Via RSS
Via Twitter
Many of our current problems are either caused or magnified by the stranglehold the two parties have on our political system. Democrats and Republicans, despite their uniformly low popularity with voters, continue to exercise a virtual monopoly, and they have no intention of relinquishing control. The result is that “change” is often limited to one party handing power over to the other party. Like Henry Ford’s customers, who were promised any color car so long as it was black, voters are effectively allowed to pick any candidate they want, so long as he or she is a Democrat or Republican.
Both parties (and the media) reinforce this pathetic notion by continually emphasizing the blue state/red state divide. The fact is that the placement of members on the blue or red team is often arbitrary, with neither side showing consistent principles or values.
Turley then goes on to list a number of potential reforms, beginning with the easing of ballot access restrictions for third party and independent candidates for office:
Remove barriers to third parties. Independent and third-party candidates currently face an array of barriers, including registration rules and petition requirements, that should be removed. Moreover, we should require a federally funded electronic forum for qualified federal candidates to post their positions and material for voters. And in races for national office, all candidates on the ballot in the general election should submit to a minimum of three (for Congress) or five (for the presidency) debates that would be funded and made publicly available by the government. . . .He also calls on the US electorate to: "end the practice of gerrymandering. . . . change the primary system . . . abolish the electoral college. . . . require a majority for presidents to be elected."
5 comments:
Big words from Turley, but who does he expect to enact these reforms? The laws and regulations he cites do handicap independents, but the biggest handicap such candidates face is the complacent deference to the Bipolarchy on the part of an electorate that continues to assume, despite persistent incomeptence, that Democrats and Republicans alone are competent to run the government because they alone have ever exercised the power. Nothing short of revolutionary thinking (ideally not including revolutionary violence!) is required, because Americans must be willing to take the risk of empowering the powerless.
Under the current system of electing the President, no state requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than a plurality of the popular votes in order to receive all of the state's electoral votes.
Not a single legislative bill has been introduced in any state legislature in recent decades (among the more than 100,000 bills that are introduced in every two-year period by the nation's 7,300 state legislators) proposing to change the existing universal practice of the states to award electoral votes to the candidate who receives a plurality (as opposed to absolute majority) of the votes (statewide or district-wide). There is no evidence of any public sentiment in favor of imposing such a requirement.
"Big words from Turley, but who does he expect to enact these reforms?"
Turley more or less agrees with your take here, Sam, that this is up to the US electorate. The piece begins by talk of a potential constitutional amendment process (spurred by the recent Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance), and then he write:
"Before we can change the system, we have to change our attitude passivity and collectively declare “enough.” While our leaders control the political branches, they do not control the political process itself. That is controlled by the Constitution, which remains in control of the people, in our control. It is not too much speech or too much money that is draining the life from this Republic. It is a lack of faith in ourselves to force change without the approval or support of our leaders."
Thanks for the clarification, d. I'd only add to what's needed a faith in ourselves to lead even if we lack the monopolized (or duopolized) credentials we've trained ourselves to believe indispensible for leadership.
d,
Great stuff. I'm glad I saw the snippet for this one on CF and decided to venture over. Love what you're doing, sir, seriously.
Lately my head has been ready to explode with the drama between the GOP and those Dems. Idiots, the whole lot of 'em.
Post a Comment