I have always considered political parties a huge part of the problem and having little to do with solutions. I always register as NPP (No Party Preference). So why do we have parties today?
Political parties exist for basically 2 reasons; as a force multiplier to agree a common point of view on policy issues and bring along enough votes …
I have always considered political parties a huge part of the problem and having little to do with solutions. I always register as NPP (No Party Preference). So why do we have parties today?
Political parties exist for basically 2 reasons; as a force multiplier to agree a common point of view on policy issues and bring along enough votes to enact those policies, and to raise money for the candidates who will vote for the party policy line.So this is all good, right?
Not really. As this actually works the second goal controls the first. Those with the money get an outsized vote on what the party policies are. So rather than reflecting the will of the people, they reflect the will of the people with enough money to force their point of view. In practice, therefore, a two party system often leads to only 2 viable candidates in an election, bad and worse leaving people to either walk away or hold their nose and vote for the lesser evil.
I tend to think some variant of ranked choice voting combined with strong restrictions on the funding of parties and candidates may help lead us in a better direction. In a ranked choice election, you vote for up to 5 candidates in order of preference. If no one gets over 50% of the vote, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their votes are redistributed using their voters next choice and so on until someone gets a plurality. This gives people a chance to vote for candidates they like, without giving up on those they think might prevent a bad candidate from winning. It changes the way candidates campaign, as you have to appeal to a broader segment of voters than just your party.
Look at the last election. Trump got 49.8%, Harris 47.3%. NEITHER had over 50%, so it would have gone to the next round, which may have moved the green party 3% to Kamala and changed the result (just theoretical). Or everyone could have made their second choice as an independent candidate, leading to a sweep that neither party won. This could completely change the nature of politics and combined with limits on spending could open the field to much better candidates.
So back to your point Eddie, the question is less about whether we identify as left or right, but the need to change the rules so we can identify as the complex, multi issues beings we really are and vote for candidates that may be ignored by the party but reflect our cvalues.
Completely agree! I often look at the multiparty elections in other countries and feel like their population looks like it is way better served with actual real political choices. I've never been against political parties per se - I'm not someone who is in favor of curtailing freedom of assembly and organizing - but you really hit the nail on the head here.
I would also love to see ranked choice voting or at the very least a instant run-off like they do in France and many other nations. But this needs to be coupled with significant reform such as getting rid of the Citizen's United ruling and the electoral college.
I have always considered political parties a huge part of the problem and having little to do with solutions. I always register as NPP (No Party Preference). So why do we have parties today?
Political parties exist for basically 2 reasons; as a force multiplier to agree a common point of view on policy issues and bring along enough votes to enact those policies, and to raise money for the candidates who will vote for the party policy line.So this is all good, right?
Not really. As this actually works the second goal controls the first. Those with the money get an outsized vote on what the party policies are. So rather than reflecting the will of the people, they reflect the will of the people with enough money to force their point of view. In practice, therefore, a two party system often leads to only 2 viable candidates in an election, bad and worse leaving people to either walk away or hold their nose and vote for the lesser evil.
I tend to think some variant of ranked choice voting combined with strong restrictions on the funding of parties and candidates may help lead us in a better direction. In a ranked choice election, you vote for up to 5 candidates in order of preference. If no one gets over 50% of the vote, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their votes are redistributed using their voters next choice and so on until someone gets a plurality. This gives people a chance to vote for candidates they like, without giving up on those they think might prevent a bad candidate from winning. It changes the way candidates campaign, as you have to appeal to a broader segment of voters than just your party.
Look at the last election. Trump got 49.8%, Harris 47.3%. NEITHER had over 50%, so it would have gone to the next round, which may have moved the green party 3% to Kamala and changed the result (just theoretical). Or everyone could have made their second choice as an independent candidate, leading to a sweep that neither party won. This could completely change the nature of politics and combined with limits on spending could open the field to much better candidates.
So back to your point Eddie, the question is less about whether we identify as left or right, but the need to change the rules so we can identify as the complex, multi issues beings we really are and vote for candidates that may be ignored by the party but reflect our cvalues.
Completely agree! I often look at the multiparty elections in other countries and feel like their population looks like it is way better served with actual real political choices. I've never been against political parties per se - I'm not someone who is in favor of curtailing freedom of assembly and organizing - but you really hit the nail on the head here.
I would also love to see ranked choice voting or at the very least a instant run-off like they do in France and many other nations. But this needs to be coupled with significant reform such as getting rid of the Citizen's United ruling and the electoral college.