A not particularly modest proposal. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14953417
A not particularly modest proposal

Just as ancient Gaul was divided into three parts, so the American voters are today divided into the Republicans, the Democrats and the undecided. In the following argument I intend to show that the undecided voters can, and should, play a remarkable and perhaps existential role in ensuring the continuation of a government 'of the people, by the people and for the people' in these united states.

Many know the maxim, 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' [John Dalberg, Lord Acton.(1834-1902).] The writers of the Constitution of the United States of America also held a similar belief. The understanding that power should be limited shaped certain stipulations in the remarkable document that they created.

The founding fathers, as they are known, were elitists. As such, they were not willing to entrust the power of the vote to the ordinary citizen without safeguards. It was to that end that they created the extraordinary institute, the Electoral College. They also stipulated that the members of the upper [elite] Federal legislative house, the United States Senate, were to be chosen by their fellow political elitists; the members of the legislatures of the several States. These are facts spelled out in the Constitution itself and, as such, are not subject to dispute.

The writers of the Constitution were also well aware of the personal failings of their peers. In a rare example of 'Physician, heal thyself'*, they attempted to forestall the taking over of the entire federal governmental machinery by a single group. The three sections of the Federal government they blueprinted -- the Administration, the Legislature and the Supreme Court -- are a rocks, scissors paper arrangement. Each can act as a restraint on the others through various means.

With the passage of time, political parties came to vie for more and more power. Little by little, they have chipped away at the restraints to the attainment of control of all three branches. The most recent examples are those involving the politicizing of the Supreme Court. It's now possible that a single party, given a charismatic President and the tools of control that have been honed for decades, can control the federal government. Once that has been achieved, there is little that can be done to avoid one party rule, with all it portends.

There are two ways in which such a conclusion to this American experiment in democracy can be avoided. Both entail the votes of the independents. While the two parties continue to cement their voting bases and insure the votes that the bases will deliver, the independents remain free to make a choice. That choice, though, must be informed by an understanding of what is at stake. It is not which party 'wins'. Rather, it is the continuation of our democracy as we know it.

The first and most obvious way for the independent voters to exercise their franchise in the nation's interest is to vote so that the President of the United States can act as an ideological balance. If the Supreme Court and the Legislature are firmly held by one party, the independents should place the Presidency of the United States of America in the hands of the opposing party.

The second, and less obvious, concerns the Legislature. The independent voters should vote so that the two Houses are not controlled by the same party. That, in and of itself, can prove to be a check of sufficient power to avoid a future of single party rule. At the present time, with an off-year federal election less than a month away, the value of such an action by the independent voters of the United States of America is great indeed. It is not known to this humble scribe whether a sufficient number of independent voters are privy to that knowledge.

* Luke 4:23
Last edited by Torus34 on 14 Oct 2018 16:47, edited 1 time in total.
#14953438
You're misunderstanding a few things. First, the group you're referring to is also called "independent voters". Second, if this was done nothing would get accomplished in government. Third, political parties aren't stable ideologically. Consider the "party switch" (the existence of which is debated) where the Democrats were pro-segregation and against the civil rights act and the Republicans were for it, but now it's sort of the opposite (except that segregation is coming back into style, weirdly, for Democrats). Political parties change what they stand for and what they want over time and this means that dividing things up like this would not make any sense because if one party wins, that usually means that most people support their policies. Things like the electoral college, branches of government and the supreme court were not instituted just to have a separation of powers, they were also instituted so that things like the "tyranny of the majority" would have more difficulty setting in. Liberals right now like the tyranny of the majority but if there's no protection for minorities, what would happen if liberals decide to target new or different minorities later on? It probably wouldn't please those people...

In other words you seem to have simplified Democrats, Republicans and independents down to being different tribes or subcultures which is not really what a political party in America is ideally supposed to be.
#14953445
Actually what you propose is more ‘do nothing government’. We would be better off to elect one party that could pursue their agenda to see if it actually works. Currently, both parties use obstruction to prevent either from exposing the idiocy of some of their proposals. Elect an overwhelming Republican Congress and give Trump the next 6 years to prove his proposals. If they fail, then throw them all out and elect Democrats. We are resilient enough to experiment.
#14953446
Hong Wo: I can best answer your comments by responding to the last sentence. The Republican and Democrat parties, as they are presently seen by their members, adherents and camp followers, are indeed tribes. I contend that they are, to use your words, not '... what a political party in America is ideally supposed to be.' They are no longer even close to that lovely vision.

One Degree: In the past, one-party rule left us, the people, with a relatively neutral Supreme Court available as a check on the government turning into a 'one vote, one time, once' single party state. I contend that each party is now focussed upon precisely that eventual goal -- a court that will rubber-stamp their actions. I'll not bother to cite the straws in the wind. They're obvious. As an aside, consider the 'give one party the reins' in a two party system wavering on the brink of one party rule vs. doing the same in a parliamentary, multiple party system which includes a 'vote of no confidence' provision.

Thank you both for taking time to read and understand the thrust of my little scribble.
#14953603
I am against giving one "side" exclusive power for too long just to see what would happen and, if it gets to be a mess, give it to the other "side". It has never been my observation that absolute power in one place for an extended period has ever fostered the growth of wisdom. The country/world is much too populated to experiment thusly and technology way faster and getting faster than in days gone by. An unfixable disaster could arise quickly. Checks and balances are not optional IMO. Today's mentality seems to be one of winner take all. Destroy the opposite idea. How about the crazy idea of two sides of an issue sitting down, discussing solutions and ……. compromising :eek: . I am old enough to recall when this used to be done from time to time. Such a dynamic seems fair, if I may be so bold. Let's say Democrats secure one house of congress next month. Perhaps this would motivate Donald to actually discuss possible options rather than take the dictatorial route. As in, "My friends the Democrats on the opposite side of the aisle." :lol: He does, after all, represent all citizens …… even the ones not in his "base". The politics of divide and conquer are doing a disservice to America. It would be nice to have a president who brought the nation together. Unified it. That would take real leadership skill and make America great. Take an example from jimjam :eek: ………. I was born and raised in NYC and attended the Woodstock music event in 1969. I am married to the daughter of an Ohio Baptist preacher whose son by another marriage is a Baptist preacher. I call us the Baptist and the Bohemian and ….. we love each other.

Remember Teddy Roosevelt's "square deal" for both labor and capital?
#14953799
jimjam: Sir, if you think through my proposal, it will lead to the two parties being forced to compromise in order to go before the voters and show accomplishment. The elimination of most of the 'pork barrel' spending in Congress was an anti-compromise action. Compromise, in our American federal system, is a mechanism oiled by pork.

Regards.

He is still under checks and balances while other[…]

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainly[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

The claim is a conditional statement. This is one[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I don't know who are you are referring to, but th[…]