How to Turn Republicans and Democrats Into Americans

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/how-to-turn-republicans-and-democrats-into-americans/8521/2/

Interesting read but I'm sure there are a few here on this board who will disagree....

Highlighted points from the article:

- Break the power of partisans to keep candidates off the general-election ballot.
- Turn over the process of redrawing congressional districts to independent, nonpartisan commissions.
- Allow members of any party to offer amendments to any House bill and—with rare exceptions—put those amendments to a vote.
- Change the leadership structure of congressional committees.
- Fill committee vacancies by lot.
- Choose committee staff solely on the basis of professional qualifications.

The final paragraph states it well:

In a democracy that is open to intelligent and civil debate about competing ideas rather than programmed for automatic opposition to another party’s proposals, we might yet find ourselves able to manage the task of self-government. Our current political dysfunction is not inevitable; it results from deliberate decisions that have backfired and left us mired in the trenches of hyper-partisan warfare. Political parties will not disappear; as a free people, we will continue to honor freedom of association. The goal is not to destroy parties but to transcend them; to welcome their contributions but end their dominance; and to take back from these private clubs control of our own elections and our own Congress.

So, what do you think?

(Oh BTW, this is a Republican ex-congressman, which I can say does not act like one in current context of republicans...)

Nothing to argue with there. 0% chance of it happening. Party apparatchiks are too entenched.

chickaree wrote: Nothing to argue with there. 0% chance of it happening. Party apparatchiks are too entenched.

Maybe. Like you are seeing with Boehner and the TEA Party right now, political parties are constantly playing a balancing game between appealing to the moderates and the hard core radicals.

The radical members of the party are quicker to volunteer and send money to influence who becomes the candidate, the party itself wants to pick the person who keeps them in power. Like we saw last year, the radicals like Maes and Buck won the primary but couldn't win the election. Centrists like Bennet won their primary and the election.
One idea that is gaining some traction is reverse gerrymandering congressional seats. Hickenlooper proposes that the districts be composed of equal parts Republican and Democrat voters so that the winning candidates would have to appeal to the moderate voters to win.
In the current climate, radicals like Charlie Wrangel and Ron Paul don't have to moderate their platform because they have a safe seat.

I don't agree with you calling Tea Party people hard core radicals. I see nothing radical about wanting the government to stop growing, to demand fiscal responsibility (with our tax dollars) , and to allow businesses to reap the rewards of their risks and capital investments.

There are radicals in the Tea Party, in the Republican Party, and in the Democratic party, but they will always be in the minority (hopefully)

What I have been advocating for quite some time now. The corruption of the public offices that has occurred as we have marched towards a national government is a direct result of that march. Since the parties are allowed to limit the candidates that appear on the ballot to only one from their party, what we have as a result is an elected body more beholden to their party, and its special interests, than to the people who elected them.

Get rid of the 12th Amendment and lets get back to casting two equal votes for president. No more party ticket for the executive office. I am of the opinion that we would have a much better executive branch if the citizens were allowed to cast their vote in the general election, instead of a primary or caucus, for the person they felt would be the best executives. Given a choice between Obama, McCain, Clinton, Romney, Edwards, et al, we would have less party power driving the business of government than we do at the moment. Same for the elections for the representatives to the federal government from the states, open them up so that there is more than one person from each party on the ballot if more than one person from each party wishes to serve their fellow state citizens in that post. Same for the elected executive of the state, the legislators in the state and even the local dog catcher. One candidate from each party breeds party above person when votes are cast on election day.

And we don't have to get the approval of the parties to do it, at least no here in Colorado. In this state we have the ability to place initiatives on the ballot both for statute laws and for amendments to our state constitution. We, the citizens of the state from which all power of government is derived, have the ability, and the opportunity, to tell the parties how our elections will be held instead of allowing the parties to dictate it to us.

We could forbid the party ticket for executive positions and require that there only be candidates for president on our ballots. Winner of the popular vote gets the vote for president from our electors and runner up gets the state vote for Vice President. Same for our state executive - no Governor/Lt Governor party ticket, only candidates for Governor. Each citizen casts one vote for the office of Governor only. That will all but ensure at least 2 candidates from each party on the ballot for the office and give the citizens the opportunity to vote for the person, not the party, that they feel would make the best executive of the state or nation for the next 4 years.

SS109 wrote: One idea that is gaining some traction is reverse gerrymandering congressional seats. Hickenlooper proposes that the districts be composed of equal parts Republican and Democrat voters so that the winning candidates would have to appeal to the moderate voters to win.
In the current climate, radicals like Charlie Wrangel and Ron Paul don't have to moderate their platform because they have a safe seat.

I would have to oppose such a plan because certain areas/occupations tend to attract people who believe one way or the other. The ranchers should not have their ability to choose an elected official who represents their interests put in jeopardy by including in the district a group of city dwellers who have different priorities and visa versa simply to balance out the number of people who choose to affiliate themselves with one party or another.

The purpose of having an elected representatives is to bring to a government entity with greater responsibilities an individual who represents the interests of a smaller group governed by that entity. You are not going to find a plurality of political affiliation on the eastern plains of this state, on the western slope, in the foothills or in the urban environments. Denver has a different set of priorities than does Colorado Springs or Pueblo, even though all are cities. It would make no sense to take half of Denver and put it into the same district as Colorado Springs and the other half into a district with the counties in the eastern plains for the purposes of party plurality. That would not result in an elected representative who was capable of representing the interests of their constituents in a legislative body.

PS,
Ever heard of gorilla primaries? It is being looked at in California, the primaries would put all the candidates on the ballot and the 2 top vote getters would win the right to have a run off, so it would most likely be 2 Dems running against each other for the general election in Boulder and 2 Repubs running against each other in Colorado Springs.

TEA Party people radicals? I do think what they propose, running goverment without excessive overspending, over-taxing, and excessive debt is quite radical! No one, not a Republican nor a Democrat has actually cut overall Federal spending unless a war has finished up.

PS,
I also hate the idea of equal party Congressional seats. In those scenarios, it is likely 40+% of people in the district didn't vote for their Rep. I would instead love to live in a place where it was 90% Republican and they liked their Congressman.

well, the idea worked for one post ... then back to the usual crap... I appreciate the try...

SS109 wrote: PS,
I also hate the idea of equal party Congressional seats. In those scenarios, it is likely 40+% of people in the district didn't vote for their Rep. I would instead love to live in a place where it was 90% Republican and they liked their Congressman.

Don't let the door hit ya....