![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Fair ~ High: 59°F ~ Low: 41°F |
|
Election Process
Posted Sunday, July 20, 2008, at 2:56 PM<< Previous | Read comments | Respond | Email link | Next >>
After much consideration I have concluded the normal method of selecting political leaders at every level is fundamentally flawed.
This is due, I think, to our basic two party system. We are now at a point where the glaring instability of this situation is more apparent than has been the case at anytime in the past. I have never understood, and still don't, how anyone could join an organization and become an avid follower when the said organization's only litmus test for membership is to hold up your hand and say, "I are one." Neither party can point to even a generation long mantra that defines them. We have gotten to the point that each party has a vested interest in making the other party look bad. No matter how desirable a program outlined by one party is to the country or city or county, the other party feels it must deny passage as it may result in the introduction party being viewed in a more favorable light than the opposition party. So the government comes to a standstill. Presently the President has an 18-19% approval rating but the Congress, labeled a "do nothing" Congress by pundits across the political landscape has only an 8-9% approval rating. Why? I maintain it is only because of one-up-manship. Both the Executive and Legislative Branches are controlled by opposing parties and I suggest the phenomena as outlined above is the reason nothing gets done and we, the people, suffer for the failings of both parties. As one who decries those who know the problems but don't offer any solution, I will offer a possible solution or two. First I think we should do away with parties in any legal sense. I think all who want to run for office, any office, should be able to run and instead of a primary there would be a date perhaps in mid-August where all would be on a ballot. The top two vote-getters in each race would now run in the General Election in November with no distinctions as to parties. Another solution might be a Parliamentary System. In our case the Senate would be the upper house and the House of Representatives would be the lower house. I hold this method as less desirable as it will likely birth a multi-party system that would be worse than we have now. I consider myself as a somewhat serious student of the Constitution, but am certainly not a Constitutional Scholar. I am not sure if a Constitution Amendment would be require or not, but if not it might be a good idea just for clarification and perhaps address the Electoral College as many don't understand it nor believe it should exist. I am neutral on this subject and would welcome a debate whether such is desirable or not, but as to the subject of our present system, and the systems it evolved from in the past, something is badly broken and needs fixing. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Near lifelong resident of Bedford County. Will comment on the issues of the day in, hopefully a cogent and certainly an honest manner. Will propose discussions not usually fully addressed in the mainstream media.
Hot topics Election 2010(0 ~ 3:57 PM, Nov 18)
Gambling Sentence
Wartrace Liquor
Gambling Update
Gambling Article
|
![[Feed icon]](http://www.t-g.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Carl,
You are quite right, it is broken and surely needs fixing. As long as politicians do not represent the people who elect them, our government does not work as a republican democracy, rather, as an elected oligarchy. If in fact our elections are legitimate; with computerized balloting, who knows?
I like your concept of, "may the best man win." Our party system has never worked in practice, it has only gotten worse with time.
Thank you for your observations.
Carl,
I agree with your assessment. I also have a history question for you or whomever has an answer - How did with actually ended up with a 2 party system? I know we have always basically only had 2 parties, starting with the democrats and the whigs, but how have we managed to maintain that as our country grew?
Sharon.......I cannot prove why this exists but I have an opinion. I think by starting with the two party system, for whatever reasons, essentially doomed us to an eternity of two parties. Since with two parties, one of which was dominant at different times in our history, they would, I believe, come together to suppress any upstart party so they would not have more competition. There have been 3rd party attempts at least for 110-120 years (to Teddy R at least) and several in the last few decades, but none "took hold." I believe John Anderson, George Wallace and Ross Perot demonstrated with up to 15 plus percent of the vote in Primaries and General Elections that another party had possibilities of maturing into a competent and able force. Also Ralph Nader had some success though to a smaller degree.
But with 3 parties, unless one replaced an existing party, is worse than two I believe. I still think no party is best.
As frustrating as it is, it is the most orderly way for a transition of power. Otherwise you have what most developing countries have which is chaos. Letting the two top people go at it in a general election "run-off" might sound attractive but if each only garnered say 20%, that means 60% of the people have had their ideas and beliefs rejected. Chances are when the general election rolled around, they'd be even less interested in the process. With the 2 party system, at least they could feel they're part of the process.
I'm still a big believer in getting involved and presenting a coherent argument for your position. That's how Reagan was able to eventually become President (remember 1980 was not his first attempt) and become arguably the most popular president of the 20th century. Reagan was making the same stump speeches for Goldwater back in '64, but he stayed on point for his entire career. The country eventually saw what he was saying and the rest, as they say, is history.
Thanks guys, I'm with you on both your comments. I do wonder and at times pray that we have that "dark horse" third party show up like Abe Lincoln did with the start of the Republican party.
A meritocracy might make a nice change.
C'mon,if a schoolchild wrote that our current form of government was a kakistocracy (government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens) or kleptocracy (government characterized by rampant greed and corruption),would we give them a failing grade?
Sometimes,it seems as if our political factions comptete to see who can eliminate its rivals and insitute an oligarchy with its clique in control rather than race to see who can serve its constituents the best at the least cost in the fastest amount of time.
The person who is serious about representing his constiuents is too often viewed as an anomaly that will soon be destroyed or made ineffectual by his own virtue.
In lieu of competence and integrity,it's about obtaining then maintaining a position rather than doing anything with the job one has.
Another thing we might try is having single six year terms or saying officials can have unlimited non-consecutive terms.
Anything to have our leaders come from the common populace,retain their ties to the real world then go back to live with the situations they helped create.
Making law is rather like making love.
The minute a person starts doing it for money instead of caring about the other folks,the nurturing,creative,protective and affirmative aspects are lost.
The focus becomes how many people can one screw before being put out of business.
If we can restore the appropriate purpose and priorities to those appointed and elected then matters will be healthier,safer and a good deal more pleasurable for all concerned.
Give us more leaders who are faithful partners (rather those who sell themselves and make no committment) and we might have a government we trust enough to give long term support rather than exchange for new faces that lure with more dazzle and prettier speeches.
You know the election process is fundamentally flawed when an idiot like George W. Bush is elected.
Case closed!
Not so much the process as the parties. The Democrats seem to lose only because they run more flawed canditates.
Thanks all for your comments......Tim Baker... I realize the top two may win with a plurality far short of a majority, so may a candidate in our primary system and General Elections as well. At least the top two, and only two, will assure the majority speaks in the General Election and if some don't bother to vote, they will remain a part of the problem.
People have forgotten that a Presidential trivia question is "Who was elected President twice when both times more than half of those voting didn't want him?" Answer, Bill Clinton. 42% in 1988 and 49% in 1992. Tim this is very nearly your example of 60% not wanting the candidate and this is in the General Election.
Redistricting or gerrymandering has entrenched the two party system as never before. There are only a small number of congressional districts that are deemed competitive. The predominant party's congressman from a particular district does not have to worry about compromising and doing what is right for the country because he knows he will be reelected because he is of the predominant party. I think this is what has led to the one upping and the inability of the two parties to sit down and work through issues to the betterment of our nation.
By "generation long mantra", I assume you mean a spoken one. Both have had the same unspoken theme for many years. Their objective is to divide and distract hoping to earn some scraps now and then from their masters table.
I do not believe there are really 2 parties anyway. There is absolutely no difference between the major two in respect to the important issues. Any time there is a candidate on either side who has some interesting ideas, they are marginalized without fail. Unfortunately, the way I see it both parties ultimately answer to the same capital, and have for 200 years. Until everyone gets involved and can support an independent third (or fourth) party with cash as well as votes taking back our government from business, we will continue to see insignificant divisive issues dominating our thinking and debates and we will not see any improvement. If improvement is attainable anyway.
I like your first idea, but I fear that every candidate would not have a fair shot at their bid for office. Not that they do now, but I could see more potential for complete domination of government. Again, Capitol will have the advantage. Good propaganda does not always provide a good government, especially in changing hard times. Similar to when the Nazis took power in Germany.
Tim Baker, I do not know if giving the people the illusion of feeling like they are a part of the process is a benefit at all. I would much rather see the people actually being a part of the process. The way I see it, the illusion is the problem.
Actually George W. Bush won the 2000 election with only 47.9% of the popular vote while Al Gore had 48.4% of the votes. In 2004, President Bush won 50.04% of the popular votes while John Kerry won 48.3%.
So Bush isn't that far off from Clinton considering he wasn't the popular choice in his first election and just barely in the second one. Plus there is the fact that if allowed a chance to run for a third term, we all know Clinton would have had a better chance of winning than Bush could ever dream of considering their approval ratings at the end of their respective second terms(Clinton 65%, Bush 28%).
I guess it is hard for Carl to actually have a nonbiased political discussion when his comments bleed Republican.
talk about flawed, when the democrats cant come up with a candidate better than that idiot George Bush.
greasemonkey
And the sad thing is, Neither did the Republicans
People have forgotten that a Presidential trivia question is "Who was elected President twice when both times more than half of those voting didn't want him?" Answer, Bill Clinton. 42% in 1988 and 49% in 1992. Tim this is very nearly your example of 60% not wanting the candidate and this is in the General Election.
-- Posted by cmcclanahan on Mon, Jul 21, 2008, at 9:52 AM
I just wanted to make a correction to the years Carl posted... They should have beeen 1992 (with 42% of the popular vote), and 1996 (with 49% of the popular vote)... I suppose that would explain why people have forgotten a trivia question that doesn't even make sense?
As for the low "approval ratings" of Congress and the President. Our news media uses fundamentally flawed statistical methods which do not accurately reflect the population at large. Besides, when is the last time anyone of us were polled and asked what we thought about the President and Congress? It's called ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) where you should take more than one sample and figure out if your test statistic is outside the critical statistic... Which obviously has not been done, because a majority of people in MULTIPLE states were not polled... ANYWAYS....
The two-party system is fundamentally flawed, there should be three, at minimum. After all, there are three classes of society: upper, middle, lower... three age groups: elderly, adult, children, and three variations of those age groups: men, women, and children.... So to fairly represent "the people" it would be more beneficial to have substantial representation from at least three different "parties".
However, the original idea of bicameral legislation i.e. House of Rep's and Senate (NOT a two party system) has been around since the Connecticut Compromise, which took place during the Philadelphia Convention in 1787
The only president ever elected without belonging to a major political party was our very first, George Washington ;) Because even he, understand those parties did not best reflect the ideas and needs of the people. The Federalist Party was the first large party founded by Alexander Hamilton (not sure of the dates or longevity of the party). Get this, the second major political party be introduced to America was called, none other than the "Democratic-Republican" Party, founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Please note: The Republicans of Civil War times were actually the Northern states (from the likes of Lincoln, etc) who favored abolition and a United States... Democrats at the time were predominant in the South and were fighting for rights to own slaves and maintain independence from the North. Those parties have undergone a 180 degree change since then, and neither party today represents those of Civil War times.
Long story short, the two party system, just like the electoral college were good ideas for the time, but just like the rest of the developed world we should learn to advance, make amendments to our Constitution that more accurately reflect the times, than holding out for nostalgia of what was perfect for the 1700s... What was unique and formidable then, is now outdated and unnecessary. Let's begin rewriting history to better suit the needs and ideas of the 21 century. After all, there was no mention of electronic voting in the Constitution, nor is there an amendment for it... But one would think, everything should change with time.
On a side note, there are TWO "notable" countries that use a two party system... One is the U.S.A and the other is Jamaica. Hmm, and some really thought we were the most advanced nation on earth, or at least the most politically dynamic country... ROFL.
Jaxpike.......I love your statement "There is the fact that if allowed....."......Of course your "fact" is your opinion, in which you are entitled to, of what may have happened in a hypothetical situation. You make no allowances that others might not think your opinions rise to the level of factual. If it is factual, you surely can prove it from several sources. I would like to see these sources. And your last statement clearly shows your total inability to intellectually add to the debate of the issue at hand, so you shoot the messenger. Very adult.
Darrack.....I stand corrected on the dates....You are, of course, correct.
Hmm... Not sure if the misspelling of my name was intentional, but hey.. I like it. LOL...
-Darrack
I know I am an adult because I actually think for myself and not some political party line unlike some other people.
BTW . . . it is fact that Clinton would have had a better "CHANCE" to get re-elected than the current president based on approval ratings alone. I said "CHANCE" . . . maybe you should learn to read!
I have often wondered if there are only two parties, because the majority of the people dont research their candidates and feel its easier to vote for the "R" or the "D". They have aligned themselves with one party or the other because that party is closer to their beliefs, even if they disagree with most of what the party believe. It makes it much easier on the average american to ignore the candidate and vote party lines, because they dont have to research the candidate. Most people boil it down to the Republicans are for big business and the Democrats are for big government. While it is much more complex than that. I dont align my self with either major party, because neither one stands for what I believe.
I have always considered myself independant when it comes to voting, typically conservative. With the upcoming election most of us "conservatives" do not want to vote for either canidate. If one of the smaller parties could come up with a "charismatic" enough person to run, they just might have a chance to win the next election. The important thing is for people to check out who they are voting for and do they agree with your beliefs.
Darrick........Sorry about that.....I am getting into too big a hurry lately, I guess...Making more mistakes than usual, which are quite enough already.
Jackspike.......Thanks for your assertion I can't read. Typical. I think the facts are, if Clinton were allowed to run for a third term, we wouldn't have known Bush's approval rating. That is most of us. You, obviously can see in the future. It is no provable, documentable fact that Clinton had a better CHANCE to beat Bush as you stated. I guess I had better get to my reading lesson.
BTW Jackspike......Don't you think it odd that, with your omnipetent mental powers that a Republican would call for the destruction of the Republican Party.
I have also wondered why the media or the general public doesnt give much attention to the third party candidates. Most of the time they are aligned really close with the majority of amreicans. Closer than any current party.
Who is Jackspike?
Also, I never said that certain Republicans were particularly bright so who knows, maybe they would call for their own destruction. Just look at Bush . . . he has done enough on his own to destroy his own party plus the likes of Larry Craig and Mark Foley.
greasemonkey,
The general public doesn't give attention to third party candidates because OUR media have become nothing more than propaganda machines for the status quo. Most have been swallowed by megacorps whose purposes align with the hidden agendas and ideologies of our current two party system. Our nation's founding was fueled by small independent news mongers who were not afraid to represent the lofty ideals of freedom, liberty and justice for the common man. Alas, those days appear to be gone; replaced by criminal ideas like, "repeat a lie often enough and it will be believed."
Darrick,
Do you imply that we should accept the sophistication of paperless ballots? I would answer that with, "Hogwash!" Without a paper trail, there is absolutely no way to prove or disprove election results. Anyone who accepts computerized voting is forfeiting their fundamental right to having their voice heard. It is a proven fact that the candidate you select on a touch screen may not be the candidate for whom your vote is registered. It is time for America to return to her roots and demand paper ballots, period. Although even they may be manipulated, at least there is a possibility of having evidence to support a decision. Electronically there is NOTHING! I don't care how sophisticated electronic balloting appears, give me paper and a marking implement!
Dear Mr. McClanahan:
What an interesting subject. Do away with the two major political parties? Don't you realize that under those circumstances someone with 'common sense' could get elected? What then would be the plight of the perpetual welfare recipients?
Now that we are in the computer age, with the ability to sort millions of names, addresses, etc. in only a few seconds, perhaps it is time to elect our officials by simply writing in their names. No candidate filled pre-written ballots, just the office followed by a blank line.
Oh, by the way Mr. McClanahan, why haven't you told us earlier that your blood is republican?
Respectfully,
GarHawk
Darrick,
Do you imply that we should accept the sophistication of paperless ballots? I would answer that with, "Hogwash!" Without a paper trail, there is absolutely no way to prove or disprove election results. Anyone who accepts computerized voting is forfeiting their fundamental right to having their voice heard. It is a proven fact that the candidate you select on a touch screen may not be the candidate for whom your vote is registered. It is time for America to return to her roots and demand paper ballots, period. Although even they may be manipulated, at least there is a possibility of having evidence to support a decision. Electronically there is NOTHING! I don't care how sophisticated electronic balloting appears, give me paper and a marking implement!
-- Posted by dmcg on Wed, Jul 23, 2008, at 1:05 AM
It's too bad you make assumptions before giving an answer to your rhetorical question. I think electronic voting is the only modern way of casting ballots, since we are a "I want it now society" and do not wish to wait months to figure out who is elected.. However, EACH machine should print two receipts... One for you, and one for the poll workers... This way, you not only have one electronic vote, but TWO tangible copies on paper so that if any issues arise, you can prove who you did or did not vote for... Maybe we should ask Florida just how well paper ballots alone served their people.
Garhawk...Thanks for your comments..I like your little (non-capitalized) republican..I'll have my blood checked for this parameter at my next lab work-up. If it comes back positive, I will tell the world.
Darrick.....I agree.....Electronic voting is here to stay and we should demand it be perfected to the point it has credibility with the populace.. Your suggestion of the receipts might work, but I can't imagine the government being able to maintain a reliable filing system of the chits....Nor people keeping them for that matter.. I fear that only the ones that are interested and really care would try to keep up with them.....Good suggestion and at least, unlike others, a reasonable attempt to find a solution to a real potential problem.
Thanks Carl.. I tried. ;)
Darrick,
Florida did not have the old traditional paper and pencil ballots. They had a mechanical system. Most of these systems are nothing more than money makers for the manufacturers. I am old, and perhaps a bit cranky, but we voted with paper and pencil for decades and never had a mishap. I and many other people stayed and watched the ballots being counted. That was fair, honest, above-board and accurate. I have seen nothing ensuing that compares. So what if you have to wait two days for an outcome. I'd rather KNOW my ballot was accurately counted than to have all the razzmatazz out there.
While your idea of a paper receipt from an electronic device is interesting, I still doubt its credibility. The voting would be counted by the computers instantly. There is plenty of information available to indicate the suspect nature of their accuracy.
And their isn't enough information available to question the nature of paper ballot accuracy??? If you don't think human beings can literally throw away ballots they don't want to see... or change the results, then your faith in humankind is much stronger than mine. We live in a corrupt world (politically) and those who build their own Diebold machines to essentially "Switch" the vote, can send partisan precint leaders to the polls to turn away voters...
Case in point, the GOP has been accused and it has been documented that they sent Ron Paul supporters away from polls prior to being able to cast their votes for illegitimate reasons. And in various states with paper ballots voter turnout for him was much higher than the amount of votes recorded. Either way is not perfect, but if you don't want to rely on computers to do the work for you, you could always write to me by mail...
I do not believe that you "never had a mishap" with paper ballots... I'm not sure how old you are either, but I do recall multitudes of African American voters having their votes changed in numerous elections throughout recent history. It effects everyone, regardless of race or ethnicity... So the best way to attempt perfection is the have a check and balance system. One electronic vote, and AT LEAST one tangible copy of your vote via a receipt. That way, if you feel your vote wasn't counted and your precinct is accused of any illegal activity they could cleared from the allegations or prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law...
I think that is an awesome idea, giving a reciept while using an electronic ballot. I have always wondered how you could keep ballots straight with no tampering, and I can see several ways to cheat them if a person really wanted to.
Good point Darrick... Every time I use an ATM or swipe my card at any retailer, I don't just hope the right amount clears my bank.. I get a tangible copy of my purchase each time. That way, when or if there is a discrepancy my tangible copy (receipt) always assures accuracy. What a brilliant idea!!!!!!!!