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.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?