posted
So the more I think about politics these days the more I think that it is essential that we find a way to break up the two party system in America. I'd like for there to also be a level playing field between candidates, regardless of wealth. I came up with some ideas for one way to make the parties useless. I thought about what the primary agenda of the parties today seem to be. It seems to be to get candidates into office and keep them there, controlling their agenda at the same time. Being an independant is rather difficult unless you're rather wealthy, it seems. So one way to weaken the grip of the parties I thought, would be to reform campaigns and level the playing field between the rich candidates and the dirt poor candidates. I came up with three basic ideas for how to do that:
1) free webspace available to all candidates. Wouldn't be that hard to do in this day and age. It should be a relatively small amount. Enough for several pages on the candidates politics and ideas, a blog and maybe a forum. The pages should all be referenced in a database that is easy for voters to seach and find candidates that pertain to them.
2) free Tv space available to all candidates. Maybe take a couple days out of an election year and require all TV channels to run programs that give each candidate a certain, set amount of time to discuss their ideas and politics. National candidates (president) would be shown nationally, and then more localized candidates only to those locals. Maybe break it down as: a day for presidential, a day for house, a day for senate (shown only to their areas), then a day for state congresses, day for governers, and a couple of days for local candidates. Maybe a week or two all told.
3) a certain government budget for travelling and giving speeches. I'm a little shakey on this one, because this part seems to be less and less important to campaigning today. I really think you could do fine campaigning with just the TV and web page. Also I think this would probably be the hardest to agree on. But if we could agree on it, then every candidate would have the same amount with which to tour.
Those three things set up: candidates sponsoring their own ads would be banned, candidates setting up their own webpages banned, candidates spending their own money banned. Basically remove candidates only money/money raising power out of the equation and force voters to look at the candidates based solely on what they plan to do in office and how well they might do it.
What do people think? Anyone have any other ideas for how to break up the two party system? Do people think breaking up the two party system would indeed help get us out of our current mess?
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I would. Level playing field is the idea.
And no, I haven't. Right now candidates don't get free webspace. And their webpages aren't organized into a database easily searchable by zip code to find the relevant candidates. And they have to buy their TV time, or earn it by getting enough fame. Unless there's been a drastic change that I missed somewhere...
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Those three things set up: candidates sponsoring their own ads would be banned, candidates setting up their own webpages banned, candidates spending their own money banned. Basically remove candidates only money/money raising power out of the equation and force voters to look at the candidates based solely on what they plan to do in office and how well they might do it.
This would violate prior restraint of speech rights granted in the First Amendment. It goes much further than recent campaign finance reform, which, though replete with loopholes, is still considered to violate the First Amendment by some.
It's frustrating that a viable modern 3rd party seems impossible. One thing the 2 parties totally agree on is crushing any nascent independant party.
More uniform and relaxed election filing criteria to get on the ballot would help a 3rd party get on the ballot in all 50 states. I wish I had an idea how to accomplish this given the 2 parties opposition to this agenda, but I don't.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that the reason we have 2 parties is because the American people like to be stupid. They don't want to learn about a candidate, they want to vote for their party without thinking about anything.
Additional parties mean either ignoring them, or thinking harder about issues. Nobody wants to think about stuff, we want soundbites and appeals to emotion.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Historically, there have been only two ways for third parties to accomplish anything.
One way is for the third party to ride in a major wave--very major. The populists managed this. The problem, though, is that the mainstream parties quickly embrace enough facets of these new waves that a third party is absorbed quickly, and often only has a couple election runs to get noticed.
The other way is when one of the two parties split, always over a--or sometimes two--particularly charismatic nominee. Teddy Roosevelt did this back in the day. Imagine if both Colon Powell and Rudy ran aggressively in the presidential primaries (unlikely, this is just an example). If neither of them backed down and conceded defeat they would likely split the Republican party in two--maybe even drawing off sizable chuncks of the Democratic vote. Then, we would have a strong third party.
I'd like to note, however, that a two-party system is not necessarily a bad thing. What is bad is the way both parties have been hijacked by far leaning extremists. What we really need then, is a return to pre-1970s type primaries. Today's primary election systems fuel this splitting of the parties. Before the primary system was in place, the Democratic and Republican causcuses would pick the most likely to win cantidate, not the one who they liked the most; see the difference?
Fiorina has a great little book called "Culture War" that deals alot with this, if this topic sticks around I'll dig up better information from it.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Coincidentally, my favorite blogger Billmon has a post tonight about the future of the 2 parties, comparing the Democrats to the pre-Civil War Whigs. http://billmon.org/archives/002772.htmlPosts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been praying to the election gods for years now that the centrists would break off into a powerful third party, with the likes of Lieberman, Chafee, Clinton, McCain and Powell all on board.
It'd rock the nation.
Maybe it'd rock the vote.
Edit to add: Morbo, I read the article. It's good writing, and a great analysis. My question is, if the Democrats were to implode, and nothing rose to replace them....then what happens to the other half of the country? The Republicans have everything going their way at the moment, despite all the wrenches that keep getting tossed in their party machinery, but 49% or whatever of the people still voted Democrat in the last couple elections.
Those tens of millions of people are still going to need someone to vote for, someone will have to step into the void. Even if two or three parties step into that void, some of them might bleed votes off the Republican party, in short, the implosion of the Democratic party might take the Republicans with them.
And also, what is the real problem with the Democratic party? Is it systemic to the entire party? or is it just the 40 some Senators and the hundred and change Reps at the national level? If that's the case, we should be focusing on getting rid of incumbents and seeing what else the party has to offer.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I've been praying to the election gods for years now that the centrists would break off into a powerful third party, with the likes of Lieberman, Chafee, Clinton, McCain and Powell all on board.
At the very least, they could count on my support.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are good, logistical reasons to have two parties that I don't think will ever be overcome. That is, he who has the most people and resources usually wins.
That said, while I doubt that there will ever be more than two parties, I think that there are certainly ways that groups can influence the existing parties by promoting their ideas in public. I think the Libertarian party does this extremely well and, as such, many of its planks have found a home in both parties.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Until our electoral system changes, as SS alluded to, a 2-party environment is probably the most efficient from a probability of victory standpoint. No amount of campaign system chanegs will really affect this.
posted
I don't know my American History very well, but do I remember correctly that third parties coming into power was fairly common during the first 100 years of this country?
If so, what has changed?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before you get rid of the two parties, you'd have to get rid of the electoral college system. Even if there is a viable third party, that gains a large amount of the popular vote, it won't matter if they can't win states' electoral votes.
I mean, a third party could get 40% of California, New York, Florida, Ohio, New Jersey, Texas, and Illinois... and still not get a single electoral vote.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is an overview of how these aspects of [added: federal] elections work north of the border.
Financing highlights:
quote:The 1974 Election Expenses Act established a new regime for the financing of federal elections in Canada. ... Premised on the notion that the financing of elections ought to be open to public scrutiny, the Act:
-imposed spending limits; -provided for the disclosure of campaign expenses and contributions; -introduced a system of partial public financing; -regulated political broadcasting by parties and candidates; and -implemented various other changes designed to equalize the political process.
...
In January 2003, the government introduced Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (Political Financing). ... The bill, which received Royal Assent on 19 June 2003, has several general components or themes:
-A ban (with minor exceptions) on political donations by corporations and unions: Bill C-24 introduced a requirement that only individuals (citizens and permanent residents) may make financial contributions to registered parties, candidates, constituency associations, and leadership and nomination contestants. Corporations, trade unions and associations are prohibited from making such contributions, although they may contribute small amounts – a maximum or total of $1,000 collectively – to a party’s candidates, nomination contestants and electoral district associations, and to a candidate for an election who is not the candidate for a registered party.
-A limitation on individual contributions: contributions by individuals are subject to an annual limit of $5,000 in total to each registered party and its electoral district associations, candidates and nomination contestants.
-The registration of constituency associations, with reporting requirements: under the bill, constituency associations – referred to as “electoral district associations” – are required to register with Elections Canada. They are required to provide certain information, and to report annually.
-The extension of regulation to nomination and leadership campaigns: the bill extends spending limits to nomination contestants, setting the limit at 20% of the amount to which the candidate in that riding was subject during the last election period. With respect to leadership campaigns, they are required to be registered with Elections Canada, and to comply with various reporting and auditing requirements. No spending limits are imposed on such campaigns, but a $5,000 annual limit for individuals’ contributions to leadership campaigns is introduced.
-Enhanced public financing of the political system, particularly at the level of political parties: Bill C-24 contains significant public financing measures, in part to compensate parties for the removal of corporate and union donations. The rate of reimbursement of electoral expenses for parties is raised from 22˝% to 50%. The bill also makes provision for registered parties with a minimum level of electoral support to receive an annual allowance in the amount of $1.75 per vote received by the party in the previous general election. As an incentive to encourage contributions by individuals, the bill also amended the Income Tax Act to double the amount of an individual’s political donation that is eligible for a 75% tax credit, from $200 to $400, and to increase accordingly each other bracket of the tax credit, to a maximum tax credit of $650 for political donations of $1,275 or more.
Advertising/broadcasting highlights:
quote:During an election campaign, party election broadcasting is restricted with respect to its date and place of origin. The Canada Elections Act prohibits registered parties from promoting or opposing any registered party or candidate by broadcasting or publishing between the date of the issue of the writs and the 29th day before polling or on polling day until the close of voting. This prohibition specifically includes government publications. It is also an offence for any person to use broadcasting media outside Canada for campaigning.
An attempt is made, within the electoral process, to ensure that the parties have fair access to the major media. The Act stipulates that every broadcaster must make available 6.5 hours of time, between the 29th and 2nd days before polling, for purchase by the registered parties. The Broadcasting Arbitrator – an official appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer – is responsible for allocating the time among the parties. In the absence of an agreement among the various registered political parties, the Broadcasting Arbitrator is required to allocate the time in proportion to the strength of the various parties in the previous election, subject to considerations of fairness and the public interest. The resulting allocation determines the amount of broadcasting time that the parties may purchase during a campaign. Newly registered parties are each entitled to purchase up to six minutes of time, up to a total of 39 minutes per broadcaster.
In addition to regulating the buying of time by parties, the Act provides them with access to free time. During the phase of the election in which parties are allowed to advertise, networks are required to make available a certain amount of free time in accordance with rules set out in the legislation.
Third-party advertising:
quote:The 2000 Canada Elections Act introduced a new system of regulation foron third-party advertising during election periods, including spending limits and reporting and disclosure requirements. Such individuals or groups would be required to register with the Chief Electoral Officer if they incurred election advertising expenses totalling $500 or more. A third party would not be allowed to incur total election advertising expenses of more than $150,000 in relation to a general election, and of this amount, no more than $3,000 could be incurred to promote or oppose the election of one or more candidates in an individual constituency. Registered third parties are required to keep records of all contributions during an election period and authorize all election advertising. Within four months of the election, they are required to file election advertising reports containing a list of election advertising expenses, the time and place of the broadcast or publication of the advertisements, and details of contributions received in the period beginning six months before the issue of the writ and ending on polling day; the names and addresses of persons contributing more than $200 would have to be included. The Chief Electoral Officer is required to publish the names and addresses of third parties as they were registered, together with the election advertising reports, within one year of the issue of the writ.
These provisions regarding third-party spending restrictions and regulations were challenged in the courts, but were upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in a decision rendered on 18 May 2004.
And finally, a nitpick:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The Republicans have everything going their way at the moment, despite all the wrenches that keep getting tossed in their party machinery, but 49% or whatever of the people still voted Democrat in the last couple elections.
A quick Google search told me that voter turnout in your last Presidential election was somewhere between 55% and 60%. At best, this means that ~29% of people voted Democrat.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see why at least the congressional seats couldn't be allocated proportionally to votes in each state. This kind of the-winner-takes-it-all-system that you enjoy (?) really isn't very democratic. Such a change would ensue that a third (or even fourth or fifth) party would gain at least some seats in Washington. The attendant influence, press-coverage and fund raising opportunities might be enough that a viable third party presidental candidate could arise without the need of additional reforms concerning campaign financing (or the electoral college).
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The easiest way to break up the two-party system would be to join with Mexico. If WestGermany can successfully merge with EastGermany, the US and Mexico could do so even more easily. Plus ya'd get rid of the border problem, the labor problem, and the boomer retirement problem all in one whack.
posted
Extremely minor ones compared to breaking up the US two-party system without a merger. And certainly a LOT easier than putting together the EuropeanUnion.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:A quick Google search told me that voter turnout in your last Presidential election was somewhere between 55% and 60%. At best, this means that ~29% of people voted Democrat.
I thought the general consensus was, in voting/political threads, percentages such as that only referred to voters. Since if you say X% of whomever voted, the fact that your sample population is only those who can vote is implicit.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno.. I'd love to break up the two party system... maybe a parlimentry style government... and get some Libertarians and Constitution party people elected...
But then I think of the Greens, Socialists and Communists who would also get seats...
I think it's worth giving up all the libertarian and constitution party seats just to keep those people out of power.
So lesser of two evils it is... We'll fade more slowly this way.
posted
Eventually, one of the TV broadcasters will float an American Idol version of "So you want to be President." (Murdoch threatened to do one in 2004 but dropped it quietly for some mysterious reason.)
That TV show will end the 2 party system, at least on the executive level, but I am not convinced we will be all that happy with the results.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:A quick Google search told me that voter turnout in your last Presidential election was somewhere between 55% and 60%. At best, this means that ~29% of people voted Democrat.
I thought the general consensus was, in voting/political threads, percentages such as that only referred to voters. Since if you say X% of whomever voted, the fact that your sample population is only those who can vote is implicit.
To eliminate the possibility of confusion, I think it makes more sense to be explicit, particularly given that my concern could be addressed by changing a single word in Lyrhawn's original sentence ("people" to "voters").
Added:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: But then I think of the Greens, Socialists and Communists who would also get seats...
I think it's worth giving up all the libertarian and constitution party seats just to keep those people out of power.
That sounds a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, twinky, I just think the libertarians and constitutionalists would be shouted down by the greens and other authoritarians. I think they would have a lot more seats and we would be worse off both in the long and short runs.
People just loooooooove telling others what they can and can't and *must* do.
quote:A quick Google search told me that voter turnout in your last Presidential election was somewhere between 55% and 60%. At best, this means that ~29% of people voted Democrat.
I thought the general consensus was, in voting/political threads, percentages such as that only referred to voters. Since if you say X% of whomever voted, the fact that your sample population is only those who can vote is implicit.
To eliminate the possibility of confusion, I think it makes more sense to be explicit, particularly given that my concern could be addressed by changing a single word in Lyrhawn's original sentence ("people" to "voters").
Wow that IS nitpicking. I meant "people" to mean "of the people who voted," though what then is the percentage of voters who voted Republican? 30%?
Either way, "voters" doesn't satisfy your grammatical quandary. "Voters" could still describe registered eligible voters who chose not to vote in the last election, if you REALLY want to nitpick, you need to say "people who voted in the last election."
Let's get rid of the electoral college, and I think you'll see voter turnout go up. Maybe then we'll get an idea as to how evenly divided the nation really is.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
