Democrats & Liberals: Archives

The problem is the two-party system — that was never designed, the Constitution simply wasn’t set up for parties, Jefferson was oft to disdain it and we obviously aren’t coping well with it. Parties create a faux coagulation of unrelated ideals, morals and policies. It’s ridiculous, but I’m a Democrat. Why? West Virginia’s state primaries would leave me sidelined if I wasn’t.

I totally agree… to see a funny cartoon making light of the over-importance of Iowa and New Hampshire in selecting a president go to this link(http://cagle.slate.msn.com/politicalcartoons/pccartoons/archives/ohman.asp?Action=GetImage) and choose “Image dated : 01/19/04”

Ry,

You’re right that the Constitution wasn’t written for political parties, but I think a two-party system is inevitable based on the Constitution. Since the presidency is a winner-take-all election in which coalitions are useless, there’s no advantage to being in a third party.

I really don’t like being in a two-party system (are hippies, blue-collar union workers, and African-Americans really well represented by a single party, and are fundamentalist Christians and fiscal conservatives really well served by the other party? Of course not). But I don’t think that we’ll get out of a two-party system until the Consitution changes.

Lawnboy,

excellent and informative posts. You’ve really got me thinking and reading

Lawnboy, there is a solution to the primary system.

Instead of having a one-man one-vote primary, have a one-man two-vote or one-man three-vote primary. Have a primary where a voter picks creates a list from the slate of candidate in order from most preferable to third most preferable. Using 2000 as an example, a voter might pick:

1. Nader
2. Gore
3. McCain

Nader gets 10 points, Gore gets 8, McCain gets 3 — or something along those lines (a study by some French mathamaticians worked out a tally system and everything — but I can’t reference it right now).

Then, when a conservative voter votes they might vote:

1. Buchannan
2. Bush
3. McCain

And from combining the whole of the voting public you come out with the two most liked (or, at least, two most not-disliked) candidates and run them against each other.

This system or a variation on it is perfectly fine for the primary and it can still lead an essentially two-party general election.

***Guys listen, we are a mirror image of England in our two party system, okay.

LABOR PARTY = DEMOCRATS
CONSERVATIVE PARTY = REPUBLICANS

But what is interesting is that the agenda of ‘our’ conservatives is’nt based on anything conservational as England’s cons tend to be, it is namely reflective in our republicans in their protection of interests of wealthy persons and entities, that being one major remnant of England’s influence on America’s version of conservatism.

Our version of conservatism has taken on a rather folksy tenor in terms of family values and old-timey morees, they do similarly but with different reminiscences of yesteryear. But we have a decisively more corporate twist with our conservatism which was influenced in part by railroad barons and industrial magnates during the nineteenth and early twentieth century onward.

Okeedokee :)

The difference; their conservatives are staunch defenders to maintain tradition, our cons work to deconstruct and deregulate and still want tradition kept in place, even if people have to go without or get screwed down the road. One other difference with our version of conservatism is the evangelical christian influence as a source of votes.

See here’s the ruse, if people are economically screwed it is easy to rally them against the maintainers of the system (Dems). It’s really no mystery why states with a largely republican legislature and representatives are the poorest states, because it serves the republican party to have people on their knees. Just as it can be argued that it serves democrats to cater to the downtrodden and economically disadvantaged. But here’s the difference, we do it because yes, votes, but a genuine kinship to the cause (sometimes doing a half-assed job on their behalf).

But republicans rally the economically disadvantaged to blame the structure makers who could work on their behalf but they (cons) have set themselves so far against it that there is no taking up their issues at all, so they get disenfranchised by the democrats that are quite willing to work on their behalf. The problem is with the Democrats fault and not the Cons, for not giving them representation even in the face of them resisting it. We are allowing the polarization to have sway in whom we should be defending and serving. The democrats also have chosen not to hear us anymore or represent our issues anymore but just to placate what they assume our drives are to garner votes, though sometimes not. Part of it is our fault in not going to Washington on our own behalf and upon doing so don’t allow ourselves to be placated by pablem with no greater effect. And yes lobbyists do play a defining role in our dilemma. But what Clinton did to our party is’nt forgivable.

**Let me just relay a quick story. In 1999 a coallition of college kids from accross the country went to Capitol Hill to bring up to our representatives the issue of student loan debt and to discuss possible solutions to the problem and what it means to their future to have that debt over their heads. They started their rally and up came Diane Feinstein of California and Representative Inoywe (I’m sure I mispelled that). They thought it was a class trip from some school. Diane started out with a welcome to washington and then a touting of Bill Clinton as the solver of all of their problems which if he actually was they obviously would’nt have been there in the first place. Then Inoywe got up and played tourguide to Washington D.C. “Behind me is the Capitol Building and that’s where we…It was built in…” yada, yada. The Democrats lack RESPONSIVENESS and that is supposed to be what our party is founded on. The art of listening and gaining understanding.

It was the Democrats that made this country what it is, fore runners in civil liberties, forerunners in equitable housing, forerunners in taking care of the elderly, forerunners in medical coverage, forerunners in School funding (pell grants) and teachers wage increases(slow to come about to say the least). and much more.

But democrats do create thriving economies for the most part. Don’t believe me? take a look at the economies of the red states compare them to blue states and see for yourselves Republicans usurp the the economies of the states they govern for the sake of creating cheap labor. It’s almost as if they don’t know that the more money you have, the more you spend, the more money goes into the local economy, the more goes into the schools (and a good school system creates higher numbers of good wage earners). Tax deferals don’t accomplish that employee economies do that not labor exploitation. The economy they envision is one of such short sightedness it’s bordering stupidity but it rallies the economically disadvantaged to storm the tower and gives corporations within that state a redcarpet incentive perk that serves no one in the long run (the perk of a cheap labor force) even when the majority of that corporations revenues are going to another state entirely. Which is giving them a perk for doing nothing for the state economically.

I’ll stop there.

Ry,

I really like the idea of voting like you mention. Other ideas include Condorcet voting (which may be related to what you propose), Approval voting, and Instant Runoff Voting (a criticism of it).

While I would like to try these approached in American democracy and I think they would increase the odds of a true third party emerging, I don’t see them addressing the problems I focused on in the initial post: unfairness between the states, overlong election season, and too much money influence. Do you see alternative election methods improving those issues in a way I’m not seeing?

You’re right — I’m not sure that I do. What it does do is help take away the winner-takes-all advantage from a well financed candidate. But, you’re right, the end of the line problem is still there — the green leaf (money — certainly not marijuana).