The Two-Party System
 

I was taught in high-school history that the two-party system (Democratic-Republicans and Whigs initially) was intentionally established to break down state-centered politics. In other words, it was believed at the birth of this country that each state would have its own candidate for president, and the state with the biggest population would always get their man in office.

If that was the purpose of the two-party system, it has certainly outlived it. It has probably also outlived any usefulness to the country. Our current two parties pick divisive issues that 90% of the population doesn't really care about, and rallies the hard-core around them (gun control and abortion come to mind).

Unfortunately, our two parties have successfully erected significant barriers to the political process. In Illinois, a third-party candidate has to collect a number of signatures equal to something like 20% of all elgible voters in the district they are running from--when often fewer than 20% show up to vote. Candidates from "established" parties are exempt from this requirement. Further, if I sign a petition for a Green Party candidate, I'm barred from voting in a primary for Republicans or Democrats. (I'm paraphrasing the law based on my understanding--this statement is designed to intentionally prevent Rodeo from parsing what I've typed and steering this discussion off course.)

Here's a thought. What about getting rid of political parties altogether? Just make everyone an independant and people run on the issues. They can raise their own money and run their own campaigns. Dismantle the entire political system and start from scratch again.

I like it. :)

I say, if you have party's, everyone can vote in the Primaries, and the top 3 votegetters would be in the general election. I think this would pull the parties toward the center.....

Nader was pushing for a "none of the above" option, that might keep the campaigns on a higher plane.

Great idea, but beither political party will ever let that happen. They have too much money and power, and they are addicted to it.

+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

I've been saying this (and voting this way) for years. I'd wholeheartedly support an effort to illegalize political parties or "machines", as I would support term limits.

Can't stop folks in power from building alliances. And to some degree, you wouldn't want to.

Of course the elephant in the room is that the very people who would have the power to dismantle the political party system get their own power from the political parties. It would take a grass roots movement of profound size and scope to even think about booting them all out of power. Not only that, you would have to put people in their place who had no aspirations of continuing their own power.

Sounds like we need about 500 Kinky Friedmans to put into Congress. Then they might actually pass term limits and other reforms.

Well, here is a thought.

In AZ, a voter registered "Independent" can vote in primaries, choosing which party to vote on. So he (or she) can choose Democrat or Republican. Better than being chained to one or the other....

The only way to really change the system (in reality) is to work from within the parties via the primaries. I am guilty of this, I've never voted in a primary before. Once the candidates are selected, the powerful machinery goes to work and the outcome is all about strategy and money. The issues are dealt with in the primaries.

I'll have to check Texas law about whether independants can vote in either primary or not. I'm currently not registered with either party, but I'm not registered as an independant either.

Rick

Do vote in primaries. Involve yourself in a campaign or two. Get a feel for the mechanisms that make the system what it is (I deliberately did not use the word "work!!").

The nice thing about this is you will get a chance to voice your opinions directly to the decision makers and that can be even more powerful (but not a replacement for) than your vote!!

Hey, let's bring back the Whigs! Well, maybe with a few tweaks. :)

From Wikipedia:

The Whig Party was formed in the winter of 1833-1834 by former National Republicans such as Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams, and by Southern States' Rights supporters such as W. P. Mangum. Opponents of the party ridiculed it as a reconstitution of the old Federalist party. While the party did have strong support in areas historically known as Federalist strongholds, it was mainly formed as a result of an alliance between disillusioned Jeffersonian Republicans (Clay, a 10 year Republican leader in Congress, joined the party), southerners who disliked Jackson's power grabs and stance during nullification crisis and anti-masonites. In its early form, the Whig Party was united only by opposition to the policies of President Andrew Jackson, especially his removal of the deposits from the Bank of the United States without the consent of Congress. The Whigs pledged themselves to Congressional supremacy, as opposed to "King Andrew's" executive actions, and took their name from the British Whig Party, which had opposed the power of the monarchy and supported Parliamentary control. The Whigs saw President Andrew Jackson as a dangerous man on horseback with a reactionary opposition to the forces of social, economic and moral modernization. As Jackson purged his opponents, vetoed internal improvements and killed the Bank of the United States, alarmed local elites fought back. They argued that Congress, not the President, reflected the will of the people. Controlling the Senate for a while, Jackson's enemies passed a censure motion denouncing Jackson's arrogant assumption of executive power in the face of the true will of the people as represented by Congress. (The censure was later expunged.) The central issue of the early 1830s was the Second Bank of the United States. Backing various regional candidates in 1836 the opposition finally coalesced in 1840 behind a popular general, William Henry Harrison, who proved the national Whig Party could win.

The Whigs came to unite around economic policy, celebrating Clay's vision of the "American System" which favored government support for a more modern, market-oriented economy in which education and commerce would count for more than physical labor or land ownership. Whigs sought to promote faster industrialization through protective tariffs, a business-oriented monetary policy with a new Bank of the United States, and a vigorous program of "internal improvements"—-especially to roads and canal systems-—funded by the proceeds of public land sales. The Whigs also promoted public schools, private colleges, charities, and cultural institutions.

By contrast, the Democrats hearkened to the Jeffersonian political philosophy ideal of an egalitarian agricultural society, advising that traditional farm life bred republican simplicity, while modernization threatened to create a politically powerful caste of rich aristocrats who threatened to subvert democracy. The Democrats wanted America to expand horizontally, by adding more land through Manifest Destiny. Whigs had a very different vision: they wanted to deepen the socio-economic system by adding more and more layers of complexity, such as banks, factories, and railroads. In general, the Democrats were more successful at enacting their policies on the national level, while the Whigs were more successful in passing modernization projects, such as canals and railroads, at the state level, but not federal.

It'll never happen. Dem and Repub parties are pretty much the same anyway. Clinton was the best pres the Rebubs ever had.