What should be the role of political parties?

[blahface]

I really don't like how parties function and I don't like the way the system is built around them. I hate that the US congress is set up so that it is so important for a single party to get a majority and it just becomes about the two parties trying to undermine the other instead of doing what is best for the country (although this is mostly the Republicans doing this). Even the third parties seem to be more concerned with the tribal pride of electing one their own than actually addressing the issues. Parties should focus implementing issues – not just trying to get into power.

The role of the party should be the following:

• Be an advocacy group for a set of issues
• Collect signatures for candidates who share their views to help them get on the ballot
• Act as a unified voting bloc to support and endorse the candidates compatible with their ideology.
• Act as guide for independent voters who share a portion of their views with the party.
• Not to nominate candidates to be put on the ballot or have any special privileges in giving ballot access to candidates.

The problem is that the ridiculous first past the post voting system makes it impossible for parties to function this way. The divide and conquer nature of the elections force voters to choose from one of the two main parties or throw their vote away. It doesn't give too many options for people who may be fiscally conservative and socially liberal or the other way around. It encourages parties to gain power by being uncooperative and undermining the other.

I think the best way to fix the voting problem is to have non-partisan primaries with approval voting. All candidates, regardless of party would run in a single primary. Voters would be allowed to vote for all the candidate's they approve. The two most approved candidates would face off in a general election. Parties would be able to support multiple candidates and candidates could be supported by multiple parties. This would allow for all parties to have influence and act in a manner I specified. It would also provide a counterbalance to money in politics. In order to eke out a victory, candidates would have to focus on the popular issues and win the support of the most popular parties – even if it means alienating wealthy donors whose views are incompatible.

Another problem is just the way congress is set up. The House and Senate leaders have way too much power to affect the agenda. Ideally, the agenda should be voted on by all members and time should be doled out proportionally. There should also be further debate on publicly viewable message boards so representatives don't have to be queued up in order to speak. All representatives should be able to vote on a bill at any time and not in a single role call.

Most importantly, there shouldn't be any standstills in congress in which appointments are constantly held up. Instead of approving candidates, the President and the Senate should elect a candidate to a position. The President should nominate a candidate and the relevant Senate committee should be able to nominate additional candidates. The President and the Senate should use a Condorcet method to elect one of those candidates to a position.

[Elheru Aran]

Your post is about a good 2/5ths regarding the way Congress works. That's more a matter of governmental structure rather than politics; it doesn't really matter what party is in power, that's the way it's set up anyway.

As for parties. They essentially function to be a mouthpiece for segments of the population to voice their political opinions by electing people to represent those beliefs.

The problem they currently have is that right now the conservative party (R) largely overpowers the nominally liberal party by virtue of having a more unified message that most of its adherents can agree with. The Democrats, on the other hand, are more divided and can't necessarily agree on much.

I'm also not sure how you think a party nominates candidates. At least for President, member delegates from each state vote for the candidate they believe best represents their party. For Senator and Representative, they are 'nominated' by winning primary elections before the general election.

The problem with the elections is that they don't necessarily represent the actual political leanings of the constituents as a whole-- they're more about who can drum up votes on election day. That's why the 2014 elections skewed Republican pretty badly-- the Republicans got out to vote, and the Democrats didn't, even though if you polled the country you might find a slight advantage (averaged out over the whole country) for liberal stances.

[blahface]

Your post is about a good 2/5ths regarding the way Congress works. That's more a matter of governmental structure rather than politics; it doesn't really matter what party is in power, that's the way it's set up anyway.

As for parties. They essentially function to be a mouthpiece for segments of the population to voice their political opinions by electing people to represent those beliefs.

The problem they currently have is that right now the conservative party (R) largely overpowers the nominally liberal party by virtue of having a more unified message that most of its adherents can agree with. The Democrats, on the other hand, are more divided and can't necessarily agree on much.

I'm also not sure how you think a party nominates candidates. At least for President, member delegates from each state vote for the candidate they believe best represents their party. For Senator and Representative, they are 'nominated' by winning primary elections before the general election.

The problem with the elections is that they don't necessarily represent the actual political leanings of the constituents as a whole-- they're more about who can drum up votes on election day. That's why the 2014 elections skewed Republican pretty badly-- the Republicans got out to vote, and the Democrats didn't, even though if you polled the country you might find a slight advantage (averaged out over the whole country) for liberal stances.

The structure of congress plays a role in how parties have to behave. If you set it up so that a single party has too much power, you are going to give a reason for the other party to obstruct as much as possible.

I understand how parties nominate candidates. I am against how they do it. There should be no party primaries and parties should have no ability to nominate candidates to be on the ballot. The only power they should have in terms of ballot access is to collect signatures for the candidates they like.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't really have any particular problem with the way political parties are structured. I think the problems with our political system are more or less inevitably consequences of the way Congress and the electoral system is constructed, and problems with the parties are more a byproduct of those consequences rather than a problem with the parties in and of themselves.

[blahface]

I don't really have any particular problem with the way political parties are structured. I think the problems with our political system are more or less inevitably consequences of the way Congress and the electoral system is constructed, and problems with the parties are more a byproduct of those consequences rather than a problem with the parties in and of themselves.

Maybe I'm just terrible as communication, but that was actually my point.

[Irbis]

Not to nominate candidates to be put on the ballot or have any special privileges in giving ballot access to candidates.

How you discipline people who stop voting like promised the instant they are elected then?

Parties would be able to support multiple candidates and candidates could be supported by multiple parties.

Can you say "conflict of interest"? Or "no clear direction"?

In order to eke out a victory, candidates would have to focus on the popular issues and win the support of the most popular parties – even if it means alienating wealthy donors whose views are incompatible.

What you do if unified block like Tea Party supports the worst, least electable candidate of every other party to push their fundie in?

Ideally, the agenda should be voted on by all members and time should be doled out proportionally. There should also be further debate on publicly viewable message boards so representatives don't have to be queued up in order to speak. All representatives should be able to vote on a bill at any time and not in a single role call.

They tried to do it in Spanish Republic in 1938. Hint - they lost the war.

If agenda is voted on by all members, it only makes trivial killing of issues for big lobbyists. Hate CO2 reductions? Vote anything tied to global warming out, who can stop your crony puppets from Backwardistan, Nowhere bought by cracking money?

Most importantly, there shouldn't be any standstills in congress in which appointments are constantly held up. Instead of approving candidates, the President and the Senate should elect a candidate to a position. The President should nominate a candidate and the relevant Senate committee should be able to nominate additional candidates. The President and the Senate should use a Condorcet method to elect one of those candidates to a position.

There is excellent video how 20% of the US population can elect a president other 80% opposes. Your system makes for even more crooked lack of representation with tiny % of population having total control.

[blahface]

How you discipline people who stop voting like promised the instant they are elected then?

Don't reelect them or allow for recalls to get them out.

Can you say "conflict of interest"? Or "no clear direction"?

Why is that? Why would there be a conflict of interest if a candidate is endorsed by the “legalize pot party”, “stop fracking party?”, and the “Get Money out of Politics Party.” Not all parties have to be rivals.

What you do if unified block like Tea Party supports the worst, least electable candidate of every other party to push their fundie in?

I wouldn't put it past them to be that stupid, but if they tried that strategy, it would jeopardize their chances of their own candidate making it in the top two.

They tried to do it in Spanish Republic in 1938. Hint - they lost the war.

If agenda is voted on by all members, it only makes trivial killing of issues for big lobbyists. Hate CO2 reductions? Vote anything tied to global warming out, who can stop your crony puppets from Backwardistan, Nowhere bought by cracking money?

I'm not sure I follow you. What I'm suggesting is to allow congress to vote on the schedule for the week. If only 15% of congress want to debate CO2 reductions then 15% of the work week will be allocated towards debating CO2 reductions.

[blahface]

There is excellent video how 20% of the US population can elect a president other 80% opposes. Your system makes for even more crooked lack of representation with tiny % of population having total control.

The Senate already allows for a tiny minority of the the population to obstruct the nomination process. At least my method forces seats to be filled with by a moderate candidate and allows for more independence from a single dominating party.

Btw, I also like CGPGrey's videos and I'm definitely not in favor of the electoral college. I also wouldn't be against the Senate being more proportional in regards to the state population.

[Irbis]

Don't reelect them or allow for recalls to get them out.

But it's like 2nd term president - if you have no one who can decide on a set of reliable candidates, you might have a number of weasels that jump ship after vote for richer backers and you suddenly find yourself without majority.

Why is that? Why would there be a conflict of interest if a candidate is endorsed by the “legalize pot party”, “stop fracking party?”, and the “Get Money out of Politics Party.” Not all parties have to be rivals.

Because they're not parties. They're populist protest movements. Easy to form around issue that might be tertiary in importance or even fundamentally wrong. We had a number of these in Europe recently, like Palikot Movement in Poland or Five Stars in Italy, and they tend to crash and burn once they lose cohesiveness.

Party has some ideology/agenda on much wider number of points, but in order to have a party you need someone to decide these points (and committee might be a bad choice). It is also very rare to have candidate agreeing acceptably with 2 or more parties. Best candidates are those who generally agree with the ideology the most, I'd say, both for party and electorate.

I wouldn't put it past them to be that stupid, but if they tried that strategy, it would jeopardize their chances of their own candidate making it in the top two.

Why? Sometimes, killing anyone who opposes you might be a success. Say, NRA voting any 2 candidates who are pro-gun lobby. In your system, even small block can do that.

I'm not sure I follow you. What I'm suggesting is to allow congress to vote on the schedule for the week. If only 15% of congress want to debate CO2 reductions then 15% of the work week will be allocated towards debating CO2 reductions.

Because it's easier to find even temporary block like this one:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014 ... ine-senate

That will force through pipeline or fracking or whatever if candidates are fuzzy, no one has full control of them, and you can easily bribe them one by one?

Poland had local elections to city and region parliaments 2 days ago, and while you had a lot of local committees running and sometimes winning, all of them were pretty much modelled like mini-party, not fuzzy protest groups.

[blahface]

But it's like 2nd term president - if you have no one who can decide on a set of reliable candidates, you might have a number of weasels that jump ship after vote for richer backers and you suddenly find yourself without majority.

Isn't that basically how it is now? That is Obama 101.

It would be a party's job to vet candidates. Parties that endorse weasels run a risk of losing credibility and support to similar parties that are more reliable.

Because they're not parties. They're populist protest movements. Easy to form around issue that might be tertiary in importance or even fundamentally wrong. We had a number of these in Europe recently, like Palikot Movement in Poland or Five Stars in Italy, and they tend to crash and burn once they lose cohesiveness.

Party has some ideology/agenda on much wider number of points, but in order to have a party you need someone to decide these points (and committee might be a bad choice). It is also very rare to have candidate agreeing acceptably with 2 or more parties. Best candidates are those who generally agree with the ideology the most, I'd say, both for party and electorate.

Parties are only organized that way because the system isn't set up for them to be so small and be effective. Even under proportional representation you can't affect much by having a party with such narrow issues. Under my system, if a party splits up into two similar parties, it doesn’t really matter. They'd probably endorse many of the same candidates anyway. The biggest problem would be people like the Koch brothers setting up misleading parties like the “Citizens for Internet Freedom Party” that would try to elect candidates who oppose net neutrality.

Why? Sometimes, killing anyone who opposes you might be a success. Say, NRA voting any 2 candidates who are pro-gun lobby. In your system, even small block can do that.

I misunderstood you. I assumed you meant one party trying get vote in their favorite candidate and at the same time voting for a weaker candidate so that their favorite has an easier time in the general election.

Yes, in my system, they can do that, but parties that wants reasonable gun control can also have a counter influence. It would be a battle of which candidates have the most popular ideas in aggregate.

I'm not sure I follow you. What I'm suggesting is to allow congress to vote on the schedule for the week. If only 15% of congress want to debate CO2 reductions then 15% of the work week will be allocated towards debating CO2 reductions.

Because it's easier to find even temporary block like this one:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014 ... ine-senate

That will force through pipeline or fracking or whatever if candidates are fuzzy, no one has full control of them, and you can easily bribe them one by one?

It would give more control to monied interests, but it would also be counterbalanced by giving more control to the voters and popular parties. If any senator voted for the pipeline he could lose the support of any party concerned with the environment. Also, under my system, it would be pretty easy to vote out candidates that didn't want to regulate the financial industry.