the size of the Federal government from a $4 Trillion enterprise to a $2 Trillion dollar enterprise with a balanced budget requirement and zero-based annual budgets would go a lot further toward achieving what you desire than trying to curtail political parties. Making the Congress a part-time job that meets for only 60 or 90 days per year would still allow enough time to deal with the routine issues affecting the citizens without allowing enough time to try and pass the individual desires and/or visions of a President and 535 elected politicians. Most importantly, those are things that could realistically be accomplished! Changing peoples' innate tendencies to organize and game a system is not.
The reason you have two major political parties is built in to the system. It is winner takes all for a given geographical area. This is what gives rise to the two party system.
A proportional system would give the best chance for an Objectivist to run and win. It would also give Communists a shot.
A lot of what you mention above does hit home, though you cannot generally ban party affiliation just as you cannot ban unions.
No political parties you may argue constitutes a no-party state. Others may argue that it constitutes a one-party state. How would you respond to this observation?
You may get rid of formal political parties but not the "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" cliques that shall surely reform up in Congress with anything but "reform" on their minds..
"Birds of a feather flock together" my fifth grade teacher used to say over and over and over again.
She may have been a skipping record (those obsolete vinyl disks used to--used to--used to--hang up like that), but the latter experiences of this 69 (million)-year-old dino proved her right.
America first. Not party first. Or not selfish little cushy fiefdom within the party first.
nick, me dino says you did good.
+1 both above and in the title section.
In one case the county wanted those big sliding drawers for plat maps. That was over $10,000.00. so they put it on the ballot. We found down at Beale AFB some brand new never been used one's at the Base Property Book Disposal Office. For a few hundred each and aftere military other government entities were next in line. The cost was one employee with a truck to drive the 400 miles or so down and back and probably one night in a motel. Guess what didn't win on the ballot. Those ideas work IF the citizens remember their follow on resonsibilities. That' s the usual failure point and cause. Every right has a responsibility or it really isn't a valid right ....is it? Not in real life.
I doubt the fivve years residency comment. Hillary alone proved that wrong. In any case the only reqjuirements I've found are citizenship and age. That may be a state requirement here and there as the Constituton leaves everything else in the selection procedure up to the States exept for two interferences. The SCOTUS denied the electees were State Delegates and employees, refusing to honor recall, the second was only the political parties are responsibile for the the cnduct and manner of their candidate selection.
The top two vote getters advancing to the next higher level primary to general is a due process violation and the winner takes all is pure tampering with the ballots and should be treated as a criminal act.
Money as free speech is of course the same tampering and in many cases is carried out by people who can vote and entities who cannot vote in areas where they have no geo-polticial interest.
The difference between Representatives and Senators was an integral part of the now defunct checks and balances system. Senators are really nothing more than direct vote Representatives at Large in a statre wide district. Originally everything about the two houses was set up to keep them at odds with each other not as it is at present make them sock puppets for a one party system of government.
The easiest way however to exert control is by having 51 Senators or 25.5 states in your money as free speech pocke and that pocket is not necessarily in country funded. Consider the 26 least pppulated states. Interfering with those electoral areas are the cheapest way to go. If one doesn't quite make it there's pllenty of hands out in the other 24.5. Thus the 26 least populated states can control a lot of government starting with the House of Senators. Parties tend to mix that up unless there is really only one party. For the House of Representatives it takes half plus one of 435 States. or 217.5 make it 218. Nine times as spendy.
Consider the terms gridlock, bi-partisanship and cross partisanship. i submit gridlock is far from a bad idea or even acceptable and is a superior idea. The other two terms are just code for a one party system. Where does it say 'why don't we all get along?' but then it shows how that is to be done and there are plenty examples of that. The key word is learning one is not, is never going to get the whole loaf of their perfect mind's eye viewpoint. Doesn't mean you give up but it does mean you get ahead the farthest and the fastest by joining with generally like minded people on the major critical questions and leave the rest until later.
A good party system would not be a party as such with iron clad restrictive rules but one that had and stood strongly by what ole Carville called 'sacred ground' noting the Democrats had none. Neither did the Republicans for that matter. There MUST be a strong central belief from which none stray and after that varying degrees including the right to join with others on the follow on preferences.
Not a party as such but a Coalition os a better term. Democrats using Marxist Leninest Socialism clothed as a democratic Reublichave managed to do that. The Republicans supposedly the main supporters of the Constitutional Republic theory of government have not. Worse have capitulated.
All else flows from there.
Lastly learn to dispell what is crap and what's snot Shutting down the government IS crap it never happens. Most of and all the key important parts are never laid off. S'not for snifflers or snufflers is still s'not true and neither is a these politicians contrived definitions.
Honesty with yourself foremsot, integrity with yourself, ethics, helps us all learn to differentiate whhat is s'not what is shite and what is shinola. UNLESS you alearna leftist has no such abilities and doesn't care. Using objectivism especially rememer they have absoutely no ability to use tthe Third Law, their ability to use the Second Law is problematical, and as for the First Law? Except fo the ruling class - Is there any doubt?
That portion demonstrates how you divide up into not parties heavily controlled but into a working coalition with a common relationship. Something our side has yet to solve.
First think of the divine right of kings and emperors with complete power. Far beyond the time their families took control with battlefield prowess. The Aristocracy. They were blessed by various sources including philosophical. Plato's line of reasoning laid it out completely in it's present form. Like every one that followed they had their escape hatch having been annointed as 'special' by some special combination of mysticism or Gods or a God. Plato of course included the philosophers as the only one's capable of seeing the truth. The Aristocracy.
This group changed as they were forced to include others wanting a larger slice of the pie. Loyal henchmen, the Barons Magna Carta and one of the most reviled groups the money lenders in todays terms the bankers. At the top of the heap each of these groups formed the roots of todays Statists and Corporatists. Not all just the creme de la creme. The Chosen Ones
Next step was machinery and industrial revolution. Who had the money to field the transportations systems world wide and the production of goods at home. and who had the power. Kings, Barons, Bankers. And at the top the same people in control.
Gradually things changed but did they? No. Same aristocracy feudalists now neo feudalists.
the control systems following the lead of the enlightenment philosphers still folowed the Plato Plan but now something called education crept out ot the churches and into the mainstream. Reading, books, mathematics, science all of it
And up jumped a different form of philosophy fathered by Aristotle individual reason and thinking everyone part of the control group. That might have been a step too far considering but a least most given some education and some reasonable chance of advancement.
First the 1700's saw some new ideas take shape and take over part of the western hemisphere. Man Can Govern himself was just a part of it. 1777 to 1789 saw the largest offering of these new ideas. Anethma to the Aristocracy. By the early 1800's a different idea had evolved. Government of the people WITH the Plato control group in charge. Finally another form of citizen government coalesced into Socialism. One side of the ocean followed Aristotle to a point. The other side Plato. But the Aristocracy now industrial barons and inteernatinal bankers joining royalty was still busy behind the scenes. Enter Marx, Engels, and a few others and the 1900's arrived. The century of the great socialist wars. One group crossed the Atlantic at the behest of the neo- aristocrats who had taken over from the independent minded freedom loving early pioneers and settlers. Another version ended up becoming international socialists. A third the National Socialists split off and ins ome corners pure aristocracy prepared to gasp it's last.
internationalists demanded government control of everything including the shirt on your back and all your waking and sleeping hours for the greater good. The nationalists let the industrialists keep what they had build but with a very tight chain known as fascism. Across the pond Wilson through FD Roosevelt had to take a different tack. democratic socialism .
they all had the same things in common and this is where they solved their problem which is your current dilemma.
The division was in three parts. Our old friends the diveine royalty rights group became the government with in most cases the military or Statists. the Bankers became Corporatists and those most close to the citzens Labor Leaers. Different mixtures to be sure but all the same underneath. Identifying a need for an adversary system the party system was further developed . One party possibly two in the European version two or more in the western hemisiphere system. But above and behind them ever the new neo feudalistic aristocracy paid for and played puppet master. The Establishment is what we call it today. In the back rooms they were not Democrat and Republican or Populists or Whigs or Tories. They were of one accord. Take control and keep control using the party system to accomplish that and a general slow movement in the direction of Goveernment Over Citizens with complete control by any and all means. Our version easily mixed elements of the three legs of socialism and world wide the a system of left right politics was invented Except the terms and definitions were inverted, subverted and convoluted beyond any hope of being of any use.
Fast forward to the 20th century the early 1900's the tactic of incrementalism had taken over as war after war was fought behind the current of crisis aftrer crisis and war after war.
the rest is easy to figure out one side reclaim the truth and to hell with the definitions of others.
One side is government over people with complete control. The other side i people over government as the true center of power and rights. Extremists in their proper places were Communists and Nazis interenational and national socialist to the far left. To the other side lay anti government groups, anarchists and other forms of leave me aloners. in the center lay the sacred ground which was not center of those heading in directions opposed to independence and freedom.
The Real Center of a Constitutional Republic is the Constitution. Containing everything needed to grow and make changes as needed - legally.
A false center has been propagandized into being... The center of the left. That's all it is nothing more. And guess what the different parties all live under that tent IF they support goverenment control of people which they do. Inthe center the Consitutionalists and by definition the far right has no center they are the 'no government' believers.
Do not mix this up with the system in play in the 1700's That system was not left and right but vertical God, King, Nobles, Country Peasantrs. top to bottom. Their divine right meant one thing outs is different. To use a handy definition of a the same word one can examine and divine (just like finding water with a forked stick) the center is citizens who back when selected in a very small d democratic manner to prefer a large C and R Constitutionjal 'Reublic. Better to not give a fig about what the left thinks or says it will be different to morrow and therefore is meaningless. Watch and listed to wha tthey say and really do. Nothing hard about figuring them out. They want your life. frp, birth to death and redfining is a major tool to accomplish just that.
"Both parties want to hurt you?" Try the two parts of the Government Party working for a neo feudalistic neo aristocratic establishment wants to hurt you but they are not two parties. Just two groups wwith differet roles to play. And that is al lthere is to figuring them out.
Now you can go and think about what to do. Five choices and three are left wing socalist to different degrees. but it's one of the three plus the henchmen in Congress and the commercial world that want watching as well. Hard to do? DAMN RIGHT. When it was easy there was no need except fo rone absolute. For every right there is a resonsibility.
And the only way to reclaim that is in three steps.
Stop Enabling
Take Control
Make Change
To find a new way to accomplsih that one must turn their back on and repudiate that which you abhor. Hard to do when your wasting time on what ugliness the witches of the left have done this time. There isn't anything you can do to change them exept ignore them. unless you are a plastic surgeon , cosmetologist, and psychiatrist wrapped into tone.
Better to just turn your back on them and ignroe them.
Our original Founding Fathers made an attempt at a free society, but I suspect their free society was one where they were the arbiters of the Freedom. Everything I have seen seems to show they talked a good game, but almost from the outset, the power brokers and money madness crept in, even as early as 1810, with the War of 1812 brewing. After the War of 1812, all ets were off, as the Federal Government started feeling it's oats, and then the Civil War cemented the power of the central government. The biggest failure I see in our system starts almost at the begining with the Party system almost being designed iinto it. No one could do anything wothout having a large group behind them, and communications were such that no individual had the tools to make a non party system work. I see that has changed. Today you could run a campaign almost by yourself, with the Internet and email, and the ability to get a group together via many means. The fact the majority have no longer cares to have to work at looking at their representatives, having been programmed into the Party system, means all power has been turned over from the people to the Party, and so now we have mindless voting, and powerful Party machines. I would seek to break the machines and make people have to work for their Freedom.
Restoring the Rule of Law by Texas Governor Greg Abbott
The Liberty Amendments by Mark Levin
The Convention of States project
Concord Green on LinkedIn - an architectural review underway of the constitution, its amendments, and proffered amendment ideas.
1. Political parties should be treated in tight parallel with religions, following the first amendment example. One effect - primaries, if held at all, would be entirely funded by each party holding one, under the entire body of election law. Another effect - in the general election no party identification would be allowed. Yet another effect - the idea of party facilities or events in the Capitol Buildings, Senate offices, or House Offices would disappear.
IMHO this would be a very good thing.
and more.
That would eliminate most of the cronyism with its attendant lobbyists. It would also reduce the political offices to people who were good administrators.
It would also eliminate any politician from getting votes from some by promising goodies to them to be paid for by others.
Who would spend 100 million to get elected as president under such a scenario where the job paid $400k a year.