Toward an Independent Congress: the Case Against Parties

[Maat]

What do DUers think of this idea?

*****quote*****
An argument in favor of an independent Congress and against parties as such, from Not Just Another Political Blog:
Right now, political parties seem to be the bane of America's existence. They are causing endless gridlock in Congress, enraging voters, and bringing some truly frightening people (Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, et al) out of the woodwork as people fight to be the "most" Democratic or "most" Republican on the ballot. Intelligents and moderates are being shoved aside, normal citizens are being ignored, and radical and harmful views are being covered as viable alternatives by the media, allowing them to become popularized and widespread. So what's the solution? How about something really radical, something that's never been considered. How about doing away with political parties? I wrote once before in support of a multiparty system, like many European governments have. I still believe that is much better than our current system. But might a party-less system be even better? . . .

Oftentimes, the main difference between the two major parties in this country is rhetorical. . . . With no political parties, there would be no nebulously defined “base” that politicians are beholden to simply because of their party affiliation. . . . This would also eliminate party line votes. . . . A lack of parties would also throw the electoral system wide open to more involvement by the citizens. . . . Would our country even function like this? I think it's possible. But it is also entirely possible the answer is "no". Then again, you might say that our country doesn't function now ...

link to source:
http://politeaparty.blogspot.com/2010/12/toward-independent-congress-case.html

link to entire article:
http://doubleapolitics.blogspot.com/2010/12/death-of-parties.html
*****endquote*****

[bowens43]

1. IMO there is no way this would or could or should work.

parties are the only viable way to run a government. Without parties , no agenda will have a chance of being enacted. we need to have a way to know which way those we elect are likely to vote on a wide variety of issues, even those on which they have expressed no opinion. We need a base line. We know that those who are Democrats are likely to lean to the left and republicans to the right. Politicians NEED to have base and they SHOULD absolutely vote as their base expects them to vote.

The opinion that ' Intelligents and moderates are being shoved aside, normal citizens are being ignored' is baseless. Those in the center, those on the far right and those on the far left are all 'normal citizens' and all have an absolute right to make their voices heard .

The only answer to this is party affiliation.

[madinmaryland]

2. One thing I disagree with is that while there definitely is a drive

on the Repuke side to be the "most" Repuke, it is not quite that way on the Democratic side. If anything, it is the drive by many dems to be "more" repuke, than "more" democratic.

JMHO.

[MisterP]

3. SURE the problem is too few moderates nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. The constitutional amendments needed would outrage so many people, they'd never pass

You'd have to say that while normal individuals have the right to associate with each other, to discuss their future wishes and plans, and to agree to cooperate on issues that to them personally are unimportant, or may even seem like not a good idea, in return for others' cooperation on their own issues, members of congress would be banned from anything like that - because that would be 'forming a party'.

You'd have to make "conspiracy to cooperate among legislators" an offence.

You'd also want to consider the form of election for these isolated politicians. If you keep the current 'first past the post' system, then with no party primaries, and any agreement between politicians to stand down in favour of another being illegal (because that would be like forming a party), someone could get elected by a small minority of nutcases, if the 'reasonable' voters were all divided up among the reasonable candidates. So you'd need to switch to Instant Runoff Voting or similar. This would produce the desired (in the case of each of those blogs) effect of a mass of centrists who aren't too objectionable to too many people.

You'd also need a lot more money in politics, to pay for all the advertising. When you can't describe a candidate by the party they belong to, they have to spend a lot of time and money telling people exactly what they do stand for. So, rather than messages of "the Democrats think that ..." and so on, every single politician in an area would have to get their own message out, and raise the money for it.

So I think this would produce a congress more dominated by money, more centrist, and with cooperation among politicians illegal beyond a certain point. It would favour a status quo dominated by big donors who don't want any change, because they've got rich and would like it to stay that way. Sounds like a bad idea to me.

[mmonk]

5. There isn't a party fighting to be the most "Democratic".

The problem is the similarity in ideology of both parties. Republican obstructionism and filibustering was based on power.

[cali]

6. no, the main difference isn't chiefly rhetorical.

[TheKentuckian]

7. Is it being less bigoted or are you going with constituency? The time delay

where we are forwarding Republican policy from yesterday.

Rhetoric is one of the more pronounced differences.