I guess there's no circumventing special interests. I like the concept of an EC that's more representative to the population as a whole. So you increase the numbers and eliminate the winner-takes-all system most states have.
I don't have any affinity for a three-or-four party Congress, but I imagine it'd be democratically healthy if we could have another re-alignment that would wipe out one of the two major parties.
The 2 major parties are too powerful. Third parties seem to just siphon off votes for their more powerful, ideological counterpart. Gore would have won in 2000 if Nader didn't run. Perot hurt Bush 1 (though it is only arguable that Bush would have won). I'm sure the strong "second-choice" for nearly all the Nader voters would have been Gore.
I hear this a lot about the parliamentary system, but does this system really work any better? Look at Israel for example. Every several months, we hear about how the government in crisis and on the verge of being dissolved and having to start over again. Europe has a lot of places with this system, and they have the same problems we do here with out-of-control spending, an inability to kill programs, and undue influence of the powerful. What benefits does the system bring to the table?
The benefit is that it allows groups to arise that represent more diverse interests. It gives power to groups that are generally underrepresented. It's arguable whether it would make us better or worse, but I was really only discussing what it would take to get multiple parties. If you want multiple vibrant, effective parties, you can not get there in our current form of legislature.
Makes sense - I agree that our current system can't really ultimately support 3 functional parties. Even if you could pull it off in Congress, the Electoral College system in the Presidential elections kills any chance of it really working.
You couldn't even pull it off in Congress though. You can have isolated incidents of Congressman winning districts without being part of one of the two major parties, but for the most part, the two big parties are still going to win the vast majority of seats because they have the name power. If you did some sort of proportional seat allotment based on votes, that would foster the growth of additional parties. As long as we elect based on single member districts, third parties have no shot in this nation.
Enough with the third party fantasies. It would solve nothing unless more people vote. If people would just get off their asses and vote, the relative power of special interests would decline considerably, the parties would have to relate to a broader swath of the country, and we'd have a much better government. 1968 was the last Presidential election where we had more than 60% of the voting age population actually vote. That's pathetic. What's worse is that in non-Presidential Congressional elections, 1970 was the last year we topped 40%. That means that 25-28% of the voting age populace is electing the President and 18-19% are voting for the winner in non-Presidential Congressional elections. Think about that... it means that special interest groups (be they the NRA or the Sierra Club) who can generate votes become disproportionately influential in the victories of candidates they support. If 95% of the voting age populace voted, even if they had no clue as to who or what they were voting for, the power of those special interest groups would be diminished significantly and the politician could not afford to spend so much time with them... and would have to represent the entire population instead of the 18-28% that get them elected now. Is it any wonder we're dysfunctional when politicians are beholden to such a small group of voters/interest groups? The only way around money is with lots of votes ( I should say it's the only non-violent way). Unfortunately, the moneyed interests very much like a small voter pool to play with and a lot has been invested in keeping the number of voters down. It's boring. It won't make a difference. They're all the same. The powerful people will always control things anyway. I don't have time. I live in a Conservative/Liberal district/state so my vote won't count. My husband/wife/brother/sister will just cancel my vote out so neither one of us vote. Ugh. If you don't like what's going on vote regularly and encourage everyone you know to vote regularly. If we even got to 75% it would make a huge difference.
NO to Ross Perot, Pat Buchanon, Ralph Nader and the rest of the kooks. Also the the Tea Party is a MOVEMENT not a political party with an organized leadership. Libertarians like Ron Paul get my support on the Congressional level but he is too weak on national security to become a viable Presidential candidate. Conservatives just need to take back their party from Neo-Statists like McCain and Co. The tsunami is coming, Marco Rubio, Chuck DeVore, JD Hayworth etc... are going to DC to join Mr Brown. Good, solid conservative candidates are rising on the national level.
He won the Republican primary in a straight up race. He appears to be a McCain conservative, at least as far as I can tell at this point, which means he will be a bit unpredictable at times, and probably be more of a moderate Republican than a strictly conservative one. However, he is certainly conservative by the standards of the state of Massachusetts. Conservatives and Tea Party participants will enthusiastically support moderate Republicans who have won their primaries contests in a straight up race. What these people will not stand for is the Republican establishment trying to promote liberals like Dede Scozzafava (NY-23) where conservative candidates are available, and are received by their local constituency as attractive candidates. Another example of unacceptable Republican party meddling was the National Republican Senatorial Committee's endorsement of Charlie Christ in Florida within days after he announced he was entering the race. This kind of conduct will not be supported any longer. As far as I can tell, the leaders of the Republican party have gotten the message on this point. The people will decide, not the Republican swells in Washington.
hum pro abortion pro gay rights voted for universal healthcare for the state Scott Brown is more liberal than Dede Scozzafava
If you say so. He ran his campaign around killing the Democrat's pending health care bill and also voting against cap and trade. He ran as a fiscal conservative as well. As far as the social issues go, how often does the Senate take up issues like abortion or gay rights? Very seldom, and frequently not for many years on end. It is the financial and economic issues that are issue now. Scott Brown probably is more of a moderate conservative, in the John McCain mold, but coming from Massachusetts, the big surprise is that they elected someone who is even as conservative as Brown is. I know this may be hard for you to grasp, but conservatives are not fundamentally opposed to supporting a moderate Republican if that is the best that can be hoped for in a certain district or state. But they are not willing to be told by Republican leaders that this is what they have to vote for because the Republican party says so. These questions must be decided in open Republican primaries if the Republican Party expects conservatives and Tea Partiers to support the party's nominee. Republicans do not work for the Republican Party. The Republican Party works for Republicans. It may not work that way with Democrats, but that is how it will be working going forward within the Republican camp.
