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.

 

[dismal]

I really don't like how parties function and I don't like the way the system is built around them.

I agree that the system should not be built around them. They should be treated like private clubs. People who freely associate but get no special standing within the law. But that also means the members get to decide what their goals are, etc.

 

[lpetrich]

To the extent that they had any opinion at all about this issue, the US Founding Fathers preferred no political parties. George Washington, for instance, thought that they represented dangerous factional squabbling. The original version of the US Constitution had no provisions for dealing with them.

But a no-party political system was not to be.

I think that we ought to recognize the operation of  Duverger's law and seriously consider proportional representation.

 

[Blahface]

To the extent that they had any opinion at all about this issue, the US Founding Fathers preferred no political parties. George Washington, for instance, thought that they represented dangerous factional squabbling. The original version of the US Constitution had no provisions for dealing with them.

But a no-party political system was not to be.

I think that we ought to recognize the operation of  Duverger's law and seriously consider proportional representation.

You can't ban political parties without banning freedom of speech – which is actually what Adams ultimately tried to do. In their naive optimistic view of how politics would play out, they created a system that ensured that there would always be two parties at each others' throat. The best you can do is organize government in a way that makes it hard for two dominate powerful parties to emerge.