Declaration of Independence from the Two Party System
By haystack Comments (60) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
When in the Course of American politics and its associated detriment to the American People it becomes necessary to dissolve the political bands which have connected us with our elected leaders and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle us, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that we should declare the causes which impel us to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women are created equal, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, political parties are instituted among Men and Women, deriving their just powers from the consent of the party membership, — That whenever any Form of political party becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the membership(s) to alter or to abolish them, or to organize against them and to institute new parties or coalitions, laying our foundations on such principles and organizing our powers in such form, as to us shall seem most likely to effect our Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that entrenched political party monopolies long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right ourselves by abolishing the forms to which we are accustomed and by which we have come to suffer.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce us under absolute Despotism, it is our right, it is our duty, to throw off such scheme and device of political party monopoly, and obstructionist affiliations thereof, which have devolved to the contradiction of its design and intent, and to provide new Guards for our future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of the American voting peoples; and such is now the necessity which constrains us to alter the former “Two Party System” which has come to operate above and among us in defiance of the will of the majority of the American People.
The history of the present Two Party System is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States and the peoples inhabited therein. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
They have refused to Assent, themselves, to Laws for which they hold their constituents and members to account; this a most wholesome and necessary ideal for the public good.
They have forbidden their opposition parties (in disregard for whichever party holds majority status) to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till their Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, they have utterly neglected to attend to them.
They have refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of ideological Representation as opposed to party affiliation representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
They have called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with their measures.
They have dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness their invasions on the rights of the people
They have refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
They have endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Natural Reproduction; refusing to pass others to encourage the pursuits of God’s Natural law hither
They have obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing their Assent to Laws for establishing Legislator oversight and personal responsibility.
They have made Judges, currently seated at the bench and those aspiring to same, dependent on their Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
They have erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out our substance.
They have kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies and sought to defame, disgrace, and disregard the honor and purpose for which they stand in our defense.
They have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving their Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by a Jury of our peers:
For altering our Constitution ostensibly through the Judiciary, rendering our most valuable Laws incoherent or unenforceable and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For subordinating the Legislatures of the several states, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
They have abdicated Constitutional Government, by interpreting the Constitution as a living document open to interpretation consistent with prevailing International associations and collective opinion.
They have excited domestic insurrections and social class divisions amongst us, and have endeavoured to bring the inhabitants of bordering nations on to our frontiers, in an undistinguished destruction of our borders, our language, our culture, and our sovereign ways of life.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.
As A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people, so elected officials whose characters become self-aggrandizing and in supremacy to the interests of those for whom they had been selected to serve become unfit to represent his constituents.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our elected brethren. We have warned them from time to time of their attempts through unsatisfactory legislation to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our party affiliations and our continued or threatened discontinuation of our vocal and financial support for their affiliations. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.
They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the Coalition of American Constitutional Conservatives, in General Summit Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of this Coalition, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Conservatives are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent Americans, that we are Absolved from all Allegiance to the Republican or Democrat parties, and that all political connection between us and them, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent Constitutional Conservative Americans, we have full Power to levy politics, conclude political contract Alliances, extend the depth and breadth of our Coalition, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent political parties may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, our sacred Honor, and our mutual commitment to defend, protect, uphold, and maintain fully intact, the Constitution of the United States of America.
There is NO such party with a candidate on any ballot. I am voting R as I have said many times on this site, and until the R party represents conservatism (which it does not today) I will be voting to keep the Dems out...not voting to further conservative principles the likes of Goldwater and Reagan through the R party.
Second of all, in the context of throwing away a vote, were I to NOT vote I would be throwing it away...voting my conscience (which sadly this time around is a vote to keep the Dems OUT) I consider this a sad state of affairs.
Surely you can't feasibly suggest that there are any repubs out there that are up for re-election that are conservatives? Please, Oz, I see your history here as better than that.
Third of all, I disagree that 3 parties require Parliamentary governance. I am no civics expert, but I dare suggest that a new coalition of voters whose sole purpose in life is to find, publicize, and support any candidate man or woman willing enough to espouse the principles of true conservatism would be on the list of candidates such a "coalition" would spend time and money supporting and publicizing. The context of "independent" allows such a scenario.
It is not such a crazy idea.
You should be scared by how much of the original Declaration can be subtly reworded to reflect the harm and usurpations our modern-day political heros have wreaked on us.
Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.
With our concept of majority rule, it makes it nearly impossible for a viable third party to last for long. The only way you will get a multi-party system is if you move away from our Presidential system and adopt a Parliamentary system with proportionate representation. Good luck convincing 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states this is a great idea.
I have felt like there is not a dime's worth of difference between dem's and GOP for quite some time on the deals they will make with the devil to keep themselves in power for a very long time. I had real high hopes with Newt in '94 with the 'Contract'. I feel like Newt let me down and Delay let me down. One thing that I will give them their due is they figured out how to beat the dems, and drove the dems so crazy that they have become almost a fringe group. I think there may need to be a 2-party system emerge between the GOP who just want to promise and deal with the devil to win, and the GOP who are conservative and put principles above everything else. I choose to associate myself with the conservative people of principle.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
How? And why?
_______________________________
If I could not get to heaven except by way of a party, I would just as soon not go.
Thomas Jefferson
The simple principles of majoritarianism force a two party system. For example, the Electoral College is a winner take all system where if you start dividing votes, it becomes very hard to win the 270 to win without the election being thrown into the House. For example, the Election of 1824 demonstrated what happens when you have a multiparty Presidential vote with the election being thrown into the House. Furthermore, the nature of American culture having distinct ideas make a third way type party not likely to last long. Basically, every attempt at a third party in the last century ended after one or two election cycles.
But except for the Electoral College, it sounds like you are saying the two-party system is destined to emerge naturally, rather than by design. I don't know if the Electoral College was really designed to reinforce a two-party system, or it that was just a side effect.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
Having two sides fighting to split the middle in half is the natural consequence of how our system is set up.
It's nice and stable, which is a huge advantage over the instability of your typical European-style parliament.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
was designed by the states to maximize the power of the states. Reps from states wrote the constitution creating a federal government.
Parties are not mentioned in the constitution. This is especially important to remeber when the dems speak of minority rights in the context of checks and balances. The senate and house are the checks on the executive, not political parties.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
I get soooo tired of hearing people speak of the two major parties as part of our system of checks and balances.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
power from consentrating in one section of government.
Protection of the minority, is at the individual level, not at a party level, and even then it isn't really a "this is to protect the minority" but to protect the individual-majority or minority from having government remove their rights.
I also think the two party system is a natural growth from the type of government designed-not neccessarily planned, but from the beginning there really hasn't seemed to be more than two viable parties. The parties have split and changes over the years, but there have always pretty much just been two viable parties.
Revolution against a two-party system...ok. What's the alternative - a parlimentary system? Did the founders come up with this two-party idea? Maybe that was their sortof one big mistake. Can we get it done in 4+ weeks? I understand how you feel... we've already had this discussion and I shouldn't be gigging you because I understand that your feelings are valid.
John E.
By and large, the founders (like they are a monolith) hated the whole idear of political parties. See my Jefferson quote above. And Washington decided to give his famous farewell speech specifically to plead with Americans not to form political parties, which he described as democracy's greatest enemy.
The thing is, we've developed such a partisan mindset over the last two centuries, people can't even grasp the concept of no parties. (I'm not being snarky; any number of conversations I've had with partisans on the topic ends with, "I guess I just can't imagine...")
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
and I suspect is a symptom of the nature of fallen man.
The federalists that lobbied for ratification of the constitution were opposed by the anti-federalists. In general, the divide was and is between those that want a more powerful government, esp a central or federal government vs those that don't. It is inevitable that like-minded people will congregate together to acheive their desired ends.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
National parties as they exist in this country are not the kinds of factions that were feared. In order to get a national majority, you have to come up with a coalition of factions.
The Republican party wins the way it does today because it has built such a coalition: hawks, religious rightists, conservatives are three factions in our majority.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
But I have read Washington's farewell address many times, and it seems very clear to me, especially when he speaks about "the spirit of party." A party is just a faction, anyway...some are bigger or small than others, some cobbled together with smaller factions, but a faction is a faction. The Democratic and Republican Parties are large factions within American politics; the Greens and Libertarians are small ones.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
Yes, they droned on about that over and over in my high school too, but I see no evidence to support that stretch of the definition as provided in The Federalist #10:
By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
You went to a high school where they talked about this stuff?
I, on the other hand, see no difference between the Federalist #10 definition and a political party.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
You really see these two enormous national parties as cohesive groups unified with a common goal adverse to the interests of the country? Come on...
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
First, in the context of this definition, they are not all that "enormous," since it allows that a "faction" can make up the majority of the whole. So they cannot be excluded from this definition on the basis of their size.
My candidate for the "common impulse of passion or interest" is to consolidate power in order to beat the other guy. I think that this is all that unites people into parties, and the rest is just so much rhetoric. Certainly this "spirit of party" is all that "actuates" most Democrats and most Republicans into going to the polls. And certainly I think this impulse is adverse to the aggregate interests of the community.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
I don't think the divide is between those who want a more powerful government and those who don't any more. I think that divide has been muddied into obscurity by ideology.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
Judeo-christian values vs the rejecters of same. Its as old as the Scriptures
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
and as new as
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hiss/chambersletter.htm...
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Ironically, big government won, but that didn't turn out to be a win for anybody, including its proponents. So now its about something else.
Faith in man vs faith in God? Not a bad choice, but...I'm not sure that quite hits the nail on the head. Maybe because I'm inclined to think most people don't have much faith in either. Or anything else, for that matter. Or perhaps it's simply that I'm insufficiently familiar with one of the two sides in this fight to find any contrast compelling.
But I'm working on that.
Speaking of which, I have spent the past 20 years in The Bluest Country in the South. I would like to relocate to a very red county somewhere. Anyone got any suggestions?
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
Colorado Springs. It's not as red as it used to be, but the food is okay, the view is spectacular, and it takes less booze to get drunk. For the first two months.
After that, when you go down to sea level, you can drink all of your friends under the table.
Which is a downside, granted. But, hey, those two months? Two beers and you'll be singing John Denver songs and crying.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Should be an interesting couple of months. I have a low tolerance for alcohol as it is, and the worst singing voice evah. But I have a great fondness for the old-style, rugged individualist kind of Republican, which I imagine to be kind that populate those rugged Western states.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
I agree with your assessment wholeheartedly. But you missed a few things. In 2004 the dems captured both house of the legislature, the 1st time that has happened since 1962. And this year, it looks like we will elect a Democrat governor. In El Paso - primarily Colorado Springs - you will be in a true red county - but in an increasingly blue state.
Kentucky grass? Atlanta? Nawlins? Raleigh-Durham? West Palm Beach? DC VA suburbs?
Reddest county in the South is Lexington, SC near Columbia
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Raleigh-Durham is not a county! Raleigh is in Wake County, which only has some 20% more Democrats than Republicans. In Durham, Democrats outnumber Republicans 3:1 and went 68% for Kerry. I don't know what figure was used to deem Durham the bluest county in the South after the 2004 election, or even if it is the bluest by either measure, but...close enough for braggin' rights.
Nawlins...my perverse side made me think of the old Atlanta joke.
I like South Carolina. And if I move there, I can vote in the early Democratic primary in 2008, which might be fun.
Speaking of which...things seem to be changing there, or maybe I just wasn't paying attention. I remember both parties always having their primaries on the same date as the state primaries. Now it seems there is a decided trend toward separate primaries, at least for the Democratic Party. Am I right there is such a trend? If so, what do you make of it?
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
the ones that surround or are part of a major city such as San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, or Houston...outside of them you have a decent chance of finding great heartland attitudes!
Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.
Precision in geographic boundaries matter.
Again, the lawyer disappoints.
I'm in Mecklenburg County btw, 5 months removed from Cobb County, GA and 5 years removed from Spartanburg County, SC., and 44 years removed from the womb (and trying to get back too!).
They have been on separate days for over a decade. The SC Dem Party is over 50% Black and shrinking further.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com/g/a3ae4778-b305-448a-82f7-47e29d4944...
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2006/sep/28/black_sc_dems_bolt_pa...
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Quite the interesting county, is Mecklenburg. I'm sorry you weren't there in 2004. If you are not a believer in paperless touchscreens as a boon to those who would steal elections, you would be...
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
I recommend the suburbs of Anchorage or Fairbanks, Alaska; the bears need fed. You might learn something about having to rely on yourself.
Alaska is far and away the most socialistic state in the country, but when you have to start your car at minus 40, it is still all your problem; builds character.
In Vino Veritas
Yes, that's one of the reasons I decided I would never join a party...they are great destroyers of self-reliance.
One of the more striking things I noted during my political sojourn of 2004 is that partisans talk and talk, but when it is time to show up and actually do something, it is the unaffiliateds who appear in disproportionate numbers. I pointed this out to someone who had been involved in partisan politics far longer than I; they said it had been that way as long as they could remember, and described the phenomenon as "the thing that is not talked about."
My experience with the partisans reinforced virtually every reason I choose not to affiliate. I think America's epitaph may well be writ as "We relied on the Party."
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
The Democrats are unthinkable. They will sacrifice the common good for their own political gain. Republicans have at least some ideas, and a couple of very good ones -- but they are jellyfish.
For example -- what is with this "filibuster" garbage? Nobody's actually DONE a real filibuster for years. The Dems threaten a filibuster -- and Republicans scatter. The Dems threaten a scandal, and Republicans turn on their own. Huh???
Now, I will be voting Republican this election; I happen to like my Republican Senator and representative. They have been doing the right things, or at least enough of the right things.
But haystack's right.
We've had periods in our history when there were other parties; and the current Republican/Democrat parties weren't always in existance in the current form.
That along with stronger federalism where different states' parties can act more independently and respond to local concerns on a broader range of issues.
Take my state of PA (or any state), the GOP voters in PA are surley different from the GOP voters in SC, GA or AL for example....same with Dem voters.
But on the first point, this idea of voting against the other party even when your not happy with your prefered party leads to complacency and taking certain voting blocs for granted by pols.
I think voters SHOULD BE more honest and let elected officals feel the pain when they aren't doing their job to your liking.
If not, you let them dangle one or two lesser issues in your face to keep you from voting against them. It's called riling up the base.
Don't tread on me.
has strengthened the national parties, which may have gotten us to this point.
The various parties in individual states are often very different from each other, even if they have the same name, but the parties are now very powerful on the national scale. But the federal government is very powerful, much more than it used to be, and the creation of various giant entitlement programs hasn't helped, because the party that is for keeping those entitlements gets the votes of those who like them.
I have been thinking two things that may help the system-a less powerful federal government (something I think probably isn't going to happen, at least not anytime soon, because it would mean dismantling a lot of power congress has garnered for itself, and they aren't going to easily give it back).
The other thing is I wonder if it isn't about time for a change up in coalitions. The reality is that both parties are conglomerations of smaller factions who share some common interests and goals. At the moment the GOP is struggling with fiscal conservatives and social conservatives (although I think that is a false dichotomy, I think the real tension is between the big government/compassionate conservative and the real conservative, and I think social conservatives and fiscal conservatives are often the same people, or they have enough in common with the other that they really aren't in tension, I think the media likes to play the social conservative/fiscal conservative tension).
I think gamecock makes a good observation somewhere up thread-that at this point it is about man vs God (terrible paraphrase I know, gamecock may come along and wallop me in a moment for mis quoting him). Although there may be others, but what I thihnk I see happening now is that both parties may be headed for a split, and how the parties come out after the split-who knows.
I will also say that in some ways I would like to see a bit more government from the extreme end of the GOP, and by extreme I don't mean Pat Buchanan, but I would like to see a little less moderation, and a little less attempts to get the other side to like us. I want principled conservatives to stand up and fight for their positions, and frankly I would like to see the fiscal moderates, who often seem to also be the social moderates have less power in the party.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I am not so stupid as to think a new party is going to compete straight up against such an entrenchment. BUT
we are capable of making noise, and making a point. '08 is even scarier than '06. It's too late now (for '06 as Johne has pointed out) for anything else but to sell your soul...On 11/8/2006 we can start with a great deal of noise about wanting a change.
I can't say this enough. The small degree of energy I spent making the small degree of very subtle changes to the original text of a Declaration of Independence from the King of England scared me...and should scare all of us into a deep re-thinking of the current state of affairs.
Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.
about the amount of change we can provoke prior to '08. But I am all for trying.
Like you I am pulling the lever for Rs to cast a vote against the Democrat majority. I hate it but there is no other choice. I hate that my party is in such sorry shape.
So here is to making noise!
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
They will not listen unless you are willing to speak at the polls. And in 2008, everyone will fall in line, because in that election, it will be really important to beat the Democrats. Just like in all the other ones.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
My brilliant pep talk blog was lost due to a computer blip, so...
Two parties have dominated American politics since the 3rd year of Washington's 2nd term. America acheived the highest standard of living in the world around 1840. Ended slavery in 1865. And became and is the greatest country in the history of mankind. Despite the two party system.
perspective
Maybe we need a whig out of the dems or a new party. What we don't need is to let the appeasement party have power while a great threat to freedom wages war against us.
Maybe we need a Jeffesonian fresh blood periodic revolution to re-invigorate liberty...but lets defeat the jihadists first, and one party will and one party won't.
The Miracle at Philly is not yet ready to usurped by a Miracle in the Haystack just yet, even if a kowalski needle is found therein?
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.
The way Congress is organized, how would a third party get you much power unless you had the absolute majority, which is unlikely. Are you thinking parlimentary style coalitions? The thing about the party thing is that it gives you a big enough block to gain control and push your agenda. Maybe what you want is a sub-party, a well-defined and organized faction of the Republican Party that represents your political agenda. Do I need to elaborate or do you see where that goes?
John E.
Like how it functions or not, you must admit the two party system has served this nation well as we are the wealthest and strongest nation in the world.
But then I don't care if we are the wealthiest nation on earth. Strongest...depends on the kind of strength you are talking about.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
You do realize that the author of the original piece was one of the key players behind creating our two party system, right?
I personally don't care much about parties. Democrats call me a Republican and Republicans call me a Democrat, among other things. But if you bother to learn about what's going on you can see forest rather than the trees.
While Redstate has a lot of great thinkers it also creates an echo chamber in which comments like "Democrats will destroy the world" are not only not challenged but accepted as conventional wisdom. This sort of parochial thinking is the bane of the blogosphere and needs to be stamped out.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
my primary intent here was not so much to suggest a new party with all the mess of candidates and pac money as it was to legitimize the notion that we CAN bypass the party system, and focus on coalescing behind candidates who represent our values regardless of the letter they are currently required to put behind their names on ballots.
Imagine a world of campaigning where they(candidates) were compelled to talk to their conservative scorecards...my follow up pieces are going to be the littany of conservative planks I would like associated with the "quintessential" member of the Coalition of American Constitutional Conservatives.
Consider the so-called "independents" that the AmericanPlaygroundMedia is always wringing their hands over. The last 2 nights before elections, they find themselves worrying about what they love to call the "undecideds"...wouldn't it be nice for a change for them to worry about the uncommittted "Coalition of American Constitutional Conservatives"?
Sure would set the tone of an American desire for the advancement of Conservative principles and ideals that we all seem to share, but never hear getting any play time in the AmericanPlaygroundMedai, huh?
Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.
As has been mentioned upthread a 3rd part simply isn't viable in our political system. And trying to eliminate political parties is like trying to eliminate religion. No matter how hard you try it's still there.
If you REALLY want to change our system, I can tell you how to do it. Convince people to vote for the candidate and not the party. Make the candidate convince us rather than have a sticker of a donkey or elephant on his lapel.
Look at this country. Calling Democrats Liberals or Republicans Conservatives is a joke. I'll take my New Jersey Republicans over a Mississippi Democrat any day of the week.
Sure there are various report card systems that judge candidates on their voting records but they are generally useless since they simply score yeah and neahs without any sort of considerations towards the environment.
What we need is better ways to guage the effectiveness of our representatives. THAT would truly make an impact.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Another reason I chose never to affiliate.
One of my MBA professors had a more colorful way of describing group-think: "Been drinking too much of their own bathwater."
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
a 3rd party simply isn't viable in our political system. And trying to eliminate political parties is like trying to eliminate religion. No matter how hard you try it's still there.
Only true because we let it be so...though, like I said, I am not so much interested in yet another official party to contend with as much as I am interested in furthering the Conservative ideals back into the body politic...I am not so concerned with the alphabetical letter that proceeds the candidates' nams
Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.
The easiest way I can think of to encourage third (and fourth, and etc) parties is to switch to approval voting.
An example of a situation approval voting would fix is the Republican primary for Senate in Florida. Few people thought Katherine Harris had a chance in the general, but unfortunately she had the highest name recognition, and was running against multiple other candidates-- which caused people that wanted anyone but her to split their vote between them. Approval voting would have allowed voters that knew they didn't want Harris to vote for all the alternatives.
Approval voting would mean that we wouldn't have to vote for just the Republican in a race, we could also vote for the Libertarian, or the Constitution Party, or anyone else we find reasonable.
I don't remember where I read it, so I don't have a link, but I've read that under some reasonable assumptions, approval voting is the mathematically best voting system. Hey, the American Mathematical Society uses it, after all. Plus it has the distinct advantage over ranking-type systems that you can explain it to your grandmother (or someone else's grandmother) in 12 words or less. ("Vote yes or no on each candidate") And as an added bonus, it makes negative campaigning less useful, since a candidate would potentially have to go negative on everyone else in the race, not just the main competitor.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
Yeah, why bother to go out and work, trying to sway people and convince them of your correctness, when you can break away and form your own party? And then when your party goes nowhere, why not change the rules in an attempt to help yourself out?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
What in the world does that verbal spew have to do with what I wrote?
I guess you like having Katherine Harris as the Republican Senate sacrificial lamb candidate?
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
When you have to win a plurality with our current system, you have to make efforts to convince people into making your candidate into people's first choice.
Approval voting, instant runoff, and all those other systems elevate fringes without those fringes having to get people to place that much trust in them.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Fringe candidates wouldn't get top support for the simple reason that more people would have to vote just for them than vote just for the less fringe-ish candidate. Any 'elevation' that you see would just be the true support for that candidate showing up.
I still contend that we would have been better off in the Florida Senate campaign with any of the Republican options other than Katherine Harris. At least we'd have a chance then.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
First I vote for the best Republican candidate I can find.
Then I vote for the worst possible Democrat...someone with no hope at all of winning.
Meanwhile, some dimwitted Democrat voter (but I repeat myself) also votes for the worst possible Republican candidate...some feebleminded child molester.
Hmmmm...okay, maybe we have to refine this approval voting thing a little bit!
If you actually approve of the worst moonbat Democrat, then I would recommend you see a shrink.
If you don't, then why in the world would you ever give them your approval at a ballot box?
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
He's assuming for some reason that approval voting would replace primaries.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
your planning on throwing your vote away for a while?