Do we really have a five-party “system”?

Many commentators write about the “two-party system” as if it were enshrined in the Constitution.  Actually, the writers of the Constitution feared factionalism.  They thought their document would bring about a system of considered deliberation and reasoned arguments.

Unfortunately, factionalism reared its ugly head quite quickly.  John Adams, a signer of the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson, a non-signer, soon fell into animosity about the direction of government.  They did reconcile their differences in their elder years, but their dispute lingered in the Whig and Democratic parties.

The Whig party went into decline when several Whigs formed the Republican Party, partly because of opposition to the extension of slavery and partly because of support of modernization.  Ironically, one of the Republican slogans was “Free Labor” as opposed to slave labor.

Over time, the parties’ basic tenets changed with changing times.  The Republicans essentially became the party of Big Business and the Democrats became the party of the People.  But these were not fixed ideologies.  The parties adjusted their ideas to the times.  Republicans put forth ideas that favored a “government for the people” and the Democrats put forward ideas that were corporate-friendly or status quo.  Many commentators referred to the two parties as “big tent” parties; that is, all were welcome if they held loosely to a few basic tenets.

Then somewhere in the eighties or maybe even earlier, the Republicans morphed into a hard-nosed, doctrinaire party.  The days of the RINO (Republican in Name Only) began.  Some very stellar Republican politicians who got things done for the greater good were no longer welcome.  The Republicans also drew in many evangelicals who knew exactly what God wanted; just the kind of religious influence that the signers of the Constitution worried about.  The signers were very aware of the differences among denominations and didn’t want to favor one over the other.

The result of all these changes have left many would-be voters, and even regular voters dismayed.  As the parties have hardened in their stances, many people see government as dysfunctional and more partisan than deliberative.  Remember that phrase describing the U.S. Senate as “the greatest deliberative body in the world”?  I’ll agree to the “deliberate” part, “deliberate” grandstanding for minor electoral advantage.

Back to the signers of the Constitution: I think they had in mind a constituency who knew the men they were electing, if not personally, at least by reputation.  Now we know our candidates by the slick literature they send out and the amount of TV exposure they get.  Unfortunately, third parties spend millions smearing the candidates based on private interest, not the public good that the candidates may promote.

My solution to all this mismatch of ideas and actions is either all candidates are independents selected on the merits they project or candidates are loosely organized into parties that reflect their own interest.

My choices for parties would be Libertarian, Business, Evangelical, Charity, and Common Good.

The Libertarian Party would be almost anti-government.  To them, the individual is primary, government just gets in the way of freedom.  Taxes are just stealing money.  Laws are for other people.

The Business Party would be all in support of large corporations with a bit of a sop to small businesses.  Taxes and regulations just get in the way of corporations “returning value” to their shareholders.

The Evangelical Party would be Bible-centric and would pass laws pushing for more religion in government and for how all should behave, both in public and private.

The Charity Party would take up the causes of those groups who they feel are disenfranchised by government or society.  This Party is difficult to criticize because there are many people with problems that they did not create.  On the other hand, many people in a given group have managed without the Charity Party’s help.

Finally, the Common Good Party is my party (if I were to cease being a Party of One).  This is the party that takes seriously “General Welfare” and “Common Defense” in the Constitution.  The Common Good Party is concerned with infrastructure, safety regulations, commercial laws, and many other laws and expenditures that help promote a prosperous society.

The Libertarian Party ignores how much it depends on government.  What if a libertarian had been defrauded.  Would that person depend on a tax-supported court to seek reparation?  Or would the Libertarian have it out with six-guns on the streets of Laredo?

The Business Party is similar to the Libertarian Party with the emphasis on large organizations rather than individuals.  But would a modern corporation survive without public schools to train a large number of people in increasingly complicated skills, without roads to move its goods around, without police and courts to seek redress for those who would harm the corporation?

The Evangelical Party seems to pick and choose what Bible verses to use.  Two that it seems to me that they ignore most are “Be not like the hypocrites who pray in public to be seen by men…” and “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”  One could also say the writers of the Constitution were all to familiar with the picking and choosing done by various sects; that’s why they wanted “no religious test”.

The Charity Party’s hearts are in the right place, but the number of problems is so large that many people can’t put their hearts and souls into all those the Charity Party thinks are important.  Government does need a few members of this party just to keep some of issues on the table.

We probably will never have a single Common Good Party because people never agree on the priorities.  This gets back to the Constitution which didn’t really define “General Welfare”.  We do need to have more people who run for office speak out for the common good rather than promote a private interest.

Mel keeps wishing for a majority government, but he keeps seeing a minority voting.

Breaking the two-party dysfunction

Many of us don’t like the “two-party system”, some because we don’t like choosing between Tweedledee and Tweedledum, some because we can’t stand one party and feel compelled to vote for the other party.

I’ve long thought that instead of partisan primaries we should have wide open primaries, where all candidates are on the first ballot.  The top two vote getters are on the ballot for the general election.  I know, there are lots of problems with that, including the top two together having less than half the vote.  But it sure beats having party conventions and then having, like in Minnesota, someone who didn’t succeed in the party convention winning in the primary becoming the party’s “candidate” in a “party” primary.

Help may be on the way.  Several groups have come together to form EndPartisanship.

The statement that really resonates with me is:
Principle:  Every elected representative’s first obligation should be to people - not political parties.

Remember also that many of those who signed the Constitution were concerned with factionalism.  Unfortunately, many went on to be very partisan.  How long did it take for Jefferson and Adams to make up and become friends?

The "two-party system" is broken and we let it happen

Here are some quotes from "The PARTY Is OVER: How the Republicans Went CRAZY, Democrats Became USELESS, and the Middle Class Got SHAFTED", Mike Lofgren, a former Republican Congressional staffer.

"Twenty to 25 percent is not a majority [right-wing authoritarian..will not change minds], but it is enough to swing an election, especially when you consider that the authoritarian follower is more easily organized and mobilized than the rest of the population." p. 185

If this doesn't scare the more pragmatic and flexible to vote, then nothing will.

Is there really a difference in the parties?

"In a deep and intractable recession one can never discount the possibility that a Republican could win the presidency against an incumbent Democrat.  But if the GOP nominates a candidate too deeply flawed or too right wing to be plausible, it won't really matter.  The main thrust of the establishment's policies will be implemented regardless of who wins.  That is the genius of our two-party system." p 199

How much pressure do each of us put on Democrat office-holders to put people before corporations?

"And charitable or otherwise nonprofit organizations should no longer be allowed to compensate their executives at almost Wall Street level.  Does it make sense that an organization should not pay taxes if it can funnel $5.1 million a year into the pocket of its CEO?" p 208

His footnote is:

"Slideshow: Who Are the Highest-Paid Nonprofit Executives?" Dallas Business Journal, September 16, 2011

Many nonprofits are scientific, charitable, or educational.  Some claim to be educational but they are political trying to educate others on their politics.  The IRS was right to double check on the non-taxable status of Tea Party organizations.  It was not that the Tea Party was singled out per se, but they were the worst offender of all the political abusers.  Let's say that drivers for Mucking Trucking were more likely to speed than any other drivers.  Shouldn't the State Highway Patrol check on Mucking Trucking drivers more often than other drivers?

"The people of this country must make an effort to clean out their cultural baggage of … fondly-held illusions: illusions that make it easier for ambitious and manipulative politicians to bamboozle them and build bureaucratic empires that only sap the country's true potential." p. 209

He cites the foremost illusion as the myth of American Exceptionalism.  It is a disease that has infected all previous great powers or empires.   He quotes J. William Fulbright's "The Arrogance of Power":

"The causes of the malady are not entirely clear but its recurrence is one of the uniformities of history: power tends to confuse itself with virtue and a great nation is peculiarly susceptible to the idea that its power is a sign of God's favor, conferring upon it a special responsibility for other nations––to make them richer and happier and wiser, to remake them, that is, in its own shining image."

Or as I've said, who elected the President of the United States as "leader of the free world"?

Quote of the day - hyperpartisanship

"… hyperpartisanship is the opposite of patriotism."

See "Has the Third Party's Moment Arrived?", John Avlon, The Daily Beast, 2011-07-01

The idea of a third party got a big boost

Thomas Friedman has spoken out for the need of a third party.  At the Aspen Ideas Festival, he said, "We need a third party.  I am for a third party.  We are trapped in a corrupt duopoly".  See "Has the Third Party's Moment Arrived?", John Avlon, The Daily Beast, 2011-07-01.

He also said, "One thing about the Internet and the hyperconnected world—it has flattened every hierarchy in the world from The New York Times to the banking industry. It’s flattened every hierarchy in the world except the two-party system, and that will not remain. That is a prediction that I will make."

This reminds me of the aphorism, "Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?"  And of course, I have to preach, probably to the choir, be sure to vote in each and every election.  If you have no choices that you like, write somebody in.

Forget Ranked Choice Voting, Try Ranked Vote Reporting

Many people tout Ranked Choice Voting as a solution to the gridlock of the so-called two-party system.  Others say it will be to confusing to voters.  One thing I do know is that it requires charter and constitutional changes.  Like many elections of candidates, charter changes will probably not be brought about by a majority of eligible voters.

We can put a better perspective on election results with a simple election administration change.  Each precinct, county, and state should publish the totals of registered voters who did not vote and include it in a ranked report.

For example, assume a precinct with 1,000 registered voters of whom only 600 showed up.  290 voted for A, 250 voted for B, and 60 voted for C.  A is declared the winner because A received the plurality of votes.  And A's party will be dancing until midnight celebrating the victory.

But, let's consider the true count.  400 voters didn't care to show up at all.  If the precinct had to include these un-cast votes in its report, we might see something like this:

400 (40%) no vote cast
290 (29%) Candidate A
250 (25%) Candidate B
  60  ( 6%) Candidate C

Even if Candidate A had received 310 votes or a majority of the votes cast, the report would still show Candidate A coming in second to "no vote cast".  Not exactly an overwhelming victory; Candidate A did not get a "mandate".

Actually, we don't even need an administrative change.  If media started reporting results in this manner, it would have the same effect.  Most large media organizations have access to this data.

If this idea really took hold, we might get one or more of the following.  Candidates would work to increase turnout; candidates would work to widen their appeal; additional candidates may run because they would see the "popular" candidates as not so popular.

Ads for a moderate party

A coin is flipped and lands on the left side of a line.  "Heads - nobody wins."  A coin is flipped and lands on the right side of the line.  "Tails - everybody loses."  A coin is flipped, lands on edge on the line, and rolls off into the future.  "You can make the 'improbable' happen."

A person tries to budge an elephant.  The person tries to budge a donkey.  The person jumps on a horse, into a car, whatever, and goes off to the future.

Abraham Lincoln said, "As our case is new, so must we think anew."  Third party candidates have become president.

Fighting back on the overturning of corporate campaign spending

The Supreme Court overturned precedent about granting "political speech" to corporations, unions, and other organizations, "Justices Overturn Key Campaign Limits", New York Times, 2010-01-21.

I find it very interesting that the "conservatives" who were appointed by presidents from a party that proclaims it is for individual liberty gives greater liberty to corporate interests.

We can't do much about various groups promoting or panning candidates, especially candidates for whom few of the members of the group can vote. But we can refuse to vote for candidates who accept contributions from groups or from people who have no right to vote for that candidate. And we can let them know why we won't vote for them.

Too often we as a people make voting an either/or proposition; we must vote for one of the major party candidates or we will be "throwing our vote away". It is way past time to stand up and be counted in a different way.

If any candidate for whom you might vote accepts contributions from those who can't vote for him or her, write and tell that candidate that you will vote for somebody else or leave that spot on the ballot blank. Maybe you will make no difference for an election cycle or two, but we have to start someplace. If you tell your friends and relatives what you did, if you write letters to the editor about what you did, maybe, just maybe the idea will catch on.

If you vote for the same old, same old, is it really democracy? Real democracy starts with individuals making their voices heard, not with sheep following the herd.

Climate change and so-called bipartisanship

How can there be bipartisanship on any issue when there are more than two sides? Actually, as Stewart Brand writes in "Four Sides to Every Story", New York Times, 2009-12-14 there is a continuum from alarmists who think there is no problem, to those who think caution should be applied to a possible problem, to those who think we should address a given problem, to alarmists who think the problem needs immediate, drastic action.

Brand divides the stances on climate change into the Denialists, the Skeptics, the Warners, and the Calamatists. The real scientists who are Skeptics are often quoted by the Denialists, much to the discomfort of the Skeptics.

This division could be applied to many issues, like health care. We have those who deny there is a problem and even exaggerate the effects of any propose solution and those who exaggerate any problem and deny that proposed solutions will do enough. Then there are all the people who recognize there is a problem, something should be done about the problem, disagree on the severity of the problem and about which solutions are most appropriate.

Unfortunately, the Denialists and the Calamatists too often control the public discourse and make the work of more reasoned minds more difficult. It is even worse when the Deniers and some Skeptics are locked into one political party and the Calamatists, the Warners, and some Skeptics are locked into another political party. With this arrangement how is any real bipartisanship possible?

We would be much better off if we had five political parties: Denialists, Skeptics, Warners, Calamatists, and Referees. The last party would examine the positions of the Skeptics and the Warners, and blend them into politics of the possible. Hopefully, the Denialists and the Calamatists would be marginalized to mere commentators.

Spelling changes from Deniers and Calamitists to Denialists and Calamatists made 2010-01-23.

A "Conservative" compromises

You think that is an oxymoron; conservatives don't compromise because they are too busy sticking to principles. Maybe you are sticking to close to your principles of political definition.

I started thinking about this when reading Ross Douthat's column "A compromise that's centered on catastrophe". It was originally published as "The Catastrophic Option" in the New York Times, 2009-10-19. It is about shifting the health care debate to something that might actually work.

Ross Douthat supposedly is the resident "conservative" columnist for the New York Times. One of those attempts to show that a newspaper doesn't have a "liberal" bias. I've found some of his columns to be "liberal" in the sense that he approaches issues in a thoughtful, adaptive manner rather than a reactive manner.

In an email to a local columnist who generally writes reasoned columns, I wrote, "If you don’t change your paradigms, you won’t have a pair of dimes for change." I didn't mean to apply this to him, but to people who expect things not to change.

I think one of the paradigms we have to change is the "conservative/liberal" divide, especially when those to whom these labels apply don't really act that way. Rather, they are locked into positions that are neither conservative nor liberal.

Maybe we can move away from this locked horn position by looking at some of our definitions again. For starters, I offer these. A conservative is one who says, "Not so fast" with regard to change. A moderate is one who says, "Here are our choices and the probable consequences."

There are many other ways at looking at political viewpoints, but I think these two would be a good starting point on how we define our political parties and how we choose those who would govern us.

Political parties and never-never land

In the United States we have a party that promises a future that will never be and a party that promises a past that never was.

How can we expect so-called bipartisanship of such polar unreasonableness?

We really have three political parties

I lay awake early this morning thinking about what parties would be like if they aligned themselves according to their common beliefs.

My first thought was that we really have three parties: the ridiculous right, the loonie left, and the muddling middle. The extremes set the tone for both Republicans and the Democrats and the pragmatists only get to set the brakes a bit.

The Republicans have come to be dominated by their fringe, and that fringe is alienating more voters. The Democrats are torn between their "conservative" faction and their fringe. The latter asks for the moon and the former almost caters to the Republicans, the old-style corporate interest Republicans.

It would be interesting if the Democrats split in three: the "conservatives", the problem solvers, and the fringe. If that were to happen, would the "conservatives" attract "moderate" and "liberal" Republicans, if any are left? If so, the hard-line Republicans would be marginalized, and we could get back to governance instead of squabbling. It would also solve Obama's bipartisanship problem.

The U.S. needs its own velvet revolution

According to Frank Rich, the "conservative" charge that Obama is a "socialist" is wrong, he is just as much a "corporatist" as the Republicans before him ("Is Obama Punking Us?", New York Times, 2009-08-08).

Obama has relented on the holding in drug prices and has not kept negotiations with lobbyists public as he promised.

Corporate money is pouring into the coffers of members of Congress of all persuasions.

If in the next elections we don't get candidates who depend only on individual donations, we have to foment our own velvet revolution. It will be hard because of our culture of "throwing our votes away", but we are doing it every time we vote for the same old, same old.

The only way I can think of for individuals to bring about change is to vote NO. The way not to do this is to stay home; your stay-at-home vote is not counted. You have to get out and vote, but you don't have to vote for Tweedledee or Tweedledum. You may have third party candidates who meet your criterion. You can always leave a particular office blank. Or you can write someone in, even if it is "None of the above".

It's up to you to bring about "Change you can believe in."

See also "If you don't vote, you have only yourself to blame", "Voting is not a horse race", and "Will a third party succeed?"

Pragmatic Republicans, It's time to abandon ship

With some Republican office holders supporting the "birther" movement, and with many Republican office holders indulging in "Just say no!", it's time for office holders who want to address the real problems of this country to abandon ship and form a new party.

It has been done successfully at least twice in the U.S. The Whig Party was formed to address the overreach of President Andrew Jackson. It had two candidates win the Presidency. The Republican Party was formed because many thought the Whigs were not adequately fighting the extension of slavery. The Republican Party has had some successful candidates who addressed the problems of their times.

But now the party has become home to many people who have many contradictory ideas and would rather blame Democrats for any and all ills than offer any real solutions.

Like Abraham Lincoln who withdrew from politics rather than be a Whig, many moderate Republicans have withdrawn to the sidelines rather than be active in the current Republican Party.

Lincoln re-entered politics as a Republican and went on to be a very successful President. Maybe one of the current sideliners might join a new pragmatic party and go on to be a very successful President.

Quote of the day: the fallacy of the two-party system

party [U.K.] may deserve to be punished, their political opponents don’t deserve to be rewarded.

Well, Paul Krugman didn't actually call it a fallacy, but he did write that either-or is not always a good solution. He wrote about the financial crises:

But here’s the thing. While Mr. Brown and his party [U.K.] may deserve to be punished, their political opponents don’t deserve to be rewarded.
- "Gordon the unlucky", New York Times, 2009-06-07

Next time you vote, remember that there could be a third, or fourth, or ... way.

Not always two sides to every issue

One of the fallacies of discourse is that there are two sides to every issue. For example, one of Carinda Horton's fans said that "Horton's show respectively portrayed both sides of an issue." This is an indirect quote by the Duluth News Tribune, "Talk show host Horton let go by Duluth station", 2009-05-28. Carinda Horton was a talk show host on KDAL-AM in the Duluth-Superior area.

There are often one side, two sides, three sides, or any number of sides.

There is really only one side to the issue of the earth being round. There may be some that believe the earth is flat, but all the evidence shows that earth is round. Not exactly perfectly round, but sufficiently round to not be flat, square, or egg-shaped.

The two-side fallacy comes from so many people believing in "two-party system". You're either Republican or Democrat. But even that was not always true. In the days when the parties were less rigid than now, many Democrats would agree on a particular issue with the majority of Republicans, and many Republicans would agree with the majority of Democrats on the same issue.

Even when there seem to be two sides to an issue, there are quite frequently really three: for, against, and don't give a damn. How many people in Duluth wish the school board and "Let Duluth Vote" would just shut up about the Duluth School District's Red Plan?

If we had a true democracy, we would have only independent candidates, each being relative unique in their positions and not beholden to any larger group. That probably will never happen, because people with similar views will work together more often than not. Our best arrangement is to have multiple parties with overlapping views. Unfortunately, we won't get this as long as people are concerned about "throwing their vote away" by voting for other than a Democrat or Republican.

The best thing about having more than two views is that we are more open to new ideas. Suppose there had been only two sides to the slavery question: keep all people with any African ancestry as slaves or send all of them back to Africa. The third side is to treat all people with any African ancestry as full citizens. Stay tuned: we're still working on that.

We now have a three-party system

I read Frank Rich's "One night, two Americas" in today's New York Times.

He essentially writes that Clinton and McCain are of the past and Obama is of the future. From this I thought of how both the left and the right are stuck in battles and world views of the past; Obama has captured the hopes of those who look to the future. My quick diagram of this is

|| –

The vertical lines are the parties of the past, stuck in the past; the horizontal line is the party of the future moving forward. Another way to look at it is the right is the party of globalization of business but of anti-globalization of politics (we know best) and the left is the party of anti-globalization of business but of globalization of politics. They are also stuck in the polarization of ideas many Americans would rather not take a firm stand on: gun control, abortion, immigration, and so on.

I think that Obama will win in a landslide because he represents the future. He will win because he will get more people voting than ever. He will win because he has built a strong organization of average people rather than of Washington insiders. He will win because he is a better speaker and thinker. Finally, he will win because people do want change.