Posted on 01/06/2025 12:19:55 PM PST by DBCJR
Eliminate all party affiliation, everyone is an independant.
It would be even worse, with absolutely no guarantee that no one party would be in complete control either. Sounds to me like an attempt to create a clever way to usher in mob rule.
It is all about money. There are a number of third parties that can’t get off the ground for many reasons, but the primary reason is a lack of money. Donors don’t support parties that can’t field winners. Money is what buys power so why piss it away on a losing effort.
Your advice is make it illegal for people to unite and work together to promote a political cause or candidate representing that cause?
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Yes you raised a valid implementation problem. Without granting to the federal government additional powers through legislation to implement it, it would have to be something like a constitutional conference but more like an agreement among parties that special interests align with the party that best represents their perspective, just to get it off the ground. Then the conference would disband and have no further function. This needs to be political, not bureaucratic.
Why would you describe such motors to me? honestly, that sounds paranoid. If you have misgivings, why don’t you clearly and intelligently state them describing what could go wrong as opposed to conclusory and derogatory comments?
there is no federal law requiring parties. Most states have certain requirements to be on the ballots, however. Many of those have to do with petitions in a certain number of signatures, but I think some may actually identify parties. That’s really a state rights issue.
Thank you for your inclusion of a federalist papers quotation. That’s the best indication that we have as to the intentions of the framers of the Constitution. However, there was a progression of ideas documented through the federalist papers. Do you have any idea what the resolution of this issue was?
no monarchy has been implied here. Likewise, the four party system would be political, not legislative as in the parliamentaries of European nations.
One of the issues that European parliaments have with the exception of the UK, is that their parliaments often represent two specialized of interests rather than political ideology. The British parliaments often break parliamentary lines in their voting based upon special interests of the specific members constituency.
We need to watch single issue parties. Parties should be based upon generalized political ideologies, not special interest.
Thanks for a thoughtful infusion of an idea!
A very thoughtful reply! I agree that we have effectively had a four party system in place, with primaries often being the general election in some states.
A parliamentary system is a legislative mandated structure. I’m proposing a non-legislative, political structure. The party has no power, except what it can wield politically. This provides the impetus to negotiate with the other parties to develop coalitions to a majority in a process, which would be similar to European parliaments, but lacking legal power until the issue or candidate was voted upon.
Why that is important is that power cannot become entrenched. It must be contended for politically in a fully dynamic environment.
If we had the parliamentary system here in USA, MAGA faction in the GOP will be known as the "far-right" party.
The mainstream GOP will become like the Tories in the UK, in other words, watered down.
Thank you for your very educated and thoughtful response! I agree that we are discussing the same issues that Aaron and Hamilton dueled about, the Civil War was fought about, and that continues to divide our nation today. While that is gravitated towards the Republican & Democratic Party in recent modern era, that has not been the case for very long. Indeed, the positioning of our current two major parties has switched on those issues since the time of Abraham Lincoln, when he imposed the federal law over state rights with unconstitutional military force. Three years later, he moralized the issue with the emancipation proclamation, but I digress.
The basis for my proposal is political, not legislative or constitutional. And that’s the difference from European Parliamentary structures. The party is not having any legislative power must buy for political power by negotiating coalitions with one or more of the three other parties. This political dynamic may change from issue to issue which would prevent entrenchment of power. The power is political, not bureaucratic, and it changes from issue to issue.. Once a representative is voted upon that representative has a mixture of political base that is different than any other representative. This compels collaboration toward true solution-formation rather than a single parties, political agenda
What motors are you referring too that I described to you? Did you mean to type motives?
Ever hear of rank choice voting? It was a method that would supposedly increase the choices, and those with the highest vote totals would advance. It was sold in the same manner as this 4 party system you are trying to sell, or perhaps someone else has sold you on.
Here are the problems with RCV:
Increased Complexity: Critics argue that RCV makes voting more complicated for voters, requiring them to rank multiple candidates rather than simply choosing one. This complexity can lead to confusion and errors in voting, as seen in some jurisdictions where ballot marking errors have occurred.
Voter Fatigue: The process of ranking multiple candidates can be time-consuming and may exhaust voters, especially in races with many candidates. This exhaustion can lead to voters not ranking all candidates, which can result in some votes being “exhausted” and not contributing to the final outcome.
Potential for Vote Discounting: In RCV systems, if a voter’s top-ranked candidate is eliminated early in the process, their vote may not contribute to the final decision if they did not rank the eventual top two candidates. This can make voters feel their vote was wasted or discounted.
Implementation Costs: Transitioning to RCV often requires significant investments in new voting equipment and voter education. These costs can be substantial and may not be justified by the benefits of the system.
Impact on Voter Confidence & Turnout: Some studies suggest that RCV can lead to lower voter turnout, particularly among low-income and less educated voters, who may find the system more challenging to navigate. This can exacerbate existing inequalities in voter participation.
Potential for Manipulation: Critics argue that RCV can be manipulated by political parties or candidates who understand the system better, giving them an advantage over others. This can undermine the fairness of the election process.
Complexity in Counting: The process of counting votes in RCV can be more complex and time-consuming than traditional voting methods. This can lead to delays in announcing election results, which can be problematic in close races.
Impact on Campaign Strategies: RCV can change the nature of political campaigns, potentially leading to more negative campaigning as candidates try to secure second-choice votes from opponents’ supporters. However, some argue that it also encourages more positive campaigning to appeal to a broader range of voters.
We went to voting machines, on the pitch that we would have our election results faster.
With simple paper ballots, we always had our results within 24 hours. California counted their ballots for over a month in 2024, because after all, all votes must be counted. We are unable to see the code in the voting machines, because that is proprietary intellectual property, and since we must count all votes, we must have time to cure the votes if the voter made a mistake. They managed to overcome several Congressional seats for House & Senate races, where the Republican was winning, most leading by large vote totals over their opponent, but the Democrat eventually won by just enough to not require an automatic vote recount to be initiated. It's never the other way around, BTW. It's always a Democrat come behind victory.
honestly, that sounds paranoid.
I am neither paranoid, nor do I suffer from paranoia. I am merely stating my opinion that it sounds like a really bad idea, because many people already have no clue as to who they are really voting for or what their positions are on issues.
I guess I have lived a long time, and I have seen a lot of the games that have been used to game the system. One of the most successful ones makes it harder for too many to really know who stands for what. So, that when they go to vote, they just end up randomly selecting one from the list, based solely upon party affiliation.
Nothing is wrong with our candidate selection process, if it is done legitimately, with no fingers being applied to the scales. What is the problem, is that our method of execution of elections has been perverted with gimmicks, that make it not only possible to apply fingers upon the scales, but there are no safe-guards available to easily expose when fraud occurs.
We need to build safety into our voting system, that can be easily audited to provide voter integrity. We do not need to reinvent our election process, we just need to safe-guard it.
We already have many states that have far more than just the two major parties. so, the number of political parties on the ballot is not the issue at all. The issue is integrity.
Does that help you any?
Four parties ran in 1860. The winner received 39% of the vote and America got war.
I hate runoff elections. It screwed us badly in Georgia.
Most definitely NO
How do you negate the human tendency to band together for dominance? Allocation of party membership would be voluntary, not assigned.
I want to see politicians standing naked to the world, metaphorically, so we can see the truth of who they are.
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.