It is my belief that one party/or political belief is a disaster for America. I honestly believe our political environment needs a variety of parities in power vs. the democrats or republicans always in power. As a socialist, I believe if by a fluke that if the government was majority socialist, it would be soooo screwed up. We honestly need more parties in Washington for a balance of power. Absolute power brings absolute corruption. I would honestly like to see more libertarians, greens, socialists, constitutionalists, reformers, etc. would be a benefit for our nation vs. the two party system we have now. Yes, I am idealistic in my beliefs. However, it is time we give other parties a chance. I dont like system as it is now or even when clinton was in office. I am an odd ball on my beliefs. But I am honest. How does everyone else feel here about the current two party system?
One Party I agree that one party control is not beneficial for the country. However, I do not think that the Socialist, Green Party, or any other small organization can bring a balance back to our government in the near future. The Democratic Party is the only party that could become relevent enough to oppose the party-line held by the Republicans within one or two election periods. It doesn't matter if you are Republican or Democrat. A balance of power must be made so that one party cannot push through laws that serve them exclusively. The government works best when the two sides need to compromise a deal to benefit all.
Proportional Representation via State Constitutional Amendment via Ballot Initiative I used to be a campaign coordinator for U.S. Term Limits, so this is a subject of some interest for me. However, the term limits movement is basically dead in the water, and I'm extremely pessimistic about the prospects for other meaningful kinds of electoral reform. The two wings of the Incumbent Party will never allow anything that threatens their electoral duopoly. I suppose in states with ballot initiative, one could try an initiative for a state constitutional amendement that would cause the state's delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives to be selected by state-wide party lists rather than single member districts. The following states are the largest in population that allow their state constitution to be amended by ballot initiative. California sends 53 people to the House, so any minor party getting 2.5% percent of the vote would send someone to Washington. Florida sends 25 people to the U.S. House, so four percent would be enough for a minor party to win a seat. Illinois sends 19, so 5.5% would be required. Ohio sends 18, about the same as IL. Michigan sends 15, requiring almost 7%. There's a map of which states allow their constitutions to be amended by ballot initiative. Suffice it to say that after Michigan minor party victories even under this system grow progressivle unlikely as the percentage needed for a single seat grows to double digits. One problem is that the duopoly would tie this sort of reform up in the courts for as long as possible. That's what killed Congressional term limits. That also killed the line item veto. Someone would surely try to use the Voting Rights Act as a roadblock. (The thing is, I expect under this sort of system more minorities would be elected, as they wouldn't be penned into gerrymandered districts but could run as the Black Panther Party or the Aztlan Party or what have you.) Another problem is that you'd then have maybe ten genuine outsiders in Congress. Great, but what then? The only hope is that the major parties would be divided such that minor parties would hold the balance of power. That's not inconceivable, and one sees countries with parliamentary systems where small partners in coalitions get what they want by enabling a larger party to take power. It would be a sea change for Washington, though. Anyway, I'm just throwing this out for comment. It's the only thing I could think of to say other than "It's hopeless." -=Steve=-
