Take the "Party" Out of Party Politics

Our nation’s forefathers constructed a considerably logical structure to sustain this new and strong democracy. They created a triad of Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches – an intuitive separation to ensure their separate viability. They gave sometimes broad, general guidelines, and at other times very specific details for implementation.

One of these branches, the Legislative, is now in crisis and must be rescued. When the Constitution was written, it did not specify that members of two separate and incompatible parties populate Congress; and yet that is the case today. Our current two-party system of government is destroying the health and well-being of this country, and must be dismantled.

Our elected officials are supposed to be concerned solely with the welfare of American citizens, and yet they have instead adopted a philosophy of narrowly following the tenets of their chosen party, regardless of the specific issue at hand. Rather than looking at each issue on a case-by-case basis and searching for the merit contained therein, they respond in an immediate knee-jerk reaction determining where it rests within the parameters of their individual party philosophy.

Whatever happened to the supposed sincere belief in Bipartisanship so sought after during the Clinton years? That is, after all, the ideal, is it not? -- to have all members of the legislature working together for the betterment of the life and spirit of the American people. As Julian E Zelizer, special reporter for CNN, opines, “(But) bipartisanship is also a valuable objective, and good to have as part of our political mix. When both parties are open to sometimes entering into negotiations and reaching agreements, this improves the chances for major policy breakthroughs that will last over time” (2009, para. 5). In a perfect world, this would be the case, Congress as an altruistic body motivated to unselfishly improve the quality of life for its constituents – all its constituents.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. We, the people, do not have a body of highly moral and objective decision-makers working for “the greater good.” Instead, we have both Senators and Representatives bickering and nitpicking like children with the aim of shoring up the bragging rights of their individual parties. They are more interested in an “us versus them” stance rather than with looking objectively at each issue and making their choices based on the good of the people. This approach is weakening our country and all who reside herein.

This is a terribly unsettling time in our history with many important issues that will affect the short-term and, more importantly, long-term welfare of hundreds of thousands of Americans; and yet these important issues are being used as pawns in the game of “Risk” being played by our legislators. The first Stimulus Package, for example, was voted down because of just this kind of bipartisan bickering. Finally, this much needed legislation was passed, but with strong and blatant Republican resistance. With a strong pro-Republican slant, writer Christopher Beam of Slate Magazine states, “at this moment, unanimous opposition was the smartest stance House Republicans could have taken—both politically and ideologically. Voting against the bill was good politics because it shows that the GOP can't be persuaded by charm alone, presidential or otherwise” (2009, para. 2, 3). Here is an example of ignoring the potential benefits of the issue, and showing more concern for “the party line” and an attitude of resistance for its own sake.

“A nearly $820 billion stimulus package passed the House of Representatives Wednesday without a single Republican vote. The bill now moves to the Senate, where it stands a better chance of picking up at least a modicum of bipartisan support,” says Russell Grim of the Huffington Post (2009, para. 1). How can this be? A bill introduced to aid Middle America amidst one of the greatest financial crises of the last hundred years, and yet those comprising one of the parties in the House all believe that it is bad for the country? What is the rationale here? Are the members of one party blind to the realities of a bill while the other clearly sees its actual relative worth? Is it logical that all members of one “club” have a superior grasp of a concept, and can foretell the future, while the other is ignorant to its shortcomings? Is one party, and one party alone, in possession of a magic pill that grants the ability to clearly see truth and consequences?

The original Bailout Plan was presented to the House in September of 2008 and was crushed by the opposing party. “Following the bill’s failure, both parties embarked on a round of bitter finger-pointing. Congressional Republicans cited a speech by Ms. Pelosi [Democrat] on the House floor that blamed the economic crisis on years of Republican economic policies, including deregulation. … Democrats, dismissing complaints about Rep. Pelosi’s speech, immediately blamed Republicans for failing to deliver enough votes on their end” (Lueck, Paletta & Hitt, 2008, para. 16). Bickering and more bickering, like two teams of second-graders arguing whether Gerry Kowalski crossed the goal line before going outside the birch tree which is clearly out of bounds; this is our Congress.

Democrats are not innocent in this petty war of parties. In a Hyscience.com op-ed article (Abdul, 2008, para. 3) we find, “China is drilling for oil closer to South Florida than American companies are allowed to; outer Continental Shelf drilling was supported by 81 percent of Republicans and opposed by 83 percent of House Democrats; the proposed drilling in Alaska was supported by 91 percent of Republicans and opposed by 86 percent of House Democrats ….new refinery capacity… oil shale exploration…. coal-to-liquid containing stupendous oil equivalents…. lowering the price of gasoline, diesel fuel, home heating oil and cost of goods.” All these proposals for helping to break America’s dependence upon foreign oil were universally approved by at least eighty percent of Republicans, and rejected by at least eighty percent of Democrats. Again, what does one party possibly know that the other does not regarding what is best for the country? Where are these magic pills coming from?!

The time for “politics as usual” must come to an end. We, the American people, have to find a way to get our elected officials in the Legislature to find as their motivation the good of the people, and not “what the party line is.” Why have previous pleas by Americans for bipartisanship gone unheeded? John Nichols, writer for The Nation posted, “Citizens at the grassroots do not want Congress to become a snakepit of partisan backbiting” (2002). Citizens in the very politically savvy town of Newton Pennsylvania were recently interviewed (February 2010) by Washington Post Staff Writer, Paul Kane; and the majority expressed disgust at the partisan politics practiced in the Capitol City. “So the disgust over Washington's dysfunction is even sharper here. The politics they see playing out are ‘a high school game’ of ‘tit for tat,’ a ‘schoolyard game,’ a ‘two-headed snake,’ and the federal city is a place where ‘you can't change anything…’” Citing one of the residents, Leonard Wilson, Kane reports, “Calling himself an ‘idealist,’ Wilson said that ‘one-upmanship’ has made legislative success impossible. ‘It gets in the way of progress. It precludes open thinking,’ he said.”

Bipartisanship is a must. It is the only logical way that the overall good of the nation is achieved. It is what the country wants. That said, I no longer believe that it is possible; the two parties are too dug in and set in their ways. They each see the other as adversaries rather than allies; and if change has not occurred in all this time, I do not see it as a probability in the foreseeable future.

Therefore, I propose a very drastic and yet necessary move – the abolition of the two-party system in the United States. Since these two entities continue to work at cross-purposes to the detriment of the nation, they must go.

To replace our current two-party system, I suggest we implement a form of Proportional Representation (PR) which is currently used successfully in several countries such as Switzerland, Germany, Norway and Finland to name a few. The encyclopedia at AbsoluteAstronomy.com defines PR as: “Proportional representation (PR), sometimes referred to as full representation, is a category of electoral formula aimed at securing a close match between the percentage of votes that groups of candidates (grouped by a certain measure) obtain in elections and the percentage of seats they receive (usually in legislative assemblies).”
There are different forms of Pr, such as party-list proportional representation, however, I believe that the Single Transferable Vote system would be the ideal. Again referring to AbsoluteAstronomy.com’s encyclopedic definition, “The Single transferable vote (STV) is a system of preferential voting designed to minimize ‘wasted’ votes and provide proportional representation while ensuring that votes are explicitly expressed for individual candidates rather than for party lists. It typically achieves this by using multi-seat constituencies (voting districts) and by transferring all votes that would otherwise be wasted to other eligible candidates. … STV initially allocates an elector's vote to his or her most preferred candidate and then, after candidates have been either elected or eliminated, transfers surplus or unused votes according to the voters' stated preferences.”

More simply put, STV functions like a plurality voting system, but is more refined in application. Voters choose a “first choice,” “second choice,” etc. Depending on which of the various available formulae is used, points are allotted to those in the “first choice,” “second choice,” etc. so that a fair representation of the voters’ wishes results. The Ace Network, which describes itself as, “The ACE network promotes credible, and transparent electoral processes with emphasis on sustainability, professionalism and trust in the electoral process,” puts forth this opinion on STV, “as a mechanism for choosing representatives, STV is perhaps the most sophisticated of all electoral systems, allowing for choice between parties and between candidates within parties. …Furthermore, voters can influence the composition of post-election coalitions, as has been the case in the Republic of Ireland, and the system provides incentives for interparty accommodation through the reciprocal exchange of preferences between parties.” As there would be no more “parties” the previous quote could refer to ideologies rather than parties, per se.

To paraphrase one definition, insanity is to continue doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. Well the status quo of a two-party system for the operation of our Congress has shown repeatedly that it just does not work. It would, therefore, be insanity to not make a change for a more practical structure for our law-making body. I realize that implementing the Single Transferable Vote system would take a Constitutional Amendment; and that, by definition would have to involve those who are part of the problem. Perhaps a national referendum could be proposed, circumventing the two parties.

Whatever the tools and methods required, it is vital for this country to undertake the dissolution of the Democratic and Republican Parties; and, further, to disallow the future creation of any political parties. If the STV is not put into place, then some other form of election that will prohibit the existence of two warring factions must be adopted. This country can no longer afford to have as its legislative members immature and petty, self-serving individuals.



REFERENCES

Abdul (2008, June 18). Democrats oppose American independence from foreign oil and defend their position with illogical spin and same old party talking points.

Hyscience. Retrieved March 25, 2010, from http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/06/democrats_oppos.php

Beam, C. (2009, January 29). Partisan now, bipartisan later: The logic behind Republican opposition to Obama's stimulus package. Retrieved March 25, 2010, from http:// www.slate.com/id/2210082/

Grim, R. (2009, January 28). Stimulus package passes with zero Republican support. Retrieved March 27, 2010, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com 2009/01/28/ obama-im-confident-stimul_n_161654.html

Kane, P. (2010, February 25). Washington rancor angers bipartisan-minded Pennsylvania town. Retrieved March 26, 2010, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/24/AR2010022405161.html?referrer=emailarticle

Lueck, S., Paletta, D. & Hitt, G. (2008, September 30). Bailout plan rejected, markets plunge, forcing new scramble to solve crisis. Retrieved March 26, 2010, from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122270285663785991.html

Nichols, J. (2002. January 22). A bipartisan scandal. Retrieved March 27, 2010, from
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/3/a_bipartisan_scandal

Zelizer, J. E. (2009, November 3). What happened to bipartisanship? Retrieved March 26, 2010, from http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/03/zelizer.not.fathers.bipartisanship/