How about a no-party system?

[rogerashton]

The founding fathers believed that political parties ("faction") would undermine the country. They hoped that some of the constitutional standards -- the electoral college, the election of senators by state legislatures -- would be obstacles to that, but the founding fathers seem to have misunderestimated the virulence of the disease of faction.

In the current situation, the fact that two parties essentially monopolize the nomination process distorts and undermines our republican democracy, in my opinion. (Glad to support that opinion at length if there is interest, but my purpose here is different.) We need to get the parties out of the nominating business -- but what could take their place?

What I suggest is that about 100 citizens be chosen AT RANDOM from the list of all citizens in the jurisdiction, and they be brought together for a weekend at a really nice resort to discuss the possibilities and come up with -- let's say -- no less than five nominees. Then run the election by preference voting with an instant runoff.

[iamjoy]

1. Major Problem

"be brought together for a weekend at a really nice resort"

And who pays for this? Are there corporate sponsors? Once the citizens are selected, potential candidates could get at them and bribe or threaten the electors for a nomination.

[rogerashton]

13. The cost would be modest by comparison with the existing subsidies to

parties for primary campaigns. That's not a "major problem" -- its a yes-but.

As for bribery, yes, strong safeguards would be needed. But what system exists of which the same is not true?

[Kerrytravelers]

2. This was, I beleive, Washington's idea, but it's too late now.

[derby378]

6. And wasn't GW officially recorded as a Federalist Prez? (n/t)

[Hippo_Tron]

10. I don't think so

He had sympathy for the federalists and didn't care too much for Jefferson but he was officially of no political affiliation.

[LiberalFighter]

19. Washington didn't write the Constitution

And the Constitution doesn't have a prohibition on political parties.

No matter what happens there will always be policial parties because they are about different ideas. If there weren't political parties there would be no need for elections. (at least in November)

[mordarlar]

3. I have been saying this for years. A small tax that goes into a campaign.

fund that is divvied among the potential candidates. This provides a broader selection without the power of the partisan machines to corrupt the candidates. It is a tax i would gladly pay. Beats paying for new office furniture for some official every few yrs.

[rogerashton]

14. I don't understand how giving the parties money would make them

less powerful -- rather than more.

[Orangepeel]

20. I want to run. Can I get some of that money?

How do I get to be a potential candidate?

[stray cat]

4. A Run off with the top two choices of the country.

At first glance, I think no parties would be a good idea.

[rogerashton]

15. There is a problem here, though.

Louisiana -- my old home state -- has a nonpartisan primary and a runoff system. That is what gave them an election between a neonazi and a crook a few years back.

Instant runoff means: Everybody votes for as many candidates she or he wishes, but puts them in order -- first, second, third, and so on.

First round, only first-preference votes are counted.

If your first-place candidate comes in last, she is dropped out of the race and your second place vote is counted.

Say it's 1992, and I voted Angela Davis first. Perot second, Clinton third, Bush last.

Angela got the fewest first-place votes, so she is off the list. At that point my Perot vote is counted along with the second-place votes of all Angela voters and all others' first-place votes.

At that point Perot has the fewest (of those remaining) and so he is dropped from the list. At that point my Clinton vote is counted -- along with the next preference in line for all Perot voters. And Clinton then gets a majority (rather than the 42% or so plurality that he did get.)

It's a bit complex, but it should avoid crook-vs-neonazi races, since plenty of people will put them at the bottom of their lists.

[NEOBuckeye]

5. A more realistic solution would be a multi-party system

The current two-party system results in two "big tents" where multiple interest groups form coalitions under the same tent in order to push their collective platforms. What most often results from this, however, is a less than honest outward representation by the big tent party of its constituent interest groups. Usually, one or two groups within each party dominates, leaving all others out of the picture and drastically limiting their opportunities to present themselves to the public.

A multi-party system would allow interest groups to eschew the big tents and take their platforms directly to voters for validation or rejection. Coalitions for governance are publicly formed and open for everyone to see and analyze (i.e. Labor and Greens, Conservatives and Christian Fundamentalists).

[tinanator]

7. multi party concensus based democracy

thats the only way out of gridlock, complicit corporate cooptation of our nation, disrespect and hate based politics. 2 is the wrong number, suitable only for dividing and conquering. But first lets kick their asses for the last time.

[Selatius]

11. I think that would be the most practical solution at hand

Having 4, 5, 6, or more parties in government would more reflect the range of viewpoints in the populace than if there were only 2. Unfortunately, you need a constitutional amendment to do things such as abolish the Electoral Collage and change the way people are elected.

Good luck getting the amendment ratified though.

[NEOBuckeye]

17. It may happen much sooner than you think

The Repubican Party has gone way overboard in trying to consolidate its' power and authority on State and Federal Government levels, essentially creating a one party system of rule. The Republicans, by doing so, suggest an air of desperation. It's as if the clock is running out on their chances to impose their criminal methodology upon the US and the world community. And indeed, it may very well be.

The Republicans are a party today dominated by interests whose source of power is rooted in the US's ability to maintain the Oil trade using petrodollars, or dollars backed by the value of oil. The entire present day right-wing infrastructure is backed by funding of the Oil Moguls or else individuals with close ties to them, or else interests tied to their continued success. All of these individuals obviously have a vested interest in maintaining the state of the status quo, hence their support of religion and mind-numbing television, their suppression of education, rational thought, alternative energy and transport development, and their firey opposition to the Left and all things progressive and liberal. Corporate oligarchies are not compatible with a world where diverse groups and interests have an unfiltered voice in government and society.

The caveat in all of this is that the seed of their downfall was sewn into the Flat Earth Economic theory they so feverishly worship years ago. You guessed it: Scarcity. Global production of Oil will be peaking very soon, if it hasn't already. It will mean huge profits for Big Oil in the short term as available supply decreases. But what happens to the market when the shortages hit? Keep in mind that we are only just now beginning to develop alternative energy solutions, and are nowhere near where we really need to be to provide a legitimate replacement for oil. Economics says that rising cost of oil will eventually lead to other solutions, but what if those solutions aren't quite ready for Prime Time -- and won't be ready for years, if ever?

What I am suggesting here is that when the cheap oil runs out, the clock also runs out on Republican rule, as funded by the Oil Moguls. It will by no means be pretty, and our country will go through a major, major upheaval, very possibly even a revolution against the current powers that be, as we shift by necessity from a cheap oil-dependent society, back to a low energy, agrarian-based society.

What emerges in the aftermath may very well be an attempt to rebuild government in a much more democratic form, untainted by big monied corporate interests. That will very likely be our best chance in a very long while to create a political system that favors and even encourages multi-party politics.

But even short of all of the above happening, I believe that Howard Dean has said that one of the things he would push for upon helping the Democrats achieve a new congressional majority is an amendment for Proportional Representation, which would lead to a "third" (Greens?) and possibly even a "fourth" (Libertarians?) party winning seats in Congress. I don't think that would be a bad thing at all.

[LiberalFighter]

21. A viable multi-party system won't happen UNTIL...

they become a factor on the state level. Elect candidates to state senate and state houses to the point that their votes are needed by other parties.

Once third parties become a player on the state level their impact will be felt on the national level. That means electing third party candidates in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House again requiring coalitions needing to be formed in order to pass legislation.

[Yupster]

8. You pretty much have summed up the original

Constitutional way to elect the president.

There were no political parties.

Each state legislature would choose notable citizens to serve as presidential electors.

Each elector would look around the country and pick two people that they thought would make a good president. Note, the vote was two for president, not one for president and one for VP.

When the electoral votes were counted, it was assumed that rarely would one person have a majority of the votes. If no one did, the names of the top five vote getters would be sent to the House of Representatives. From this list the House would choose a president. After the president was chosen, the Vice President would be the man with the highest number of electoral votes unless that man were already chosen president. In that case, the VP would be the man with the second # o electoral votes.

Was this a good system? Interesting at least. Note there is no popular vote at all in the system. The people speak through their state legislators, electors and Representatives.

Once political parties developed, the system was unworkable, and it was soon completely changed by the Twelfth Amendment.

Still even today, there is no requirement for a popular vote for president though. If state legislatures changed their laws, a president could be constitutionally elected without a single state holding a popular election for president.

[Califooyah Operative]

9. party's would undermine.....

but they were also seen as inevitable, and factions formed almost from the beginning.

[arcos]

12. Having no parties is impossible...

Ok, you have no parties... and then what? Suppose you are elected to Congress on a non-partisan ballot as are all the others. You will obviously look for allies who share your same points of view. You will develop working relationships with other people, and so will all the others. Automatically, political parties appear by default. Maybe not as institutions, but it is the natural way of things. There are mini-political parties everywhere, wherever there is a group of people...

I agree a two party system is not healthy, and in the case of the US they have virtually locked down the country with no chance of another party breaking in. But in that case it would be better to merge 4 or 5 congressional districts and use a proportional representation system. You keep the political parties but someone could be elected to congress with as little as 20% of the vote.

[rogerashton]

16. Good points about multiparty systems BUT

1) How do we get there? In most congressional districts, we don't even have two-party systems. Uncontested Soviet-style elections are very common in this country. To get more electoral competition, we would have to have strong electoral reform, as one respondant observed. I posted on that earlier --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1608483&mesg_id=1608483

and the few responses had the same yes-but sort of tone to them. OK, most of us like things as they are -- we would like to change just a few details, for example substituting JFK for G*W*B -- but remember that it is things as they are that gave us G*W*B and all that!!

2) I think randomocracy is the opposite of the Founders' electoral college, since the nominators would be ordinary people, who would go back to their ordinary lives after their weekend was over. Not political careerists. That's the advantage of RANDOM choice. And getting the parties out of the nominating business could not only give us better nominees (of course we never know until we try) but eliminate the enormous costs of pre-nomination campaigning.

[cestpaspossible]

18. I hate non-partisan elections.

Candidates seem to think it means they don't have to say what they believe. It's someting that 'sounds great' but just doesn't work too well in practice.