Technology and the End of the 2 Party System

[Geo]

The more I learn about politics and government (and I don't claim to know much), the more jaded I become with our existing system for electing leaders...

The lobbyists, the special interests, the donkeys and elephants- I find it disgusting...

We have long ago lost sight of the forest for the trees. It is unrealistic to believe that the driver behind how we do things is to make this country better and to follow the will of its people...

Instead, it is about MONEY and POWER. In order to get the money and the power and to maintain both we have this two party system. And if you listen to the members of both parties they say it clearly-

"We need to win", "We have to get someone in the White House", "We need to keep control of the House and the Senate", "We can't have them win"...

"We" doesn't refer to any of us. It refers to the donkey and the elephant. We (without the quotes- referring to all of us citizens) ended up in this situation because the only realistic way to win an election beyond the very local level is to raise funds and the only realistic way to raise funds is to align with one of two parties...

So our leaders are bound by their parties to vote in one direction on the most common issues. There is rarely an "a la carte" politican- someone who can vote the way they (and their constituents) see fit on an issue by issue basis. But rather, they are forced to vote using the market basket approach due to their party affiliation...

We end up with gridlock. We end up with "us against them"...

Anyway, I'll get off what I think is the problem and cut to the chase of what I envision is the solution and the future...

I think information technology has the potential to end the 2 party system and save this country...

The Internet has changed the fundraising and information dissemination rules and I think that at some time in the future that it will make it possible for us to have independents raise enough money from ordinary citizens (not special interests) to compete and win at the national level. Or perhaps before it makes it to that point, we would first see the creation of viable new political parties. I'm not talking about polar opposites/extremes here (e.g. ultra conservative party/ultra liberal party) but rather a group of individuals who don't necessarily share the same views on the issues but who pull resources together to create a balanced alternative...

Rambling...

The central theme I present here is simply that the 2 party system made sense in the past but that it has become tainted, that there needs to be a change and that I believe technology will be the means to that end...

In most posts I only open myself up to get blasted from one side or the other. Right now I am sitting "indian style" (or should I say "Native American style" :lol:) surrounded from all sides...

Be gentle...
:cool:

[Tootsie]

you are very thoughtful geowickey (what's a geowickey?).

I like the independent party idea as you describe, and current independent voters do seem to be making a real impact in the election process.


and while I think obama is trying to say "let's do things differently", he is still speaking from the platform of Democrats. while I hope many independents and republicans will like his message and get on board, obama isn't going to do anything to excite real republicans. he does not speak their language. they do not believe in his ideals much less his policies... why would they - if they did they would not be republican.

I've already received a few really nasty obama emails straight out of the heart of republican south. underlying tone and message is totally conservative platform talk and spin. It could have come straight out of the mouth of rush limbaugh. it is full of hate, bigotry, fear mongoring, and everything negative you can imagine. I refuse to post it here because I will have nothing to do with furthering such a message. It really makes me sad, and I would feel the same if I saw such about mccain or any other candidate.

our two parties represent groups within those parties with extreme thinking to the max. maybe with one strong independent (or whatever you want to call it) party, those extremes can be squeezed into a very small (and ineffective) minority. these extremes are very scary to me. especially the right extreme.

okay, I am not contributing much here but simply agreeing with your comments.

[elgordoboy]

you are very thoughtful geowickey (what's a geowickey?).


Does it pronounce geo like geosynchronous or gooey like geoduck?:wave:

[Geo]

Does it pronounce geo like geosynchronous or gooey like geoduck?:wave:

Geo like geosynchronous or like George...
:wave:

[elgordoboy]

The more I learn about politics and government (and I don't claim to know much), the more jaded I become with our existing system for electing leaders...

The lobbyists, the special interests, the donkeys and elephants- I find it disgusting...

We have long ago lost sight of the forest for the trees. It is unrealistic to believe that the driver behind how we do things is to make this country better and to follow the will of its people...

Instead, it is about MONEY and POWER. In order to get the money and the power and to maintain both we have this two party system. And if you listen to the members of both parties they say it clearly-

"We need to win", "We have to get someone in the White House", "We need to keep control of the House and the Senate", "We can't have them win"...

"We" doesn't refer to any of us. It refers to the donkey and the elephant. We (without the quotes- referring to all of us citizens) ended up in this situation because the only realistic way to win an election beyond the very local level is to raise funds and the only realistic way to raise funds is to align with one of two parties...

So our leaders are bound by their parties to vote in one direction on the most common issues. There is rarely an "a la carte" politican- someone who can vote the way they (and their constituents) see fit on an issue by issue basis. But rather, they are forced to vote using the market basket approach due to their party affiliation...

We end up with gridlock. We end up with "us against them"...

Anyway, I'll get off what I think is the problem and cut to the chase of what I envision is the solution and the future...

I think information technology has the potential to end the 2 party system and save this country...

The Internet has changed the fundraising and information dissemination rules and I think that at some time in the future that it will make it possible for us to have independents raise enough money from ordinary citizens (not special interests) to compete and win at the national level. Or perhaps before it makes it to that point, we would first see the creation of viable new political parties. I'm not talking about polar opposites/extremes here (e.g. ultra conservative party/ultra liberal party) but rather a group of individuals who don't necessarily share the same views on the issues but who pull resources together to create a balanced alternative...

Rambling...

The central theme I present here is simply that the 2 party system made sense in the past but that it has become tainted, that there needs to be a change and that I believe technology will be the means to that end...

In most posts I only open myself up to get blasted from one side or the other. Right now I am sitting "indian style" (or should I say "Native American style" :lol:) surrounded from all sides...

Be gentle...
:cool:
During the last two elections the voting electorate was split very evenly. Now in the primaries the same seems to be the case only it is 3 ways dems, reps, and indies. If things were to become any more fragmented then how would a majority be achieved? We can barely do it now. More transparency in the political process would seem to be a good thing and freeflow of (mis)information certainly facilitates this but how does it work in practice? It seems the fragmented system would have to coalesce back to a two or three party game to adequately (barely) represent a majority.

[Geo]

During the last two elections the voting electorate was split very evenly. Now in the primaries the same seems to be the case only it is 3 ways dems, reps, and indies. If things were to become any more fragmented then how would a majority be achieved? We can barely do it now. More transparency in the political process would seem to be a good thing and freeflow of (mis)information certainly facilitates this but how does it work in practice? It seems the fragmented system would have to coalesce back to a two or three party game to adequately (barely) represent a majority.

Very reasonable conclusions-
within our existing paradigm...

You're still thinking in terms of parties rather than in terms of ideas. For a single issue/problem there are more than 2 (or 3) ways of addressing/solving it...

So let's say our Committees are made up of Senators without a donkey or elephant affiliation. These committee members would be able to approach an issue (e.g. immigration) with more of an open mind because they aren't bound by traditional party ideas that are on two opposite sides of the spectrum. They could collaborate together because they are all on the same team (or rather because they aren't playing for any team). They can propose ideas/solutions that can be similar or even entirely different from each other and then present the best ones for a vote. In such a system there is room for chaos, I suppose. And I don't have all the answers for how to organize things. But there is more room for compromise. No one would need to factor in consequences of crossing "party lines" in order to do what seems to be the right thing...

:idontno:

I considered looking for and using a successful corporation as an analogy for how to get things done. But I worried that because there are issues with overpaid CEO's, unethical financial reporting, etc. that this would derail the thread. But my point in using such an analogy would have been-

Large organizations (that's what our government is) can be extremely successful without having the Blues against the Reds...

Your turn...

[elgordoboy]

The problem is as you have said the us vs. them mentality, whether a two party or an eight party system. Almost anyone who is seeking election at the upper levels is suspect in my opinion and looking to make a power grab, so the process can't help but become adversarial. The chaos you mentioned could be a good thing leading to a pleasant form of anarchy. With less centralized government at the national level and more responsibility at the city/county level specific community needs could be better addressed and the eleceted officials better monitored through your disseminated info.

[elgordoboy]

Ever read "Cryptonomincon" by Neal Stephenson? Fictional work that involved setting up a data haven nation (among other things).

[tistheseason]

Geo - I agree with what you have to say. I think I got disillusioned with Politics when I realized that that character of the person you are voting for mattered less than what party they belonged to. I truly would love to do away with the Parties. With the internet, we can learn where candidates stand on issues without needing the crutch of Republican or Democratic Titles.

Can anyone think of what value they still deliver? I'l love to hear people think out loud about this.

[wrobert]

Geo - I agree with what you have to say. I think I got disillusioned with Politics when I realized that that character of the person you are voting for mattered less than what party they belonged to. I truly would love to do away with the Parties. With the internet, we can learn where candidates stand on issues without needing the crutch of Republican or Democratic Titles.

Can anyone think of what value they still deliver? I'l love to hear people think out loud about this.

The problem, as I see it, is that people like those of us here that are having this discussion care enough to go and do candidate research. In the old days, and I feel a lot still with the over 65 crowd, the parties are the quick and easy way to find out where someone stands on certain core issues. But the Republican have allowed the zealots to drive the party much further to the right than even their core beliefs follow. And the other side has gone over the edge to the left. Since so many are not going to do the research they are allowing the party system to decide how they wish to vote. If the parties would actually stick to their beliefs it would make things a whole lot easier.

Mainly because I really think that most people are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Most people do not seem to care what others are doing in their personal life as long as it does not affect them. It is a live and let live world, and I really do not see a problem with that. I just want to see something for my dollar. Something accomplished. The system was built around gridlock to slow it down, but we are certainly going to be left behind if we continue down this same path.