A political party is (or is supposed to be) a group of people who band together to advance their agenda. Nothing wrong with that. The problem arises when parties become too big, too powerful, and etched into concrete - they lose their original purpose. The solution is a dynamic political system, where parties are constantly forming, dying, merging, splitting, etc. It makes parties more issue-focused, and better engages the voting public.
I like your thinking on that, at least as far as parties forming and dying rather than taking over the entire political sphere. That parties now each have their own slate of electors is, at the very least, problematic, if not outright unconstitutional.
We have been reminded in some of your other writings that we have gone SO FAR AWAY from how the founders set things up where voting is concerned. We are SUPPOSED to elect representatives who in turn select those for the electoral college. And THEY in turn cast their vote for president based on what the people of the district they represent want. It was never intended for EVERY citizen to cast a vote for president. If more decisions were made at the LOCAL LEVEL there would not be these massive, one-size-fits-all parties.
I like that you included how the committees are arranged of friends of the precinct chair. That’s an important factor most don’t take under consideration. Since 2020, I have been trying to get even a two was conversation with my local RNC and their response screams their opinion… I get none whatsoever.
But if I break down who is all on my local committee, I find it to no surprise that they are the members of the city council, city school elected officials, and a few organizations that dip heavily in city funds for their projects that always complete at half the promoted level.
Recently, my residential ward has been championed by a Democratic council member. The person the RNC tried to use to push her out of office didn’t campaign and now it’s the only Democratic seat across my county. My friend decided he wanted to run for it next election and reached out to the local chair for support. After coffee, the local RNC decided to make him a member.. if he collects signatures he can be voted in and hold an elected role in their decisions.
They gave him a list of Republican voting households to get signatures from to be on the ballot. All of which no longer live there. That brings to mind numerous questions and accusations. We shall see what the future holds.
To everyone reading. Go to your Board of Elections, find out who’s on your committee, and challenge their seats by getting on the ballot. Do it quietly and efficiently and the seat holder won’t even be on the ballot. (if it’s ran like it is here) The committees are the fighting force for the representatives that are getting elected. If we can take them over, we can get better candidates in office, get better representation from them candidates, and change the way things happen in our states and country
"However combinations or Associations of the above description may now & then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, & to usurp for themselves the reins of Government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
General George had great vision nd foresight. Today we are facing EXACTLY what he said would be with a party system. Those at the top are always invited to share in the windfall of the PARTY while those of us who are NOT friends or family get little or no recognition OR representation.
I don't know if we could ever get COMPLETELY away from the party system. It is so ingrained in our current political atmosphere it would be like shutting off people's supply of oxygen.
This runaway train is about to crash and burn I'm sure. Maybe we need to prepare for the great SUCK of the vacuum that is going to be created when hat train does finally come off the rails.
I don't think parties will ever go away. They are a natural outcome of freedom of association, and the only remedy I can think of would be massively coercive - and likely futile.
I don't think they'll go away either, and I don't think we can outlaw their existence. That said, I still think we can fix the electoral process by taking it back to its constitutional roots. That would hopefully rectify at least some of the problems caused by parties.
Imagine going back to a time when the presidential candidate who got the most votes became president, and the candidate receiving the second-most votes became vice president. No president/vice-president ticket. It could even end up that a candidate from one party becomes president and a candidate from another party becomes VP. That would be something, wouldn't it?
To take it back to its pre-Amendment constitutional roots would put the Presidency back in the hands of state legislatures, rather than state-apportioned popular vote.
No chance of such a change, and I fear that any attempts would be overwhelmed by the people who'd rather eliminate the Electoral College and truly make the nation a tyranny of the majority.
It would cause quite the uproar, as would revoking the seventeenth and reverting appointment of Senators to the state legislatures. Most voters are unaware that our founders opposed true (or, as Madison phrased it in the Federalist 10 "pure") democracy, and thus they clamor for it because those holding the reins of power tell them it should be so. They have no idea the destruction such a system would bring upon them.
The problem with this line of thinking is it ignores the electoral system, which actually prevents the major cities on the left and right coast to determine who the president and vice president is. They have the population, and as such, the blue cities will determine our leaders in perpetuity. Not a good thing, in my opinion. Such is the system in New Yorkistan, much to my dismay, cities like Syracuse, Albany, Rochester and New York City have the numbers to outvote the rest of the state, as far as actual voting is concerned. Yes, I know, slightly over half the registered voters voted. Participation is the problem, yet it is a reality. Big cities, no matter if they are in red states, have large Democrat majority. Point being, the original voting system, thankfully, was amended to create a fairer process.
I'm curious if you're thinking the electoral system (or "electoral college") was a later addition, as seems to be a somewhat common misunderstanding. The concept of electors electing the president and vice president is in the original text of the Constitution (Article II, Section 1, clauses 2-4). There is nothing, however, in those clauses to indicate that the people in general were required to have any say in that process.
I meant, what part do you believe was added later (i.e. not in the original text of the Constitution)? The "electoral college" had always been part out the process for electing the president (as I cited, article II, Section 1, clauses 2-4). I'm trying to figure out what you think was amended to achieve balance or make the process "fairer."
I admire you for taking the time to attend and to write up your experience and, especially, your thoughts on the brokenness of our political party system. It takes self-less individuals to consider the needs of the community.
I am consumed with my job to provide funds for other endeavors. Where you pointed out that political events, in which one can participate, are not advertised but also not made important by schooling. I'm more removed, now, from any political participation, as most of the citizenry.
Thankfully, more access to smart people, like you.
Yes, it's unlikely parties will ever "go away". Perhaps the best step forward is to get a third party to reach comparable to the two major parties now... after all isn't three corrupt institutions better than two? More is better! {laugh}
I'd love to say "yes," but not sure that happens in a party convention. Likely the best way to move that forward is to contact your representative and senators.
A political party is (or is supposed to be) a group of people who band together to advance their agenda. Nothing wrong with that. The problem arises when parties become too big, too powerful, and etched into concrete - they lose their original purpose. The solution is a dynamic political system, where parties are constantly forming, dying, merging, splitting, etc. It makes parties more issue-focused, and better engages the voting public.
I like your thinking on that, at least as far as parties forming and dying rather than taking over the entire political sphere. That parties now each have their own slate of electors is, at the very least, problematic, if not outright unconstitutional.
We have been reminded in some of your other writings that we have gone SO FAR AWAY from how the founders set things up where voting is concerned. We are SUPPOSED to elect representatives who in turn select those for the electoral college. And THEY in turn cast their vote for president based on what the people of the district they represent want. It was never intended for EVERY citizen to cast a vote for president. If more decisions were made at the LOCAL LEVEL there would not be these massive, one-size-fits-all parties.
I like that you included how the committees are arranged of friends of the precinct chair. That’s an important factor most don’t take under consideration. Since 2020, I have been trying to get even a two was conversation with my local RNC and their response screams their opinion… I get none whatsoever.
But if I break down who is all on my local committee, I find it to no surprise that they are the members of the city council, city school elected officials, and a few organizations that dip heavily in city funds for their projects that always complete at half the promoted level.
Recently, my residential ward has been championed by a Democratic council member. The person the RNC tried to use to push her out of office didn’t campaign and now it’s the only Democratic seat across my county. My friend decided he wanted to run for it next election and reached out to the local chair for support. After coffee, the local RNC decided to make him a member.. if he collects signatures he can be voted in and hold an elected role in their decisions.
They gave him a list of Republican voting households to get signatures from to be on the ballot. All of which no longer live there. That brings to mind numerous questions and accusations. We shall see what the future holds.
To everyone reading. Go to your Board of Elections, find out who’s on your committee, and challenge their seats by getting on the ballot. Do it quietly and efficiently and the seat holder won’t even be on the ballot. (if it’s ran like it is here) The committees are the fighting force for the representatives that are getting elected. If we can take them over, we can get better candidates in office, get better representation from them candidates, and change the way things happen in our states and country
"However combinations or Associations of the above description may now & then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, & to usurp for themselves the reins of Government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
General George had great vision nd foresight. Today we are facing EXACTLY what he said would be with a party system. Those at the top are always invited to share in the windfall of the PARTY while those of us who are NOT friends or family get little or no recognition OR representation.
I don't know if we could ever get COMPLETELY away from the party system. It is so ingrained in our current political atmosphere it would be like shutting off people's supply of oxygen.
This runaway train is about to crash and burn I'm sure. Maybe we need to prepare for the great SUCK of the vacuum that is going to be created when hat train does finally come off the rails.
I don't think parties will ever go away. They are a natural outcome of freedom of association, and the only remedy I can think of would be massively coercive - and likely futile.
I don't think they'll go away either, and I don't think we can outlaw their existence. That said, I still think we can fix the electoral process by taking it back to its constitutional roots. That would hopefully rectify at least some of the problems caused by parties.
Imagine going back to a time when the presidential candidate who got the most votes became president, and the candidate receiving the second-most votes became vice president. No president/vice-president ticket. It could even end up that a candidate from one party becomes president and a candidate from another party becomes VP. That would be something, wouldn't it?
To take it back to its pre-Amendment constitutional roots would put the Presidency back in the hands of state legislatures, rather than state-apportioned popular vote.
No chance of such a change, and I fear that any attempts would be overwhelmed by the people who'd rather eliminate the Electoral College and truly make the nation a tyranny of the majority.
The system isn't the problem, it's the voters.
It would cause quite the uproar, as would revoking the seventeenth and reverting appointment of Senators to the state legislatures. Most voters are unaware that our founders opposed true (or, as Madison phrased it in the Federalist 10 "pure") democracy, and thus they clamor for it because those holding the reins of power tell them it should be so. They have no idea the destruction such a system would bring upon them.
The problem with this line of thinking is it ignores the electoral system, which actually prevents the major cities on the left and right coast to determine who the president and vice president is. They have the population, and as such, the blue cities will determine our leaders in perpetuity. Not a good thing, in my opinion. Such is the system in New Yorkistan, much to my dismay, cities like Syracuse, Albany, Rochester and New York City have the numbers to outvote the rest of the state, as far as actual voting is concerned. Yes, I know, slightly over half the registered voters voted. Participation is the problem, yet it is a reality. Big cities, no matter if they are in red states, have large Democrat majority. Point being, the original voting system, thankfully, was amended to create a fairer process.
I'm curious if you're thinking the electoral system (or "electoral college") was a later addition, as seems to be a somewhat common misunderstanding. The concept of electors electing the president and vice president is in the original text of the Constitution (Article II, Section 1, clauses 2-4). There is nothing, however, in those clauses to indicate that the people in general were required to have any say in that process.
I was thinking electoral college
I meant, what part do you believe was added later (i.e. not in the original text of the Constitution)? The "electoral college" had always been part out the process for electing the president (as I cited, article II, Section 1, clauses 2-4). I'm trying to figure out what you think was amended to achieve balance or make the process "fairer."
I honestly thought that came later, much to my ignorance. I need to brush up more
The electoral system was part of the Constitution. What part to you believe is being ignored? What part was fixed or made "fairer" by amendment?
I admire you for taking the time to attend and to write up your experience and, especially, your thoughts on the brokenness of our political party system. It takes self-less individuals to consider the needs of the community.
I am consumed with my job to provide funds for other endeavors. Where you pointed out that political events, in which one can participate, are not advertised but also not made important by schooling. I'm more removed, now, from any political participation, as most of the citizenry.
Thankfully, more access to smart people, like you.
Yes, definitely broken.
Yes, it's unlikely parties will ever "go away". Perhaps the best step forward is to get a third party to reach comparable to the two major parties now... after all isn't three corrupt institutions better than two? More is better! {laugh}
Anyway to get this on the docket?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/936/text
I'd love to say "yes," but not sure that happens in a party convention. Likely the best way to move that forward is to contact your representative and senators.