Wait a minute... (America-centric politics fread)

[tyrannosaurus vex]

So I was thinking about the Government.

Specifically, Congress.
And political parties.

The Constitution doesn't mention political parties. Constitutionally, there is no allowance for any such thing. Representatives and Senators are, in theory, sent individually to represent the people of their districts and States.

This means that the following Congressional procedures and traditions are 100% bullshit:

- "Majority" and "Minority" parties
- "Majority Party" getting to choose the chairperson of each Committee and Speaker of the House
- The concept of a "Supermajority"
- Fillibustering without actually fillibustering
- "Reconciliation"
- Caucuses
- Etc.

I have no other point to make. Just that everything we know about Congress and how it works has nothing at all to do with the actual framework for our Government.

[Sir Squid Diddimus]

I don't think there is a whole lot left going on in the gov't that is what they set out to do in the constitution.
As time has gone on they've made changes to suit their needs and new rules and laws are being created all the time.
I think Dok made note of this in his History thread, no?

[Cramulus]

I think political parties will arise naturally. We didn't have to create them, but their presence is incentivized through the structure of representative democracy.  It's a lot easier to win an election if you're standing on a platform which is supported by public interest.


In my mind ,the question is - how many political parties are best?

smaller parties =
* benefit - each party is more specific. You can vote for a party which really fits your political opinions
* drawback - when a party wins, it represents a smaller slice of the population

larger parties =
* benefit - larger number of people satisfied with election results
* drawback - everything is compromised, issues are as relevant as they are popular


over in france they have a bit more true democracy. If a fascist runs for president, he can get elected -- if that's actually what the people want. But there will be like 5 or 8 political parties in the primaries, so you need a narrower margin of support to take the throne. I have a buddy from france who flies back home for the primaries just to vote against all the batshit that constantly bubbles up from the bottom.

[Captain Utopia]

- "Majority Party" getting to choose the chairperson of each Committee and Speaker of the House
- The concept of a "Supermajority"

Is the chairperson picked by a party-line vote, or simply picked by the leadership of the majority party?  It seems like a technicality to me -- e.g. if the Republicans were the majority, and they split their vote 30-30 between two candidates from within their own ranks, then the Democrats could choose to gain the advantage by selecting just one candidate to put their 40 votes behind.  So it would seem to be that the majority party has to be united on those votes, or risk getting screwed by a minority with nothing to lose.

Isn't a supermajority usually partisan, but not necessarily so?  E.g. in theory 30 Democrats and 30 Republicans would make a super majority?

[tyrannosaurus vex]

As an exercise in pure intellectual masturbation, I propose the following Constitutional Amendment:

I. The Right to Form Political Parties

The right of the People to form Political Parties shall not be infringed.

II. Limits of Party Influence on Government Practices

  a. Parties shall not enjoy State-sponsored privileges, including access to State funds to hold internal elections or primaries. Citizens not officially aligned with a Party shall not be permitted to vote in any Party elections or primaries, and no citizen shall be permitted to belong to more than one Party. No Person who does not hold Citizenship in the United States shall join any Party.

  b. Official election ballots shall not list the Party affiliation or incumbency status of any Candidate.

  c. Parties shall not be recognized or supported in any way by the Government of the United States or by any State individually, except as provided for in SS (e) of this Amendment.

  d. No parliamantary rules or bylaws shall exist in either House of the Congress which reward or recognize any political Party. All appointments to Committee chairs and to every other internal Congressional post shall be done by a full vote on the floor of the appropriate House.

  e. Any Member of Congress in either House found to be in collusion with any other Member or Members for the purpose of advancing a Party agenda, empowering a Party within the Congress, or providing for their mutual electoral benefit through concerted action, shall be summarily dismissed from the Congress and replaced with a Candidate belonging to an opposing Party.

[Captain Utopia]

smaller parties =
* benefit - each party is more specific. You can vote for a party which really fits your political opinions
* drawback - when a party wins, it represents a smaller slice of the population

I'd be happier with many smaller issue-based parties.  While I don't believe in the absolutism of "power corrupts", observing those people in government with power provides scant evidence to the contrary.  Yes - you'd get more batshit bubbling from the bottom, but since every participant would need to find broad consensus to get anything done, wouldn't that temper the effect?

[AFK]

Smaller issue based parties are fine and dandy for local politics.  But when you get to the national level, there needs to be more breadth.  For example, based upon my interactions with the Green Party, I'm not sure I want anyone from their party being in charge of National Defense. 

[Cramulus]

smaller parties =
* benefit - each party is more specific. You can vote for a party which really fits your political opinions
* drawback - when a party wins, it represents a smaller slice of the population

I'd be happier with many smaller issue-based parties.  While I don't believe in the absolutism of "power corrupts", observing those people in government with power provides scant evidence to the contrary.  Yes - you'd get more batshit bubbling from the bottom, but since every participant would need to find broad consensus to get anything done, wouldn't that temper the effect?

I'm not sure... let's suppose that there are 100 voters in America (lowballing it, I know), and everybody votes.

With a 2 party system you need to campaign for 51 votes

With a 5 party system, you need to campaign for 21 votes

With a 10 party system, you need to campaign for 11 votes


this assumes parties of equal size. In reality, I think you're right, the party with the broadest appeal will om nom nom up the smaller fish. And in a 10 party system where one party is getting 50% of the votes, the other 9 parties have to water down their platforms to net a larger constituency. It may end up becoming a 2 party election again. I wonder why that doesn't happen in france?

[Sir Squid Diddimus]

Smaller issue based parties are fine and dandy for local politics.  But when you get to the national level, there needs to be more breadth.  For example, based upon my interactions with the Green Party, I'm not sure I want anyone from their party being in charge of National Defense. 

Makin a lot of sense here.

[Captain Utopia]

Smaller issue based parties are fine and dandy for local politics.  But when you get to the national level, there needs to be more breadth.  For example, based upon my interactions with the Green Party, I'm not sure I want anyone from their party being in charge of National Defense.  

Anyone?  That seems a bit sweeping.

Anyway isn't that leadership an issue decided upon by a majority of elected representatives?  If so, why do you assume they'd automatically make terrible appointments?

[Adios]

Smaller issue based parties are fine and dandy for local politics.  But when you get to the national level, there needs to be more breadth.  For example, based upon my interactions with the Green Party, I'm not sure I want anyone from their party being in charge of National Defense.  

Anyone?  That seems a bit sweeping.

Anyway isn't that leadership an issue decided upon by a majority of elected representatives?  If so, why do you assume they'd automatically make terrible appointments?

You ain't from around here, are you?

[AFK]

Smaller issue based parties are fine and dandy for local politics.  But when you get to the national level, there needs to be more breadth.  For example, based upon my interactions with the Green Party, I'm not sure I want anyone from their party being in charge of National Defense.  

Anyone?  That seems a bit sweeping.

Do you know someone from the Green Party who is an expert on National Defense?  Name? 

Anyway isn't that leadership an issue decided upon by a majority of elected representatives?  If so, why do you assume they'd automatically make terrible appointments?

Okay, maybe in charge wasn't the right thing to say.  "Having influence", how bout that?  The spirit of the point stands. 

[Captain Utopia]

Smaller issue based parties are fine and dandy for local politics.  But when you get to the national level, there needs to be more breadth.  For example, based upon my interactions with the Green Party, I'm not sure I want anyone from their party being in charge of National Defense. 

Anyone?  That seems a bit sweeping.

Anyway isn't that leadership an issue decided upon by a majority of elected representatives?  If so, why do you assume they'd automatically make terrible appointments?

You ain't from around here, are you?

Okay then let me rephrase - why would a large decentralised power base be motivated to make worse decisions than a power base which was small, centralised and enforced by a whip-based system?  Where bad decisions = payback for favours, cronyism and other forms of corruption.

[AFK]

It isn't about being motivated to make bad decisions, it's more of a question of capacity to make good decisions. 

[Captain Utopia]

Smaller issue based parties are fine and dandy for local politics.  But when you get to the national level, there needs to be more breadth.  For example, based upon my interactions with the Green Party, I'm not sure I want anyone from their party being in charge of National Defense.  

Anyone?  That seems a bit sweeping.

Do you know someone from the Green Party who is an expert on National Defense?  Name? 

The burden of proof - that everyone in the Green Party is a complete doofus head with regards National Defense - lies on you, not me.

Anyway isn't that leadership an issue decided upon by a majority of elected representatives?  If so, why do you assume they'd automatically make terrible appointments?

Okay, maybe in charge wasn't the right thing to say.  "Having influence", how bout that?  The spirit of the point stands. 

I've worked in Governmental/Defense circles for the best part of a decade.  You'd shit at the stories I could tell if I weren't prevented by secrecy acts over-generalised for that very purpose.  But I can tell you that every tale of fucked-up-ed-ness I've come across has resulted from the furthering of personal interests, or the short-sightedness of a small group who know they'll be promoted safely out of the way and won't be around to clean up the mess.  Dirty demolition jobs, unofficially sanctioned and later rewarded by a small and centralised power group.  I'm nothing special, talk to anyone in a similar position to me and you'll hear of the same sorts of stories.

So would I like to break up those abuses of power?  Fuck yeah.  Bad decisions are made with regards National Defense all the time, and it's not because these people don't know any better, it's because they can use their small slice of power to gain personal advantage.

Its easier to corrupt a cabal than a crowd, so having many more voices to influence appointments, even - omg - someone from the Green Party, only sounds like a good thing to me.