Posted on 09/30/2017 10:51:50 AM PDT by TBP
The Republicans have done a terrible job of governing. With the presidency and majorities in the House and Senate, they have been able to do nothing regarding health care. As a fiscal conservative, I am not optimistic regarding their ability to get tax reform done.
The Constitution does not mention political parties. There is no requirement to belong to any political party to run for office or vote. One can be independent of parties and do both. However, the reality of the high cost of campaigning has made most politicians seek out one party or the other for the fundraising capability.
In history, there have been several attempts at the establishment of other parties: the Whigs, Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party, Perot's Reform Party, and the current Libertarian and Green parties, among others. All have ultimately failed. Reasons vary from lack of money, weak leadership or unpopular agendas.
Most made futile attempts at electing a president. Teddy Roosevelt was the most successful, obtaining 27 percent of the vote. Ross Perot did nearly as well with slightly less than 19 percent. Both candidates took votes from the Republicans, leading to the election of Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton.
Today, the major parties are failing to effectively govern. The Republican majority failed without opposition. Democrats did not need to obstruct as the Republicans obstructed themselves.
After the election of President Obama, when Democrats held a majority in the House and Senate, it took them two years to pass Obamacare. With that majority they did nothing on immigration reform and several other issues. President Obama governed by executive order. Congress could not even pass a budget.
The American voter is deservedly angry with both parties in Congress. They seem to work mainly for their own benefit. They take long vacations, often traveling to exotic locations at taxpayer expense under the pretense of fact finding.
Laws they make do not apply to them. They are exempt from Obamacare, having their own special health care. They do not have to abide by insider trading laws. They take massive contributions from lobbyists for their campaigns. They seemingly leave with a much larger net worth than when first elected.
We need more parties. There is no unity in either the Republican or Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders ran for president as a Democrat while he generally identifies himself as either a socialist or progressive. President Trump has been registered as a Republican, independent and Democrat at various stages of his life.
The radical left has pushed the Democratic Party far to the left of the pragmatic politics of either JFK or Bill Clinton. Current Republicans bear little resemblance to the Reagan presidency and his ability to work with Tip O'Neil or the Gingrich Congress and the Contract with America.
If instead of two parties we had several, perhaps coalitions could be formed to work more in the interest of the electorate. For example, the first new party I would suggest would be a Latino party, the Partido. If the Partido had elected a couple of senators from heavily Latino states, it could have negotiated with the Republicans on the health-care bill, agreeing to support a bill in exchange for Republican support of reasonable immigration policies.
Taking personal responsibility for one's actions is a key element of conservative philosophy.
One must admit that few Americans did not benefit either directly or indirectly from undocumented immigrants. An attractive nuisance was created in our country to which immigrants flocked in search of jobs and a better life. A reasonable policy would be to block further illegal entry while acknowledging that those who came in when immigration policy was not enforced need to gain legal status, protected by our laws.
They should pay back taxes if they cannot prove payment and perform appropriate community service and be allowed to remain legally. A Latino Partido indebted to neither party but with votes to trade on key legislation could probably get immigration reform passed.
Democrats did nothing for Latinos when they had the chance, yet they expect Latinos to vote for them. Republicans do not seem to have an idea of how to deal with Latinos, yet many Latinos are fiscally conservative. Thus an independent Latino party would have leverage with either major party.
Likewise, it seems to me that the progressive/socialist wing of the Democratic Party should break off and call themselves what they are. They could similarly negotiate with either party in power in order to obtain policies they want.
The Freedom Caucus in the Republican party should do the same. They have little in common with establishment Republicans. They should leave the party yet use their voting leverage to negotiate at least some of their basic policies.
Moderate Republicans and Democrats could unite into one moderate party. As a huge voting block, they would wield considerable power, which might allow them to actually get some legislation passed.
Tell me how that is better
I don't know if it makes the world or things in those countries any better, but all the constant bellyaching about how neither party represents people takes its toll after a while.
By this point, I'm tempted to say, form your own party that represents exactly what you believe, and let everybody else do the same, and then we'll see where we are.
Where we end up probably won't be that different from where we are now, but people might accept that what we get represents what the country thinks, rather than something that's been forced upon us.
Of course it's not going to happen because winner-take-all single representative per district voting favors the two party system.
Increase the number of house members 5 fold and it will happen. Having 435 makes it too easy for them to collude and gives the ones we have too much power.
Add term limits and swamp will be permanently drained.
Runoff elections at every level will solve most of our political problems. Unfortunately each state has the right to election law.
Term limits for elective office
and loser-pays for litigation.
Things that need doingl
And they rig the laws in favor of the Demopublican duopoly.
They claim that there isn’t room in the Chamber for more representatives.
Dumbest reason I’ve ever heard.
If and when we get our Article V convention, we should send out an amendment limiting the number of constituents a House member can represent. Right now, it’s getting close to a million average. That’s not the local representation that the Founders intended.
Runoff elections would fix that.
No, we don’t.
All splinter groups can be accommodated within the two parties.
The Republican Party has shown no inclination to accommodate the Trump/Freedom Caucus/constitutionalist wing, let alone the libertarian wing. And the Democrats no long tolerate their most sensible, middle-of-the-raod members.
What ails our republic isn’t a dearth of political parties.
The abandonment of state appointed senators pulled the keystone from the Framers’ balanced structure of government.
We can continue our 104 year-old dance around party idols, but free government cannot possibly return without repeal of the 17th Amendment.
Last line....precisely
See 1912 for an an example of what happens when your vote splits and your opponents doesn’t. Wilson the rat got 42% of the vote (less votes than the losing rat from 1908) and over 400 electoral votes.
HARD PASS. As long as we have the first past the post electoral systems this is insane suicide. There can be one major party on the right, or we lose. Observe Canada from 1993 to 2004. Observe Alberta Canada in their last election where the hard left won (the conservatives parties wised up and merged so they will be a one term wonder).
The parties “imploding” would be meaningless, parties are made up of people, who would all still be alive. Almost all Northern Whigs became Republicans, and they made up the large majority of Republicans.
“Moderates” from both parties (there are few enough moderate rats) joining together in a “centrist” party is a fantasy of media idiots who think the country is full of passionate moderates, lol, such a party would be a joke. They’d get a lot of endorsements from papers no one reads and a lot of third place finishes, they’d have no grassroots activists.
The way to win is simple, nominate conservatives in the GOP primary. It’s too hard? Well it’s a helluva lot easier than any wild scheme.
NY & CT allow cross endorsement. Gives NY Conservative Party influence . . .CT Independent Party, same
The Democrats would split too. See 1860.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.