America the Nonpartisan I
Some conservative groups are openly suggesting abandonment of the Republican Party in 2008 and are looking for “third party” candidates who better represent their views. The exodus from the Democratic Party continues to pick up momentum with their traditional voters looking for a new home. Perhaps it is time for a more fundamental look at our “two party” system and the potential consequences of mass desertion.
Allow me to start with what for some may seem overly didactic. Our Constitution, which defines our democratic system, is literally nonpartisan. Constitutional authors intended that each vote would be cast for a person – not a party. The voting process we use today, which identifies party affiliation at the time of voting and makes it convenient to cast a partisan vote, did not begin without controversy. There is no doubt in my mind that this change has led to a more partisan view of politics. Fewer people see beyond party politics to develop expectations about individual candidates than ever before.
The argument against voting for candidates that best represent us is well known. Candidates in either of the largest parties are quick to point out that voting for a member of a third party is “throwing your vote away.” Those on the right must consolidate the power of their votes to defeat the left. Those on the left likewise feel that they must support a single party to defeat the right.
The genius of our formally defined system is this. If the representatives we send to Congress are those that best represent our communities, then the mix in Congress will collectively best represent us as a nation. If a candidate is selected that best represents the views of the local community then as representative, he or she will most likely vote on legislation in a way that reflects the community’s will. This will sometimes be in a way that we think of as conservative or liberal; independent of party affiliation but dependent on the views of the community that sent the representative.
If Republicans have a proposal that the community agrees with, it is likely that our representative will vote for it. If a bill does not reflect our views, then what does party affiliation with the bill mean? Should our representative vote for this bill as well, because we cast our votes on the basis of a narrow consideration – whether their party rhetoric was associated with the right or left?
There is a great diversity of thought and opinion on the wide variety of issues that are now handled by government. It is impossible for all views on all topics to be assembled in such a way that we are well represented by only two parties. It is for this reason that the “two party system” must treat politics as a trick. What this trick has provided to us is easy to observe during any election season. The nation is polarized by superficial arguments driven by emotion. Many voters feel adrift. Voter turn-out is relatively low. More votes are cast against what is perceived to be the greater of two evils than for the candidates who run.
Casting a vote for president presents a different problem. Only one person will be elected. I would propose the following if it was not so unlikely to occur. I will instead provide food for thought in the hope that this idea will not be immediately forgotten. It is my view that candidates for the office of president should not be allowed to run as a member of a political party. When candidates are selected in party caucuses and primaries, they are selected as party leaders. This would make sense if we had an entirely different political system; namely a parliamentary system in which a prime minister was being selected. We do not have such a system. When we select a president, we need to do our best to elect someone who cares more about the good of the country than the good of a political party. We can never do our best in that selection while those seeking the office must first pass a partisan test before they are perceived as serious candidates.
| More from Roger F. Gay
Stumble It!
October 12th, 2007 at 9:07 am
testing
October 12th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Constitutional authors intended that each vote would be cast for a person – not a party. The voting process we use today, which identifies party affiliation at the time of voting and makes it convenient to cast a partisan vote, did not begin without controversy. There is no doubt in my mind that this change has led to a more partisan view of politics.
Hi Roger,
There is something else going on here too, and it’s fundamental. You’re so close to realizing it that it’s almost painful for me to watch.
When we switched over as a populace from voting for individuals to putting into groups instead, we lost fundamental control of our political system.
If you give your money to an individual, and that individual does not get money from its supporting group, then the American citizen has power in their government.
Fundamentally the true American power in its political system is NOT the votes, but the ability to give or withdraw favor in monetary form.
Like water to individuals in a group of plants, the gardener can choose who does better by giving or withdrawing sustenance. However if the gardener is forced to water the whole group, there is no means of mediating control from that end of the equation, the only thing left is to pull weeds (and our political system is VERY loath to pull weeds – and for good and bad reasons).
If we give our money to a ‘party’ the party leaders decide who goes up and who we get to vote on. Ever wonder why the candidates are not that liked? Easy, they are not put up their because they are chosen by us to represent our needs and such going into the future, but are selected by the party for the needs of the party for the purpose of furthering party goals and have no need whatsoever to listen to the constituency since the process makes them all contradictory in their requests anyway.
The party acts like a collection well that prevents the water from flowing separately into each area based on where its directed from the source. It forces all that value to go through a bottleneck that strips the mandate of the giver, and replaces it with the mandate of the party.
There is absolutely no way to get power back to the people unless this changes. Fundamentally there is NO way for the people to effect change any more, nor since the start of this practice.
This is made worse by the fact that state charity, something forbidden by the constitution (just read “not yours to give” from the congressional record), is a means of that party to take 100 dollars out of your pocket and bribe you with 50 dollars of your own money as a rebate, and then take the other part and bribe other states, entities, people, companies, etc.
Socialism allows them to bribe you with your own money!!
Funneling the contributions through the party strips the power of the people from the people, while at the same time promising them more participation if they do this. the point is that they will have more personal participation if they stop doing it, and that would be from not having to rely on the lords and ladies to grant such participation for a few as a teaser of potential for the rest to perceive participation.
It’s a nice job if you can get it. but I would advise washing your hands after and not talking about it.
October 13th, 2007 at 4:07 am
I’m not enough of a constitutional scholar to provide references and quotes, but I do know that partisan politics was discussed and debated at length when the constitution was formulated. I have to agree with some commentators at the time that partisanship, even if it is informal, is in the nature of the beast. If voters think more in terms of issues than parties however, I believe representatives will be free to and better pressured to represent their communities than their parties. If we can’t do that, then it’s my view that we should embrace partisan politics in a healthier way – by changing the constitution to give us a partisan system of proportional representation. This approach is much more popular in democracies around the world than the simple winner-take-all system of ours.